|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
scout24
Hallelujah!


Registered: 02/12/07
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Disappear Here
|
Stropharia aurantiaca edibility?
#7570560 - 10/28/07 06:18 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Anyone know the edibility of Stropharia aurantiaca?


It's described as 'edibility unknown' in Mushrooms Demystified and MushroomExpert.com. Wikipedia says 'unknown' but 'reports of hallucinations and diarrhea'.
-------------------- Always Be Closing
|
Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer


Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,545
Loc: Uk / Philippines
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: scout24]
#7570633 - 10/28/07 06:41 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
if the edibility is in question (which obviously it is) then its obviously not worth eating, or people would be chowing down on it for dinner...
-------------------- View My Gallery
|
auweia
mountain biking


Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
|
I think they're called hypholoma now..They changed the name a couple years ago
http://www.mykoweb.com/CAF/species/Hypholoma_aurantiaca.html
I wouldn't eat them..they great for an indicator species tho. you can see the a mile away
|
scout24
Hallelujah!


Registered: 02/12/07
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Disappear Here
|
|
Quote:
uarewotueat said: if the edibility is in question (which obviously it is) then its obviously not worth eating, or people would be chowing down on it for dinner...
No doubt about it. I would never intentionally eat this mushroom. I'm just wondering if anyone has any first or second hand accounts of eating it for whatever reason - accidentally or otherwise.
-------------------- Always Be Closing
|
Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer


Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,545
Loc: Uk / Philippines
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: scout24]
#7570666 - 10/28/07 06:50 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
accidentally eat some and report back (just kidding)
-------------------- View My Gallery
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran



Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,598
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 3 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: scout24]
#7570902 - 10/28/07 08:29 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There is a study that suggests that Hypholoma aurantiaca contains psilocybin but apparently there are other toxins present that cause illness.
PDF
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification 
Edited by Workman (10/28/07 08:31 PM)
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 3 hours, 49 minutes
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: Workman]
#7570989 - 10/28/07 08:54 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> . I'm just wondering if anyone has any first or second hand accounts of eating it for whatever reason - accidentally or otherwise.
My friend got a call several years ago, some hippie called him up and said he found a red psilocybe. He identified it by eating it, and it caused hallucinations followed by explosive diarrhea. Turns out it was Stropharia aurantiaca.
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran



Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,598
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 3 hours, 28 minutes
|
|
Cool. Now someone just needs to find a preparation method that gets rid of or inactivates the diarrhea causing compounds.
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification 
|
cactu
culture and magic


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: Workman]
#7571034 - 10/28/07 09:05 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
maybe a tea extraction could help to reduce , since is lees material there , but i´m only guessing it does not bruise so maybe a new compound
--------------------
  cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa al lado se puede sentir que valio la pena haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo
Edited by cactu (10/28/07 09:07 PM)
|
scout24
Hallelujah!


Registered: 02/12/07
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Disappear Here
|
|
Quote:
uarewotueat said: accidentally eat some and report back (just kidding)
I'd hate to go to the trouble if someone else has already done it. Explosive diahrrea aint my bag.
Thanks for the pdf, workman. Just glancing it over it seems like in addition to Naematoloma aurantiaca, the test is confirming psilocin in Panaeolina foenisecii. I've heard first hand of current members eating large amounts of these with a belly ache as the only significant side effect.
-------------------- Always Be Closing
Edited by scout24 (10/28/07 09:08 PM)
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: auweia]
#7572098 - 10/29/07 07:11 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
auweia said: I think they're called hypholoma now..They changed the name a couple years ago
It's back in Stropharia again.... a more apt genus according to macro features, in my opinion.
--------------------
|
undergrounder
fluffy bunny



Registered: 11/10/06
Posts: 1,394
Loc: Sydney
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: CureCat]
#7572201 - 10/29/07 08:09 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well if its possible to extract psilocybin from stropharia aurantiaca, my local park will be like the Middle East of psilocybin oil reserves:
--------------------
RIP Bigger and bolder and rougher and tougher in other words sucka there is no other...
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: undergrounder]
#7572216 - 10/29/07 08:15 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
LoL.
Yeah, these fuckers are like the weeds of woodchip beds!
At least they're perdy.
--------------------
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist



Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: CureCat]
#7913619 - 01/22/08 02:49 AM (16 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CureCat said:
Quote:
auweia said: I think they're called hypholoma now..They changed the name a couple years ago
It's back in Stropharia again.... a more apt genus according to macro features, in my opinion.
Its always been called Stropharia aurantiaca in Europe, though American mycologists have gone with Naematoloma/Hypholoma aurantiacum for a while now. I think the Europeans are more or less right on this one, though I can see the reasoning behind why American taxonomists moved it – it has a very distinct hypodermium layer in its pileus trama, a distinctly Hypholoma-like characteristic. In fact, its hypodermium is so distinct, that in that sense, its more like Hypholoma than Hypholoma!
Basically, its in a group called Stropholoma, which has subgeneric or sectional status within Stropharia (most classifications), Hypholoma, or even (according to Guzmán, anyway), Psilocybe. Stropholoma includes S. aurantiaca, its closest relative Weraroa erythrocephala (yes, you read that right), the S. riparia/percevalli/magnivellaris/Weraroa cucullata group, and the S. squamosa/thrausta group. What unites them morphologically, is are their large thick-walled spores and very long and highly abundant cheilocystidia. Macromorphologically, many of them (notably S. aurantiaca and S. riparia) have tough, fibrillose stems without a lot of veil remnants on them, very unlike other Stropharia.
Although there hasn't been a detailed molecular phylogeny carried out of the Strophariaceae proper, Moncalvo's "117 Clades" paper puts the Stropholoma closest to the "core" Stropharia clade, though this node is not well supported. If this Stropharia/Stropholoma clade is accurate, then classification schemes that posit Stropholoma as a subgenus of Stropharia would represent the most conservative way to approach classification of this group. Then again, more detailed study might put it in its own genus or, less likely, actually closer to Hypholoma or Pholiota.
To make a long story short, it should be called Stropharia because, 1) all of its known close relatives are called Stropharia, and 2) the best molecular phylogenetic evidence we have right now puts the Stropholoma closer to the core group of Stropharia than to other groups.
Got that?
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: Strophariaceae]
#7913670 - 01/22/08 03:36 AM (16 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Indeed. Thanks for filling us in on the history of its classification.
Out of curiosity, are sub-genera often referenced to outside of monographs? If so, in what context?
For instance, the sub-genera of Panaeolus- Copelandia, Panaeolina- are usually not used in formal texts (although, I think Panaeolina may now be represented as an independent genus?). So in what instance would it be appropriate to use the name Stropholoma aurantiacum in favour of Stropharia aurantiaca??
--------------------
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist



Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: CureCat]
#7913720 - 01/22/08 04:34 AM (16 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Well, subgenus or sectional names are never part of a binomial – you'd never call Amanita velosa "Vaginatae velosa", for example. In fact, in scientific publication, you never even use the subgenus or sectional name on its own without reference to its rank, for example "subgenus Stropholoma".
If Stropholoma were raised to generic rank, and the species validly published as members of that genus (typically, this takes the form of a simple list of name changes from an old genus to the new one), then that would be considered a "real" name.
And actually, Stropholoma was once published as real genus, and Stropholoma aurantiacum as a real species in an obscure Italian journal. (Index fungorum link.) However, the name is apparently a nomen invalidum according to article 33.3 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature: "A new combination, or an avowed substitute (replacement name, nomen novum), published on or after 1 January 1953 based on a previously and validly published name is not validly published unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or the replaced synonym (when a new name is proposed) is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication, with page or plate reference and date".
Somebody forgot to dot their "i's" and cross their "t's", I guess.
In any event, right now, there's not enough data to break it off from Stropharia, though that may happen if a detailed molecular phylogeny points to that.
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: Strophariaceae]
#7913973 - 01/22/08 09:46 AM (16 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Strophariaceae said: Well, subgenus or sectional names are never part of a binomial – you'd never call Amanita velosa "Vaginatae velosa", for example. In fact, in scientific publication, you never even use the subgenus or sectional name on its own without reference to its rank, for example "subgenus Stropholoma".
Oh okay, thanks. That was my impression, but I wasn't positive.
Quote:
Strophariaceae said: And actually, Stropholoma was once published as real genus, and Stropholoma aurantiacum as a real species in an obscure Italian journal. (Index fungorum link.) However, the name is apparently a nomen invalidum according to article 33.3 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature: "A new combination, or an avowed substitute (replacement name, nomen novum), published on or after 1 January 1953 based on a previously and validly published name is not validly published unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or the replaced synonym (when a new name is proposed) is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication, with page or plate reference and date".
Somebody forgot to dot their "i's" and cross their "t's", I guess.
LoL! That sucks!!
--------------------
|
abdensen
Man of SupremeLeisure



Registered: 05/07/08
Posts: 15
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: scout24]
#8468794 - 05/31/08 09:18 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
scout24 said:
Quote:
uarewotueat said: if the edibility is in question (which obviously it is) then its obviously not worth eating, or people would be chowing down on it for dinner...
No doubt about it. I would never intentionally eat this mushroom. I'm just wondering if anyone has any first or second hand accounts of eating it for whatever reason - accidentally or otherwise.
My embarrassing anecdote, but hopefully it will serve others well to know seeing as this is the first google hit for stropharia aurantiaca edibility: I accidentally ate about 7 large stropharia aurantiaca and experienced intestinal pain, diarrhea, and developed a skin rash over my whole body which took a few days to go away. Definitely no hallucinations.
Your results may vary as everyone reacts differently to toxins, but from my experience I would say they are not to be considered edible although it is not an emergency if you do accidentally eat some.
|
scout24
Hallelujah!


Registered: 02/12/07
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Disappear Here
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: abdensen]
#8470824 - 06/01/08 12:18 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Oh, and
-------------------- Always Be Closing
|
Zen Peddler


Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: Stropharia aurantiaca edibility? [Re: CureCat]
#19862982 - 04/17/14 11:10 PM (9 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I am 100% certain that this mushroom is mildly poisonous. I know people who have stupidly eaten it.
--------------------
|
|