Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. 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: Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

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Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information.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.
OfflineStrophariaceae
mycologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: alteredstates]
    #10201275 - 04/20/09 12:06 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

I missed this thread some months back when it was going on. Has anybody heard back from Guzmán on this?

Has anybody established whether or not this is the same thing that has been going under the name Psilocybe subaeruginascens (sensu Guzmán) in northern Cal (and the Seattle area)?

I've actually done extensive microcopic work on this, and a couple of type studies establishing solidly that the "P. subaeruginascens" from the Bay Area, Seattle, and Japan (and likely these Southern Cal ones) are not  P. subaeruginascens or P. aeruginomaculans as originally described by Höhnel from Java. (They are likely not even in the same section of Psilocybe, in fact.) I'm less willing to call the small differences between populations as species level differences, at least without a lot more taxonomic work. Its also too early to tell whether the North American and Japanese populations are different species – neither I nor anyone else I know of has had access to both North American and Japanese material so as to be able to compare (the type collections kept by Hongo are an utter loss, BTW), but based on pictures I've seen of the spores and of mushrooms themselves, they certainly look roughly the same.

BTW, does anybody actually have any myco contacts in Japan? I believe May-June is "P. subaeruginascns" season there and I'd love to get some material.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
OfflineStrophariaceae
mycologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10204837 - 04/20/09 11:44 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

"In my opinion two different species. "

Based on culture characteristics? I guess I'm just not seeing the same thing you are from those plates.

However, I guess what I'm particularly skeptical of is its identification with the P. meridionalis that Guzmán published last year:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/9663079#9663079

First, the ecotypes are very different – you're talking about a woodchip species, while Guzmán described a species from highland forests of Mexico. There are a number of active Psilocybe from that habitat, but to the best of my knowledge, none of them cross over habitat-wise onto woodchip beds in the US.

Also, has anybody even looked at the microscopy of the southern Cal species? That level of alpha taxonomy absolutely needs to be done before you can say anything definitive about what group it falls into. (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 – I think you'd probably need a really large multi-gene sample to resolve Psilocybe in the same section definitively.) Based on my reading of Guzman's monograph and my own knowledge of the northern Cal population, a quick look at the pleurocystidia would tell you whether you're dealing with something closer to the Northern Cal species or closer to P. meridionalis.


Edited by Strophariaceae (04/20/09 11:45 PM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
OfflineStrophariaceae
mycologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: nightflyer]
    #10204985 - 04/21/09 12:30 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

"In my opinion two different species. "

Based on what? Culture characteristics?

Also,
Quote:

nightflyer said:
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.




I'm not clear if you're saying this is an experiment you've done? If so, did you actually use single spore isolates where there would be mating-strain compatibility, or did you simply confront two dikaryon cultures? If so, the two may have excluded each other because the two are different genets (genetic individuals) within the same species, and so the two are still not going to merge colonies.

Also, keep in mind that the biological species concept developed for vertebrates doesn't necessarily apply to fungi. If you did mating-compatible monokaryon crosses and the two barrage out each other, then yes, you have different species.

The reverse, however, isn't true. If the two do mate, they may still not really be the same species. There are species that are separated by continental distances and millions of years of evolutionary time, but put mating strains together on a plate and they'll cross.

Closely related fungi are notorious for this – Czech mycologist Jan Brovika reports full mating compatibility between P. cyanescens and P. azurescens, for example.

Quote:

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




Interesting. I'm not sure if I'd call that in itself a species-level difference, but its certainly evidence in that direction.

Did you ever send any collections to Workman?


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
OfflineStrophariaceae
mycologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10205050 - 04/21/09 12:46 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Thanks, of course, for the link to the Japan thread. I'll definitely post there in the next few days.

I'm not entirely sure of the rationale behind which genes are chosen, but I know the gold standard seems to be a mixture of genes like ITS and LSU that are neutral in regards to natural selection (change is entirely a product of genetic drift) and protein-coding genes, which might be responding to environmental selection.

Another reason one would want to sample from multiple genes is to cancel out the effects of potential horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is rare in higher eukaryotes, but it does happen. Hence, there are certain genes that will place oomycete species smack in the middle of the ascomycetes. A larger sampling of the genome shows them to be very distantly related within Eukaryota. It has been shown, however, that the oomycetes have acquired certain fungal genes, and this, along with convergent natural selection, is a factor in making this algal-derived group so fungus-like.

Also, choice of genes has to do with what level of taxonomy you're dealing with. The molecular clock for some genes is very slow, while in others its very rapid. When you're looking at a broad phylogeny, say, the Eukaryota as a whole, you're going to want to use slowly evolving genes. If you're looking at closely-related species, like say the different species of Psilocybe section Stuntzae, then you want to sample from some rapidly evolving genes. If you're doing within-species population genetics work, then you want to sample from genes that are polymorphic within the species, and look at them in terms of classical Mendelian gene frequencies.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
OfflineStrophariaceae
mycologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: nightflyer]
    #10205072 - 04/21/09 12:55 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

nightflyer said:
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.




Yes, but in many cases, one doesn't even know what they're dealing with based solely on macro-level identification. And within section Stuntzae there are a few clear microscopic differences between P. meridionalis versus P. "subaeruginascens" versus P. stuntzii.

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.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
OfflineStrophariaceae
mycologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: CureCat]
    #10205457 - 04/21/09 04:16 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

CureCat said:
It's not a question of either or.




Literally took the words right off my fingertips.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
OfflineStrophariaceae
mycologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: CureCat]
    #10205468 - 04/21/09 04:23 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.



Yup.  You really need to look at Workman's gallery.  I've linked ya to it a bunch of times.




I mean, microscopy of the SoCal species (more than just the spores, preferably). There's nothing like that at Workman's gallery, or anywhere else I've seen.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
OfflineStrophariaceae
mycologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: nightflyer]
    #10205474 - 04/21/09 04:27 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

nightflyer said:
99% of the taxonomic work here on the shroomery
are based on the classical  microscopic characteristics
like Spores, Pleurocystidia etc.




Because almost all Shroomery posters are amateurs (in the best sense), not academics.

A good microscope – $500 on eBay. Anybody priced a sequencer recently?


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
OfflineStrophariaceae
mycologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10206794 - 04/21/09 12:05 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Small but important point – genomics (the use of molecular DNA techniques) is not quite the same as genetics, though of course they overlap. Lots of fields (most of biology by now, really) use genomics, but genetics is a specialty.

Phylogenetics (which is comes from the work "phylogeny" rather than "gene") really isn't genetics per se, either – neither the classical Mendelian kind nor population genetics. In genetics, one looks at markers and traits that are polymorphic within a population or interacting populations. Of course, a few sophisticated folks do both population genetics and phylogenetics as a way of getting a handle on speciation.

Example – Tom Bruns makes heavy use of genomics, but I would not consider him to be a geneticist. (John Taylor might fit that description, though.)


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

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* How to identify Psilocybe Species and Panaeolus. (Illus.)
( 1 2 3 all )
mjshroomer 64,660 52 04/15/09 12:34 PM
by Alan Rockefeller
* New Psilocybe species and weilii(TONS OF PICS!)
( 1 2 all )
Gumby 15,476 29 09/09/09 11:15 PM
by Gumby
* possible new psilocybe species in alabama? GaNjAShRooM 3,903 10 06/16/04 02:42 AM
by mjshroomer
* New Psilocybe Species from Koh Samui and SEM of Same mjshroomer 2,246 13 07/10/05 09:29 PM
by mjshroomer
* New active Psilocybe species from GA!!!(PICS!)
( 1 2 all )
Lizard King 10,362 27 12/02/02 10:07 AM
by Anonymous
* Psilocybe Species in Illinois? fleshofgods 30,744 10 04/13/06 02:04 PM
by bobmarley420
* Another new Psilocybe Species from the Czech republic mjshroomer 1,832 5 01/26/04 03:12 AM
by Anno
* ID mushroom that resembles a psilocybe species psychotropic 1,815 9 11/15/05 03:30 PM
by psychotropic

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout
25,618 topic views. 2 members, 15 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.018 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 15 queries.