|
 Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
 OregonBluesGil
Forager/Gatherer
 
Registered: 09/22/04
Posts: 367
Loc: Humboldt County
Last seen: 23 days, 16 hours
|
 Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa  [Re: auweia]
#6463949 - 01/15/07 08:51 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No dis respect,Unlike some people I not trying to be part of the mycology,I'm am part of the Mycology world,My goal is to spawn As much spawn as I can and Spread it as to many places as I can So that other Will find the Same Joy I felt When Found that First Psilocybe.I dont have sufficient funds to buy anice Camera so I be pleased if you bought me one. just go have some yeeehaaaw time in a paradox infinity.
--------------------
I'm in a Magical Mushroom land! 
|
OregonBluesGil
Forager/Gatherer
Registered: 09/22/04
Posts: 367
Loc: Humboldt County
Last seen: 23 days, 16 hours
|
|
well?
--------------------
I'm in a Magical Mushroom land!
|
 Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
#6479090 - 01/20/07 03:15 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
'But they have changed shape, texture, and often size and nobody knows why. '
Actually Ive told you why - genetics evolve - phenotype expressions are designed to give an organism genes that tavkle a wide variety of environmental variables. Eventually these phenotypes can break off into different species.
'That's why I think i can predict that when it comes to DNA on this, the labs are going to have one hell of a time with this, basically being unable to seperate many strains from cyanescens, except for that obious macroscopic shape. And the shape, by the way, the shape by itself,a consistently different shape, could be enough to name it a new species.'
Ah no it isnt - otherwise pygmies wouldnt be classed as Homo sapiens...
'It's just as valid as anything we have for ID in the field, including microscopy. Even you should know that..'
Says who? You? Your again stating that your opinion is valid and it a fact when it isnt and it just your opinion based on what exactly?
'in other words, what happens when the labs can't distinguish this from cyanescens in any other way besides the shape?'
Then its just a phenotype of Ps.cyanescens - do me a favour and read the definition of a phenotype.
'you just leave at at that and call them cyanescens?..That might be good enough for the lab, but it's not good enough for many hunters'
Actually you seem to be the only one who cares...
--------------------
|
notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6479447 - 01/20/07 10:03 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
this is what i dont understand
. fungi and bacteria have the ability to reproduse extremly fast and therefore have the are far more likly to have a mutation that might influence the organisim. fungi can change so fast. due to too many ressons. so why dont we all stop fighting over myco semantics and go eat a few? 
--------------------
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6479467 - 01/20/07 10:17 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
hey you know what Bluemeanie, if these are cyanescens, these are cyanescens.
doesn't matter to me if they look different, right? Heck I can't help it if most people reject them. I'll be happy to clean up the rest
No need to call it another species just cause they look different. That just leaves more for us who already know these are good.
edit > in other words, as long as this macromorphology remains different than cyanescens and as long as hunters are confused, then that just means more for us who know better, yes?
It's not my fault they changed shape..they just did so, about 7 years ago. I don't claim to know why, I just claim to know that they did so, and I and others have dosed on them plenty..enough to know..enough to be able to say "hey!...those are good"
I already know those are good, but alot of people don't. I know this because I see upside down rejected ones all the time. You wouldn't know this tho, bluemeanie, cause your not here!...haha
edit> This is why I am here, bluemeanie....I'm not sure why you're here, but this is why I am here, to show people that what they are sometimes likely to find out in the field here in San Francisco, those are good...or not
Let the rest stay with classic cyanescens....those are becoming more rare anyway
hehe
PS...bluemeanie...you got any photos of these things to help hunters reject or accept these?...ever picked them before?...Do you have anything other than your analysis of other peoples microscope photos to help hunters reject or accept these?
I know I've done my part and posted plenty of photos, and other people have posted photos too, and sure enough, there's a few more people that now know these are good.
I feel no need to keep repeat posting photos, etc
Edited by auweia (01/20/07 07:57 PM)
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
#6480493 - 01/20/07 05:56 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
oh hello, I completely missed this thread http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/5442721#Post5442721
never even saw this thread before now, and after seeing this, there's no point in debating microscopy, if you're already arguing this with peter.
Basically, peter is seeing the exact same thing I've been seeing out in the fields for the last 7 years, and I certainly won't continue any debate about this where Peter left off > Quote:
I think the California "cyanofibrillosa" is a distinct species, but on the other hand, I see a range of gradation between P. cyanescens and "cyanofriscoa", which implies that they might be crossing with each other, which would make them the same biological species.
Yep, I've seen this range of gradation in ONE SINGLE PATCH before.
In fact, there is absolutely NOTHING that Peter has seen from a variety of sources under a microscope, here locally in the San Francisco bay Area, that I haven't seen in the last 7 years when this first appeared...it is absolutely a 100% projection from microscope to macroscopy...I have no argument whatsoever with the local microscopy peter has done...it's just supporting what I've already seen for years
You, however...you're a different problem, bluemeanie...you're smart, but you're not local
This alone should tell you, bluemeanie, that it will probably take a little longer to completely figure out what's going on here, and get something published to help hunters identify them. In the meantime, we have forums like this and photos..with photos being the biggest help
edit > tell me something bluemeanie...if everything posted so far points to this same thing as being cyanescens, yet these obviously look different for the hunter, then what is wrong with calling them anything else?..at least temperarily until something more offical comes along
In terms of this new type, and you attended the SF Mycology fair last month, you should already see discrepancies within the MSSF since both the fair and Peter are part of the same group, with Peter often sponsoring MSSF outings...Ok, so we have an enigma that even the scientists are having trouble with...so what?...no reason to flip out
just take your time 
I already knew of this discrepancy even before i got to this forum last year, and I'm not here to debate that, so it sort of boggles my mind when somebody from Austrailia, like you, bluemeanie, steps in here and attempts to give the locals advice about hunting and ID
like I said, that's why I'm here, to help people ID this weird new type...to make sure they're not confused with poisonous species, etc
if you think people don't care about that, I got another link for ya
One of your quotes, bluemeanie > Quote:
mate read my post - im saying the same thing - i never said they were identical - someone else said they were similar microscopically not me -
i like opinions - but prefer informed ones when it comes to arguing with my intent.
--------------------
Yeah, I prefer informed opinions too when arguing with my intent..Except my intent is not the same as your intent. You're talking about microscopy. I'm talking about hunters in the field being able to decide whether to accept or reject these.
you're intent, I have no experience with. My intent you have no experience with, at least here in the Bay Area When you say people don't care, that would be true as long as they didn't find out the ones they rejected were great shrooms.
there's only one reason why anybody calls them anything other than cyanescens. And that's because they are obviously different, to the point where people reject them. It's just a way to tell people, yes, those are good, even if we can't really name them yet
the only thing I've been trying to say all along is that something needs to be updated, whether it be cyanescens, cyanofibrillosa, or a new species, it just needs to be updated, regardless.
because what is on the books now is not good enough, because this is more recent than most of what is published already. These things are here to stay, no doubt about that
Edited by auweia (01/20/07 08:33 PM)
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6480599 - 01/20/07 06:40 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
well, here's one reference http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/5443977#Post5443977
Quote:
Psilocybe cyanescens and P. azurescens are practically identical under the microscope, but the distinct macromorphology is enough to have them be described as different species.
macromorphology = shape...at least with friscosa the one major macro difference
And I'll bet it will be just about the same thing with these 'friscosas' too as it was with azurescens...remember, azurescens were originally thought to be a variant of cyanescens, just like these are now starting to look like that..Just ask MJ about that one
so why would 'friscosa' be any different than azures in this respect?
edit > correction...why would 'friscosa' be treated in any other way than 'azurescens' originally was more then 10 years ago?
is there any good reason for it?
PS, bluemeanie...yes it is true that certain aspects of DNA analysis can prove much of psilocybe genus wrong
but let me ask you this...what happens to the hunters who have to rely on macro in the field?...they're all screwed because DNA told them it's no longer ok?
I have have an answer for ya...I don't fucking think so, at least for me...There isn't a damn thing you can say to me, here, or anywhere else that will convince me that what I've been picking is no good
Quote:
bluemeanie said:
auweia >'That's why I think i can predict that when it comes to DNA on this, the labs are going to have one hell of a time with this, basically being unable to seperate many strains from cyanescens, except for that obious macroscopic shape. And the shape, by the way, the shape by itself,a consistently different shape, could be enough to name it a new species.'
Ah no it isnt - otherwise pygmies wouldnt be classed as Homo sapiens...
'It's just as valid as anything we have for ID in the field, including microscopy. Even you should know that..'
Says who? You? Your again stating that your opinion is valid and it a fact when it isnt and it just your opinion based on what exactly?
Edited by auweia (01/20/07 08:52 PM)
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
 Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
#6480992 - 01/20/07 09:00 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Edited by auweia (01/21/07 08:12 AM)
|
pscyanescens
The Raindancer
Registered: 12/14/06
Posts: 1,397
Loc: Santa Cruz, CA
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
#6481449 - 01/21/07 12:29 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Auweia: Nice pics. very detailed.
However i couldn't begin to read your response. Because of the huge picture, i have to scroll left then right, left then right, left then right, left then right,left then right, left then right, left then right, left then right,left then right, left then right, left then right, left then right .......... aren't you doing it right now?
I don't mean to complain and i will find time to read your post because i am interested, but not now i am too tired. I was just mentioning that if you want to be heard, it might be easier posting smaller pictures. At least the size of the page.;)
--------------------
----------------
"With an abundance of Cyanescens... i would never touch another Cubensis again."
|
psiclops
# 1
Registered: 12/06/02
Posts: 1,965
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: pscyanescens]
#6481532 - 01/21/07 01:29 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pscyanescens said:
OregonBlueGil: that is a pretty cool pic of your car. It looks good quality. It is just that some cheaper camera's advise you to take photos from more then 4 feet away.
I bought a camera to make a catalog for my glass business. It was about $120 at the time. I tried taking pictures of my glass sculptures and creations, but none of them turned out. I looked in the manual and it said you must take pictures from more then 4 feet away. I returned the camera and forked over almost $500 for a good camera. I have a SONY Cyber-Shot 5.1 Megapixel camera. It works excellent. You can be 1 foot away and it will auto focus. A tripod is necessary though for the best pics. Here is an example of how close you can get.
BTW you can get this camera now days for almost $100
I have the same camera - I forked over a measly 80 bucks. Not a typo. Eighty-You-Es-Dollar-Bills.
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: psiclops]
#6488370 - 01/23/07 01:13 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
'Psilocybe cyanescens and P. azurescens are practically identical under the microscope, but the distinct macromorphology is enough to have them be described as different species.'
Actually they were found not to be cross compatible - possibly by Gartz if I remember correctly.
WHy not just call them Ps.cyanescens Var. Friscosa?
--------------------
Edited by Zen Peddler (01/23/07 01:14 AM)
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6488949 - 01/23/07 09:26 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
well, 'friscosa' the term probably wouldn't ever be used officially..Maybe 'sanfrancisco' as that's been used for sourdough yeast, but 'friscosa' is something of an inside slang joke, enough to bring snickers from some of the MSSF folks.
that's just something people here made up as a temporary measure, just to say, 'those ain't normal cyans'
anyway, if nothing else can be done, a variation of cyans sounds reasonable. Peters paper ought to be due pretty soon, if that other thread is on course. That was almost a year ago. I dunno if he could ever get a copy posted here, but I hope he does. I'll be happy to put up some photos along with it
|
pscyanescens
The Raindancer
Registered: 12/14/06
Posts: 1,397
Loc: Santa Cruz, CA
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: psiclops]
#6491650 - 01/24/07 03:13 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psiclops said:
Quote:
pscyanescens said:
OregonBlueGil: that is a pretty cool pic of your car. It looks good quality. It is just that some cheaper camera's advise you to take photos from more then 4 feet away.
I bought a camera to make a catalog for my glass business. It was about $120 at the time. I tried taking pictures of my glass sculptures and creations, but none of them turned out. I looked in the manual and it said you must take pictures from more then 4 feet away. I returned the camera and forked over almost $500 for a good camera. I have a SONY Cyber-Shot 5.1 Megapixel camera. It works excellent. You can be 1 foot away and it will auto focus. A tripod is necessary though for the best pics. Here is an example of how close you can get.
BTW you can get this camera now days for almost $100
I have the same camera - I forked over a measly 80 bucks. Not a typo. Eighty-You-Es-Dollar-Bills.
$80!!!! I bought it for $450 plus tax!! wow that is depreciation for you. I swear i have had this camera for only 1 year. Where did you buy it? My LCD screen broke, but it might cost more then $80 to dix it. It still works, but i don't have nearly the options i used to.
Auweia: Thanks for changing the pic.
--------------------
----------------
"With an abundance of Cyanescens... i would never touch another Cubensis again."
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
Workman
1 2 all )
mjshroomer
Quankus
deathcapcubensis
YouInfoIt
Zen Peddler