Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Mushrooms, Mycology and Psychedelics > Mushroom Hunting and Identification
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa
    #7889405 -

Recently I have been trying to figure out if Psilocybe cyanofriscosa is really a new species or was just overlooked. I have also carefully measured the spores from 3 collections to get a good idea of the spore sizes and came up with 10.5 -12.5 (13.5) microns in length.

There are some interesting notes about a 1975 San Francisco collection in Guzman's "The Genus Psilocybe" that Singer identified as Psilocybe maire. Guzman correctly discounted this as a possibility because it looked exactly as Psilocybe cyanescens under the microscope. Sound familiar?

Guzman gives the spores size of P. cyanescens as (8.8)11-13.2(15.4), this predates the conclusion that the larger spored Psilocybe azurescens (12-13.5 microns) was a seperate species so maybe the range is higher than it should be because of combining these two species. The more current Stamets "Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World" states that the spores of P. cyanescens are 9-12 microns.

Ok, why would Singer make the mistake he did? Psilocybe mairei (maire) spores are 10-12(13.5) and the cap is convexed. Now that is very close to the spore size of the current San Francisco collections which also has a nonwavy cap. If Singer was looking at the same thing, then its no wonder he identified it as Psilocybe maire.

I believe that this species has been around for a long time, and that it has been consistantly misidentified as Psilocybe cyanescens because if its similarity under the microscope, especially if the identifying expert only has a dried specimen to examine.

I need to get the this paper to dig into this deeper.

Duffy, T.J. and P.P. Vergeer, 1977. California toxic fungi. Myc. Soc. San Francisco, Tox. Monogr. 1.

This paper may also have some evidence of an early collection of that other "new" Californian species, Psilocybe subaeruginascens.

Relevent collections (some new) are here.
http://www.sporeworksgallery.com/Section-Cyanescens


--------------------
Research funded by the patrons of
The Spore Works
Exotic Spore Supply

My Instagram
Reinvesting Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification :amanitajar:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: Workman]
    #7889495 -

Nice detective work!!
This is very interesting. I will link this over to Peter W., maybe he will have some input.
I wonder who would have a copy of that paper.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: CureCat]
    #7889514 -

wow keep up the research !!! Ive been doing the same with weed.

be cool to see some spore prints of the famed Fricosa would be an interesting view get a couple from a few people condense and see what shows up.


edit..added more stuff

Edited by smily (01/16/08 06:25 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: smily]
    #7889537 -

http://www.museocivico.rovereto.tn.it/UploadDocs/104_art09-Guzman%20&%20C.pdf

heres a link to that paper


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


    CrAnKy PiLlOwS YeAh PiLlOwS

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: smily]
    #7889570 -

Nice. Hopefully John Allens association provides an objective outlook, from before he totally lost it.
Lots of photos. That's always good.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: CureCat]
    #7889604 -

the photos in the paper are very fun to look at being they are so olde


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


    CrAnKy PiLlOwS YeAh PiLlOwS

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: smily]
    #7889655 -

> heres a link to that paper

That is a great paper, but its not the paper he is looking for.


Peter W. said last night that a population of P. cyanofriscosa was found many years ago in the dune sands near Humboldt, they called it P. cyanofibrillosa at the time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: smily]
    #7889702 -

edited out

Edited by auweia (02/21/08 12:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
    #7889739 -

can you see clamp connnections with your naked eye? I have seen galerinas growing within inches of cyans but I do not think they are related.

Cyanofib var. sf will attached itself to the substrate more than the cyanescens. it is very common to half a golf ball sized chunk of wood chips hanging from the stem of the unknown species.


--------------------
Stop experimenting half way through your first grow. Grow it to maturity, watch it, learn from it. Do this a few times then experiment with different ideas and figure out what works best for you.


My Legacy
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22140987#22140987

Teh=The
I need to proofread

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: tahoe]
    #7889815 -

I've seen lots of species growing within inches of cyans..I'm not talking about that or clamp connections, or anything microscopic.

I thought I made that clear, but apparently it's too difficult to comprehend for some folks.

what I mean is what I've seen with my eyes, macroscopically, and what I've picked and what I've touched, felt, smelled, eaten, and taken photos of

that's all I know, and that's all I ever claimed to know

is there a simpler way to describe this for the english challenged?

oh also, I have mated both types, stuck mycelium in the same bag, and they have grown. In fact, I've done it lots of times, with mycelium from both types in the same bag, and they usually seem to grow just fine and don't mind each other at all. You don't need a microscope to see that, no sireee

and all that went back outside and planted, and sometimes it's cyans, sometimes it's friscosa, and sometimes it's both

I'm just giving my perspective on it, that's all. I have no problem whatsoever with these types no matter what people call them. So naming them means nothing to me. I'm happy, my friends are happy, and that's all I'm concerned about

the name seems to be awfully important to others, tho, so go on and duke it out..be my guest and...'checking the calender'..yep, it's been going on longer than 8 years now

Edited by auweia (01/16/08 08:13 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
    #7889827 -

there is a clear difference
and i dont think it has anyhting to do with weathe ror habbitat as all i found where normal sized cyans, tho they where super sized due to the marin county rains and constant fog.
the friscosa cyans are most likly cousins. i dont see why they couldent co habbitate


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
    #7890104 -

auweia said:
if it is psilocybe maire, it would mean they are mating with cyanescens in some patches


I didn't mean to imply that the P. cyanofriscosa is closely related to P. maire and Singer's identification was likely wrong. The number of described species at the time was limited and it was probably the best match he could come up with. Only the spore sizes and shape are similar. P. maire lacks pleurocystidia and has larger cheilocystidia than P. cyanescens. I'll dig a little deeper and and see what I can find out.


--------------------
Research funded by the patrons of
The Spore Works
Exotic Spore Supply

My Instagram
Reinvesting Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification :amanitajar:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: Workman]
    #7890122 -

Hey, Peter Werner here – I've been away from this board for awhile. I actually did extensive study on California populations of Psilocybe "cyanofriscoa" and P. "subaeruginascens" when I was at SF State.

Workman – have you written to Guzman about this? He's quite reachable by email. He's re-examined the collection you're referring to just in the last year or two.

"This paper may also have some evidence of an early collection of that other "new" Californian species, Psilocybe subaeruginascens."

Well, actually, if I'm not mistaken, based on my correspondence with Guzman, the collection of Psilocybe maire made by Rolf Singer in Golden Gate Park in the 1960s was recently re-examined by Guzman and found to be P. subaeruginascens (sensu Guzman). Not the P. cyanescens-like thing that people have been calling "cyanofriscosa" based on the macromorphology. Unless I'm mistaking this for some other collection made by Singer in California.

Pillsbury (not sure if I'm supposed to mention his real name here) has also heard from Guzman about his studies of the P. "mairi" from Golden Gate Park, so you might want to ask him, too.

My only caveat is that, while I believe the P. "subaeruginascens" found in Japan, the Bay Area, and Seattle (and in other temperate climate places?) are either the same species or, in any event, quite closely related to each other, none of these are the same, or even close to, the type collection of P. subaeruginascens described by Hohnel in 1914 from Java, (nor is it the P. aeruginomaculans, also described by Hohnel from the same area). In other words, the P. "subaeruginascens" that is found in most of the places it has been described from is not the "real" P. subaeruginascens, based on my type study of Hohnel's Javanese collections.

And as to Psilocybe "cyanofriscosa", is it a species, subspecies, or simple phenotypic variant? Your guess is as good as mine! Also depends on your working concept of fungal species, too. I'd love to see somebody who knows more about culturing and single spore isolates than I do try some breeding experiments and note the interfertility rate, and what the morphology of the hybrid is. That would answer a lot of questions.

Also, I don't know who came up with the epithet "cyanofriscoa", but that's not a real latin name. (Though, actually, there's no rule of nomenclature that says in has to be!) The scientific latin word (with proper feminine gender ending) for "of San Francisco" is "franciscana", as in Castelleja franciscana or Clarkia franciscana. So "cyanofranciscana" is actually a better construction, not to mention not based on the idea of calling its native locality "Frisco"!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: Strophariaceae]
    #7890183 -

edited out

Edited by auweia (02/21/08 12:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: CureCat]
    #7890246 -

CureCat said:
Nice detective work!!
This is very interesting. I will link this over to Peter W., maybe he will have some input.
I wonder who would have a copy of that paper.


California Toxic Fungi? Well, a Worldcat search would reveal it sitting in a number of public and university libraries. Go to this page and type in your zip code:

http://worldcatlibraries.org/oclc/3309954

I also have a copy buried somewhere, but haven't looked at it in years, since its a quite dated source of toxicological information. I'm not even sure where I've buried it.

What taxonomic information are you looking for from that publication, Workman? There really isn't that kind of information in that booklet. Perhaps Psilocybe mairi or Psilocybe subaeruginascens was casually mentioned in there? Must have missed that one.

But as for mention of "P. mairi" from California, his only published discussion of that is from Guzman's Psilocybe monograph, and that's pretty brief.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: Strophariaceae]
    #7890504 -

Quote:
Strophariaceae said:if I'm not mistaken, based on my correspondence with Guzman, the collection of Psilocybe maire made by Rolf Singer in Golden Gate Park in the 1960s was recently re-examined by Guzman and found to be P. subaeruginascens (sensu Guzman). Not the P. cyanescens-like thing that people have been calling "cyanofriscosa" based on the macromorphology. Unless I'm mistaking this for some other collection made by Singer in California.


I am refering to the 1975 Ower collection examined and identified by Singer. So far my only reference in this regard is Guzman's monograph.

I might consider doing the cross breeding experiments but it would take years to get results and I am not sure it would be worth the effort. DNA sequencing seems a better strategy.

I am glad you clarifed the latin naming convention as I had a feeling it was improper but lacked the knowledge to be certain.

While we are on the subject, do you have any idea what the large yellowish Washington Psilocybe is? I thought it was Psilocybe cyanofibrillosa but microscopically it is not. I was also assuming that it must be the same as the San Francisco specimens, but it isn't that either. I have yet to see an authentic specimen of P. cyanofibrillosa as described. Isn't it supposed to be common?


--------------------
Research funded by the patrons of
The Spore Works
Exotic Spore Supply

My Instagram
Reinvesting Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification :amanitajar:

Edited by Workman (01/16/08 10:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: Workman] * 1
    #7891066 -

Quote:
I am refering to the 1975 Ower collection examined and identified by Singer. So far my only reference in this regard is Guzman's monograph.


I'm pretty sure that's the one that Guzman was saying was P. subaeruginascens, though I'll have to double check with him. In any event, I'm sure Guzman has looked at that collection in the last few years, because Guzman had the Field Museum of Chicago, which holds Singer's herbarium collection, loan him all of Singer's Psilocybe collections.

Quote:
I might consider doing the cross breeding experiments but it would take years to get results and I am not sure it would be worth the effort. DNA sequencing seems a better strategy.


Wouldn't it be possible to find out quickly whether the mycelium walled off and excluded each other at a notable percentage? Compared to control crosses of cyanescens X cyanescens and (definitely not interfertile at all) cyanescens X cubensis? This is using basically a biological species concept, which, of course, breaks down when you start looking at fungi, especially close relatives. But if the two strains have any tendency to exclude each other rather than cross, that would be strong evidence of species-level divergence, even though the reverse would not be evidence of conspecificity.

As for DNA sequencing, what gene or genes and what's your criterion for species-level separation based on sequences? The most common test is divergence in ITS sequences, but based on a (rather limited) set of sequences I've seen on GenBank, Psilocybe cyanescens and P. azurescens differ by something like only 2 out of 361 base pairs that were sequenced. If P. cyanescens and P. "cyanofranciscans" turn out to be identical, say, over the entire ITS, would that definitively establish that the two are conspecific? That's never really been established beyond the level of supposition. What about if they differ by one or only a few base pairs? Definitely different populations on their own divergent evolutionary track, hence different species? That's all a supposition, too. Its another piece of evidence, but in itself, it still takes you back to the same question you have when looking at morphology, namely, "Do these differences in character states mean these entities are a different species"?

A population genetics approach using DNA markers might be a more productive approach – if the two could be found to be separate populations that nevertheless have heavy geographical overlap, that would tend to point to the idea that the two populations aren't interacting even when they have the opportunity too. Or conversely, if, say, the two forms found in the same geographic area are more like each other than the the same form found in different localities, that would be strong evidence pointing to two as merely differing phenotypic variants.

I'd love to see somebody take that project on, but I have no idea who would have the inclination or resources to do it. DNA-based PopGen studies are notoriously tricky.

Quote:
While we are on the subject, do you have any idea what the large yellowish Washington Psilocybe is? I thought it was Psilocybe cyanofibrillosa but microscopically it is not. I was also assuming that it must be the same as the San Francisco specimens, but it isn't that either. I have yet to see an authentic specimen of P. cyanofibrillosa as described. Isn't it supposed to be common?


I'm not familiar with the "large yellowish Washington Psilocybe" to which you refer.

As for authentic collections of P. cyanofibrillosa, I'd really like to see the type material, which I never did borrow from University of Washington, and can't get on loan now that I'm no longer with an institution. I'm thinking of going on a road trip at some point to Seattle and having a look some of the collections at University of Washington, which also has the oldest North American collections of P. cyanescens. Unfortunately, I have no way of getting Wakefield's P. cyanescens type from Kew Gardens – I really wish I had sent for and studied that one when I was at SFSU.

Anyway, how common real P. cyanofibrillosa is and what its exact geographic range is I have no idea, since I've never systematically collected beyond California. What I can say almost definitively is that it does not occur as far south as California. Every "P. cyanofibrillosa" collection I have ever found or been presented with (and I have them from Humboldt County and the San Francisco Bay Area) has inevitably turned out to be P. "cyanofranciscans".

Edited by Strophariaceae (01/17/08 01:06 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa [Re: Workman]
    #7891462 -

Quote:
I am refering to the 1975 Ower collection examined and identified by Singer. So far my only reference in this regard is Guzman's monograph.


OK, here's the exact description of the collection from Guzman:

"Psilocybe subaeruginascens Hohnel, from culture ( Billeci ) isolated from material from San Francisco, CA. USA 1975 Det. Singer F-1021112."

("Billeci" being the late Sal Billeci, the first president of MSSF and cultivator extrodinaire.)

Now I'm unclear whether that's the same as the collection Singer was calling Psilocybe maire. I'll definitely have to get some further clarification from him and write back. Still, two unusual collections sent to Singer from San Francisco in the same year? Well, stranger things have been known to happen.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Mushrooms, Mycology and Psychedelics > Mushroom Hunting and Identification
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa
( 1 2 3 4 ... 17 18 )		 sui 62,110 352 01/24/07 03:13 AM
by pscyanescens
* Possible psilocybe azurescens =) farmboybluez 12,070 16 09/20/17 03:08 PM
by perkysmiles
* Psilocybe Friscosa thread
( 1 2 3 all )		 deathcapcubensis 11,299 48 11/06/06 06:35 AM
by Zen Peddler
* The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members
( 1 2 all )		 mjshroomer 6,100 28 01/24/07 05:51 AM
by pscyanescens
* New Psilocybe species and weilii(TONS OF PICS!)
( 1 2 all )		 Gumby 15,861 29 09/09/09 11:15 PM
by Gumby
* I found some psilocybes, but not sure which ones..
( 1 2 all )		 YouInfoIt 9,069 26 11/01/02 05:49 AM
by JovialLeprechaun
* psilocybe villareali
( 1 2 all )		 cactu 4,956 23 08/08/06 08:35 PM
by AIRDOG
* New Psilocybe Species from Koh Samui and SEM of Same mjshroomer 2,307 13 07/10/05 09:29 PM
by mjshroomer

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, karode13, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout
4,216 topic views. 1 members, 372 guests and 56 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.