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Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information.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



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
|
On the first picture, the gills are attached to the stipe.
[image]http:// [/image]
On the second picture, the gills are NOT attached to the stipe. [image]http:// [/image]
Start a culture on the same agar plate and watch if they merge or not.
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: Strophariaceae]
#10202064 - 04/20/09 02:44 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Hi Stroph
Last year I started cultures of both species:
Psilocybe subaeruginascens (from San Francisco, auweia collection) [image]http:// [/image]
Psilocybe "meridianus" from Ventura County, southern California (subbedhunter collection) [image]http:// [/image]
In my opinion two different species.
Edited by nightflyer (04/21/09 09:07 AM)
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: Strophariaceae]
#10204892 - 04/21/09 12:00 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well, there is a simple test to verify if those are different species: The compatibility test. If they don't merge on the agar plate, but form a barrier, the they are different species for sure. Another characteristic: Psilocybe subaeruginascens (from San Francisco) grows fast and aggressive. The species from Ventura County grows extremely slow. Both on 2% MEA, pH 4.5
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: Strophariaceae]
#10204994 - 04/21/09 12:33 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Strophariaceae said: In fact, I'd go so far as to say that when dealing with closely-related species, microscopy will provide a lot more info more quickly than simple molecular methods will
Microscopy is useless if both species exhibit the same microscopic characteristics (Pleurocystidia, Cheilocystidia etc.)
Example: Psilocybe azurescens and Psilocybe cyanescens. Microscopically indistinguishable, but on the agar plate they form a clear-cut barrier.
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: nightflyer]
#10205062 - 04/21/09 12:53 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well, what is the issue here? I think it's microscopy or genetics. For a long time microscopy was the basis of taxonomy. But now there are more and more disputes between geneticists and mycologists. What should be the basis? Microscopy or genetics?
Here you find some informations about Psilocybe subaeruginascens (Höhnel) RNA sequencing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/29467726?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Sequence.Sequence_ResultsPanel.Sequence_RVDocSum
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: Strophariaceae]
#10205105 - 04/21/09 01:04 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Strophariaceae said:
As I asked before, has anybody (Workman? Guzman?) looked at these microscopically? I'd be happy to do this, BTW, but I don't want to jump all over anybody else's work if its being done.
As far as I know, Alan Rockefeller has posted last year some (spore) photographs of that species from Ventura county.
I will try to find the posts.
Edited by nightflyer (04/21/09 01:16 AM)
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: CureCat]
#10205160 - 04/21/09 01:22 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
That's my opinion, too.
But mycologists and geneticists live on different planets.
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species *DELETED* [Re: CureCat]
#10205255 - 04/21/09 01:52 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by nightflyerReason for deletion: changed post
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: CureCat]
#10205293 - 04/21/09 02:08 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The problem: Many (elder) mycologists are not willing to deal with genetics.
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: CureCat]
#10205346 - 04/21/09 02:37 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
99% of the taxonomic work here on the shroomery are based on the classical microscopic characteristics like Spores, Pleurocystidia etc.
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: CureCat]
#10205381 - 04/21/09 03:08 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Edited by nightflyer (04/21/09 03:13 AM)
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: CureCat]
#10205562 - 04/21/09 05:43 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CureCat said: You'll notice that all those sequences you linked to have corresponding authors and articles. I really wish the database automatically incorporated sequences, but I can also see some obstacles if that were the case.
That's true. Those are only basic informations. You have to look at the original papers to get all informations. At our university, as a member, you have online access to more than 10'000 journals and it's allowed to print the content. That's our site: http://www.ethbib.ethz.ch/zs_e.html
And let me clear up something else: I don't know how this is ruled in the USA, but when you are studying mycology in Europe, you are NOT a geneticist for sure. If you want to become a geneticist, you have to study first molecular biology and then you have to specialize. The fact that somebody is able to operate a sequencer and read a sequence does not mean that he is a geneticist.
Edited by nightflyer (04/21/09 05:56 AM)
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: CureCat]
#10205589 - 04/21/09 06:05 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I have made the experience, that some mycologists (at least in my country) have negative sentiments and prejudices against the use of genetics in mushroom taxonomy. I have no prejudices.
Edited by nightflyer (04/21/09 07:32 AM)
|
nightflyer



Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 392
Loc: Central Europe
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: Strophariaceae]
#10205731 - 04/21/09 07:29 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
As I asked before, has anybody (Workman? Guzman?) looked at these microscopically? I'd be happy to do this, BTW, but I don't want to jump all over anybody else's work if its being done.
Here are the pics from Alan Rockefeller posted in Subbedhunter's thread:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/8552924#8552924
Edited by nightflyer (04/21/09 08:21 AM)
|
|