|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information.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
|
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
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: Strophariaceae]
#10204905 - 04/21/09 12:05 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 � 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.
While you're at it, you might explain the so-far-unexplained here. Which genes are chosen for sequencing and why? I think a lot of us are waiting for entire genome data but that seems a long ways away. For now, a solid answer to my question would be quite informative.
And you're welcome for the link.
--------------------
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist



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?
|
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.
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist



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.
|
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
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist



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.
|
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)
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: nightflyer]
#10205128 - 04/21/09 01:12 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It's not a question of either or.
--------------------
|
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.
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: Strophariaceae]
#10205185 - 04/21/09 01:30 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.
http://www.sporeworksgallery.com/California-collections/Alan_Rockefeller_CA_specimen_001 *This collection is actually one originally found and transplanted from Golden Gate Park, SF, to Oakland. The "collector" wishes to remain anonymous, but these were from his patch. I picked and dried them out. I gave them to Alan to give to Workman.
It should also be noted that this is the same biological organism (transplant) as these that I collected in Marin County: http://mushroomobserver.org/6772
http://www.sporeworksgallery.com/California-collections/auweia_subaeruginascens *Auweia collection.
http://www.sporeworksgallery.com/California-collections/SanFran_azurelike_redone011707 *This was a Waylitjim collection from San Francisco.
These may all be different..
--------------------
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: nightflyer]
#10205190 - 04/21/09 01:31 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nightflyer said: But mycologists and geneticists live on different planets. 
Good mycologists are geneticists.
--------------------
|
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
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: nightflyer]
#10205260 - 04/21/09 01:54 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm on my own planet. I don't get many visitors.
--------------------
|
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.
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: nightflyer]
#10205323 - 04/21/09 02:26 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I haven't met too many "elderly" mycologists...
The mycologists I have met all rely on cladistics. It is integral to their research.
--------------------
|
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.
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: nightflyer]
#10205355 - 04/21/09 02:41 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.
Yes...? I don't see what you're getting at.
--------------------
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Description for new Psilocybe species [Re: nightflyer]
#10205366 - 04/21/09 02:54 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well... Here is part of a Mycology Lab. Most of the equipment in the images is used for genetic sequencing.
--------------------
|
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)
|
|