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.

--------------------

---

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.

---

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?

---

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

---

psiclops said:

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.

---