Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
Please support our sponsors.


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 North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
InvisibleHerbBaker
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: CureCat]
    #8430137 - 05/21/08 09:08 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

CureCat, I trust nothing but scientific proof.
do you have a beef with Gary Lincoff also?
what basis do you have a problem with these particular photos?
I think all mycologist are wrong from time to time..it goes with the territory.

Roy, do you have a link?
those look similar to quebecensis and baeocystis from the section aztecorum.Oddly similar to my find in maine last year.

AJ please update your season and size info.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: HerbBaker]
    #8430150 - 05/21/08 09:12 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

>I trust nothing but scientific proof.

Good!!



>do you have a beef with Gary Lincoff also?

No, I've never met him.



>what basis do you have a problem with the photos?

None, I don't even know what photos you're talking about, I was simply giving a warning.



>I think all mycologist are wrong from time to time..it goes with the territory.

Yes, they are. That is a fact. Paul is just wrong a lot more of the time, and gets mad if you confront him on anything. Getting emotional over questioning is NOT the mark of a good scientist!!! He should welcome and consider a challenge, and argue with fact, not petty insults! He would be a lot less wrong a lot less of the time if he backed up his statements with evidence.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnastomosisJihad
Hominid
Male


Registered: 01/01/08
Posts: 700
Loc: Ohio
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #8430301 - 05/21/08 10:08 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)



They are ovoids. :wink: I just didn't want to see this thread die.



Quote:

Alan Rockefeller said:
AJ, have you done any microscopy on that collection?  Do you think it is different from your other Ohio collections? The difference between caerulipes and ovoideocystidiata should be pretty easy to spot by the shape of the spores.






I have not done any microscopy work on this spring's collections, but I plan to. Those SEM images you sent me are Amazing :thumbup:. I have been hunting Ohio all spring and collecting specimens and spore prints for herbarium deposit. At some point in the future I want to compare their microscopic and possibly genetic features. I'm hoping to find a gradient in something like spore shape or size that corresponds to geographic distribution.

I think it possible that one species bleeds into another as is the case with some kinds of birds. See Ring Species.

The problem so far with comparing these to caerulipes is the lack of a good photos for comparison. I have only seen drawings of the caerulipes spores.

It looks like Roy posted something interesting.


--------------------
come together


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHerbBaker
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #8430371 - 05/21/08 10:23 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

ahh.. just keeping me on my toes eh?
very clever!
:tongue:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHerbBaker
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: HerbBaker]
    #8430574 - 05/21/08 11:16 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

I think your attempts to bridge caerulipes and ovoideocystidiata are a little misguided.
it pretty well established they are not close.

Maybe if they were in the same section you could see some gradient.

A morphological change in spore shape, of the type your suggesting, within two species, from seperate sections,
is highly unlikely.
you would first have to prove they are both in the same section.
how are you making this leap?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 47,440
Last seen: 6 hours, 1 minute
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: HerbBaker]
    #8431066 - 05/22/08 01:02 AM (14 years, 1 month ago)

P. ovoideocystidiata is in section Stuntzae and P. caerulipes is in section Semilanceatae according to Guzman.

They are pretty far apart according to The Genus Psilocybe page 75.



I am not sure about the placement of P. caerulipes there. I asked Peter Werner what he thought of that and he didn't believe me when I told him that Guzman put P. caerulipes into section Semilanceatae. According to the key to sections on page 79, its in Semilanceatae because of the lack of pleurocystidia. Of course its not just that, its that it has no pleurocystidia and didn't match any of the things in the key above it. Seems to me like it falls in there because it didn't fall into any of his other buckets, not because it is anything like P. semilanceata.

Reading through the key to sections, a lot of the deciding factors seem kind of arbitrary.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHerbBaker
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #8431951 - 05/22/08 08:53 AM (14 years, 1 month ago)

I think it also had something do do with the thin shape and size.
I cant wait till someone maps the all genes of the different psilocybes.

You can somewhat see the crossover gradient from section Semilanceatae to section Aztecorum in species like P. venenata and caerulipes.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnastomosisJihad
Hominid
Male


Registered: 01/01/08
Posts: 700
Loc: Ohio
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: HerbBaker]
    #8431964 - 05/22/08 09:01 AM (14 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

warriorsoul said:
I think your attempts to bridge caerulipes and ovoideocystidiata are a little misguided.
it pretty well established they are not close.

Maybe if they were in the same section you could see some gradient.

A morphological change in spore shape, of the type your suggesting, within two species, from seperate sections,
is highly unlikely.
you would first have to prove they are both in the same section.
how are you making this leap?






I think your attempt to present yourself as an expert is a little misguided.

The species problem is bigger than mycology, and it is certainly bigger than the genus Psilocybe. There are philosophical problems with the morphological species concept, and there are scientific problems with Darwin's tree model. If the tree model is inaccurate, then a phylogenetic taxonomy based on it will also be inaccurate.

Even if the tree model is good enough, wich seems unlikely in light of introgressive hybridization and horizontal gene transfer, as Allan pointed out, cladistic groupings often seem arbitrary. Phylogenetic groupings are hypotheses only. They are inferences about the history of evolution, educated guesses about what happened a really long time ago. Our hypotheses, and therefore our taxonomies are subject to change as more empirical evidence becomes available and as our theory of evolution becomes more robust.

I don't have time to go into it now.

Good thread WarriorSoul


--------------------
come together


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHerbBaker
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #8432009 - 05/22/08 09:26 AM (14 years, 1 month ago)

lol. that almost sounded believable.
expert? why thank you.

instead of making arbitrary statements, that attempt to challenge Darwin, maybe you should start smaller and try to back up your earlier claims.

nice ovoids.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoy
Stranger

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 523
Loc: Eastern USA
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: HerbBaker]
    #8432148 - 05/22/08 10:34 AM (14 years, 1 month ago)

The picture came from a collection of species identified by mycologists in Quebec, it had no info about it just the picture the name and the date, the picture i have is larger and clearer, looking over it the only description of caerulipes and quebecensis i can find is from Stamets book, and the white stem slightly brown at the base, umbo on the cap with veil remnants on the edge, bruising mostly at the base, makes me think it is caerulipes, the only thing it lacks is fibrils on the stem and a green hue. With the scale you can see it fits both and is smaller than baeocystis, im not sure how large your finds from Maine were.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHerbBaker
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: Roy]
    #8432212 - 05/22/08 11:17 AM (14 years, 1 month ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_caerulipes

What book are they from?
Although i don't think they are the same species as my find, they do have the "bottle cap" look of baeocystis, as well as a brittle looking, rather than the tough looking stem of caerulipes and distinctive rhizomorphs at the base of the stipe similar to that of the section  aztecorum. But they may be caerulipes.lol
They look very interesting..
I'm hoping Workman chimes in on this.
            :bow:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnastomosisJihad
Hominid
Male


Registered: 01/01/08
Posts: 700
Loc: Ohio
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: HerbBaker]
    #8432504 - 05/22/08 01:09 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

warriorsoul said:
lol. that almost sounded believable.
expert? why thank you.

instead of making arbitrary statements, that attempt to challenge Darwin, maybe you should start smaller and try to back up your earlier claims.





Mushroom taxonomy has been in a state of flux since Linnaeus started the project 250 years ago. Each new theoretical and methodological change in mycology brings with it a new taxonomy. Darwin was not a god. He was a scientist who made a huge contribution to biology, but the story does not end with him.


Two questions to consider:

What is a species?

Until you have some answer to this question it does not make much since to say such and such is this species or that species.


Why can't anybody find Psilocybe caerulipes in the north eastern USA when all the field guides say it is suposed to be here?

The discription of P. caerulipes is a solid match for the small thin stemmed specimens of P. ovoideocystidiata, right down to the barely perceptible annular zone. Only the microscopic features differ, and with no good microscopy photos a P. caerulipes for comparison, nor any reason to suspect that microscopic features remain constant from population to population, the distinction is suspect.

Furthermore, note Stamets' habitat description:

"Solitary to cespitose on hardwoood slash and debris, and on or about decaying hardwood logs, especially along river systems... Widely distributed east of the Great plains, throughout the Midwestern and Eastern United States... in woodlands where it is known, fruiting tends to persist for years."

This matches P. ovoideocystidiata precisely. The only difference is the fruiting times, but anybody who has been hunting mushrooms for a while knows that they often fruit out of season, and sometimes fail to fruit in the expected season.

Why can't folks find P. caerulipes, but instead find P. ovoideocystidiata in all the places P. caerulipes is supposed to be?

As for the part about the morphological species concept, no two specimens of anything are exactly similar morphologically. There will always be some difference (macro, micro, or molecular) between any two specimens, so morphological analysis must be applied within the context of some theory of species. Otherwise, any difference in two specimens can be used to justify a species level split. Taken to its furthest extreme, pure morphological analysis leads to each thing being its own species, and that is not a desired outcome. Consequently, some theory of species must be employed to determine which features are essential for inclusion in the class of things denoted by the species epithet.

This leads back to the original question: What is a species?


As for the problem with Darwin's tree model, I mentioned  introgressive hybridization and horizontal gene transfer.  Both of these accomplish an anastomosis between evolutionary lineages.

Anastomosis is a driving force in evolution that Darwin did not recognize, so it was not included in his tree model. 

Cladistic models like the one posted above also fail to account for evolutionary anastomosis, and if anastomosis is a driving force in evolution, as the relevant literature from the last ten years indicates, then the old models and taxonomies based on them are invalid.

There you have it.
Have a shroomy day.
:mushroom2:


--------------------
come together


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHerbBaker
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #8432586 - 05/22/08 01:48 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

Thats all great to know..but your not changing the tree just refining it, even if two species can reconnect it doesn't change the laws of evolution.

caerulipes is rare.. and i think some of the discription from ovoideocystidita(a new species) has been bled into somewhat, until you find an ovoid that has spores shaped like caerulipes this is all just conjecture on your part. there is no basis.
one thing you haven't addressed is the season difference and the obvious size difference between the two species.
I think Guzman would have been the first to point out any similarity's between the two species.

but he didnt, he put it in different sections.

what is a species?
a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

I believe DNA maping will eventually give us all the answers we are looking for in regards to the evolutionary history of these two distinct species.

I started this thread specifically to help get to the bottom of this very question.
I'm hoping avidpickers finds are going to close the book on this.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHerbBaker
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: HerbBaker]
    #8432707 - 05/22/08 02:28 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

>Why can't folks find P. caerulipes, but instead find P. ovoideocystidiata in all the places P. caerulipes is supposed to be?

Thats not exactly true..
are they finding ovoids from maine to mexico?

If ovoids are caerulipes.. i guess they cant be considered rare anymore.

None of this strikes me as remotely possible.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #8432793 - 05/22/08 02:53 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

>I think your attempt to present yourself as an expert is a little misguided.

Personal attacks don't make a very good case. He never claimed to be an expert, and his questions are good ones.



>There are philosophical problems with the morphological species concept

Philosophical?? I'm not sure philosophy can legitimately be applied to understanding morphological species concepts. Science works far better at explaining these things.



>The species problem is bigger than mycology, and it is certainly bigger than
>the genus Psilocybe.

> -and there are scientific problems with Darwin's tree model. If the tree model
>is inaccurate, then a phylogenetic taxonomy based on it will also be inaccurate.

Wait up! Speaking of philosophy- what about logic? Your argument is fallacious. Modus Ponens, man.

You can't say that just because the original framework of classification has problems, that all of our studies and understanding of relationships between organisms since then are totally null.



>as Allan pointed out, cladistic groupings often seem arbitrary.

Specific clades may be poorly defined, as seems the case with some of Guzman's sections, however, cladistics has no set of standard criteria for defining it's groups which is very good, because nature often lacks consistency and the same rules cannot be applied to every organism or group of organisms, however, it also leaves a lot of room for people to be sloppy and make unwarranted generalizations or separations. That does not mean that the concept of clades is a bad one.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnastomosisJihad
Hominid
Male


Registered: 01/01/08
Posts: 700
Loc: Ohio
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: CureCat]
    #8433424 - 05/22/08 05:34 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Quote:

>I think your attempt to present yourself as an expert is a little misguided.

Personal attacks don't make a very good case. He never claimed to be an expert, and his questions are good ones.




Quote:

warriorsoul said:
I think your attempts to bridge caerulipes and ovoideocystidiata are a little misguided.
it pretty well established they are not close.






I was not a personal attack CureCat. It was a piece of advise for him in response to his piece of advise for me.




>There are philosophical problems with the morphological species concept

Quote:

Philosophical?? I'm not sure philosophy can legitimately be applied to understanding morphological species concepts. Science works far better at explaining these things.




The species problem is a central area of focus in Philosophy of Biology. The species problem is also a philosophy of language problem that because it deals with how we speak about natural kinds. There really is no strict line of demarcation between philosophy of science and theoretical science.

The problem with the morphological species concept is more philosophical than scientific, because the problem stems from the lack of a theoretical apparatus for drawing lines between species. Morphological analysis must be applied within the context of some other theory, or decisions about lumping and splitting become arbitrary.



>The species problem is bigger than mycology, and it is certainly bigger than
>the genus Psilocybe.

> -and there are scientific problems with Darwin's tree model. If the tree model
>is inaccurate, then a phylogenetic taxonomy based on it will also be inaccurate.

Wait up! Speaking of philosophy- what about logic? Your argument is fallacious. Modus Ponens, man.




I teach logic Kitten. :wink:
Point out my fallacy and I will correct it.


Quote:

You can't say that just because the original framework of classification has problems, that all of our studies and understanding of relationships between organisms since then are totally null.




I'm not arguing that all the work done in cladistics is null; inferring that humans are more closely related to dogs than to snakes because both human and dogs have four legs is a valid inference. Nor am I saying Darwin was totally wrong. I'm saying that there is a systemic problem with the old model of evolution because it does not account for all the evidence. Appeals to authority don't convince me when the authorities cited are using a flawed model of evolution.


Quote:

Specific clades may be poorly defined, as seems the case with some of Guzman's sections, however, cladistics has no set of standard criteria for defining it's groups which is very good, because nature often lacks consistency and the same rules cannot be applied to every organism or group of organisms, however, it also leaves a lot of room for people to be sloppy and make unwarranted generalizations or separations. That does not mean that the concept of clades is a bad one.




I think the concept of a clade can be very useful, in some situations, especially at the genus level and higher. It will become even more useful when the rules for constructing cladograms are modified to allow for hybridization and horizontal gene transfer.


I've said all I have to say for now. I hope you are well Curecat. :smile:

WS, I hope you find a "real" P. caerulipes. If you do, be sure to get SEM images of the spores.

Peace out.

:mushroom2:


--------------------
come together


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHerbBaker
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #8439495 - 05/24/08 08:54 AM (14 years, 1 month ago)

Avidpicker should have his first finds around the end of June. He says they are a dead ringer for my cearulipes description.
aren't you excited?:grin:

I cant wait to figure this out, its really alot of fun for me.I'm no expert yet, but i learn real fast.

Peace


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCultivate

Registered: 03/29/08
Posts: 155
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! *DELETED* *DELETED* [Re: HerbBaker]
    #8447238 - 05/26/08 05:17 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

Post deleted by Cultivate

Reason for deletion: .



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHerbBaker
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: Cultivate]
    #8447270 - 05/26/08 05:26 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

nope.
looks like a veil on the one thats knocked over.
It looks like a cube to me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe caerulipes Blue-foot Pictures win a print! [Re: HerbBaker]
    #8447360 - 05/26/08 05:49 PM (14 years, 1 month ago)

Cubie.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Psilocybe Caerulipes (blue foot) east coast azures keyeghost 5,112 7 10/17/02 07:49 PM
by comario2
* How long does the blueing reaction take? barfightlard 2,159 13 05/19/03 07:52 PM
by downwardspiral
* Blue Foot? Psilocybe caerulipes? no1uknow 11,072 6 05/30/03 06:56 AM
by no1uknow
* The elusive Blue foot...(Ps. Caerulipes), found!!!
( 1 2 all )
SThomas 14,331 30 12/13/01 02:39 PM
by psilocybian
* New"hopefully Psilocybe caerulipes" pictures G a n j a 4,361 18 12/24/02 08:06 PM
by OJ
* does anyone have pics of dung loving Pcylicibe or blue foots Anonymous 3,730 4 03/16/03 02:41 AM
by mjshroomer
* Psilocybe caerulipes in NY? Pics inside.. flanders53 3,037 5 08/06/02 11:44 PM
by MAIA
* Psilocybe caerulipes mikey 1,106 8 08/19/03 11:49 PM
by canid

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
39,978 topic views. 7 members, 30 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.