Panaeolus subbalteatus discussion & ID

[mutant]

I posted this in e-dot, sorry about this... photos will follow....

Well this P.subbalteatus has fallen under a friends attention. I happen to be a mushroom picker, I pick many edibles for table, but I have no experience with IDing Psilocybe & Panaeolus species, except perhaps some very characteristic ones.

So, I would love to hear your knowledge / opinions about this mushroom in an attempt to ID a batch collected and photographed

Rogers says habitat is manured spots , especially gardens and compost heaps... I read various 'neophyte expert' opinions, ranging from 'finding this species in lawns is very rare if not impossible' to 'I personaly find it mostly at new lawns' , so I guess this whole thing is just each ones opinion.

Well, some facts about our specimens, and I am expecting you comments:

Well my friends find were on well cared for lawn. One speciment [or should I say two?] were joined in the base and also at the tops of the caps, resulting in a twinning of the two stems. The spore print of all of them were black.

There was also dung nearby, as there was live stock [we found numerous edible agaricus there], and well, and I saw some Paneolus mushrooms growing on rather old dung ... or mixed old dung and soil or something... they were much bigger [thicker stems and larger caps], they had the characteristic zone across the margin, BUT the cap was very conical, as opposed to the rather round edge of the others.... I didn't have time to take a spore print of the bigger species, so I am not even 100% it was panaeolus, but I thought I should mention.

Does anyone follow me, or I am I just talking to myself??

Tbc.

PS: I have teken it for granted, but please confirm: the zone is an ID sign, but it isn't always there, right? I mean, we can still have a P.subalteatus with no zone across the margin, no?

Edited November 3, 2008 by mutant

[Teotzlcoatl]

I was a big Subb hunter until I actually ate some. It's really a different trip than Psilocybes and I'll never do it again.

[mutant]

Here's a photo, a great one actually, expecting one more of the whole batch.

Different in what way, Teotz? I have also read that they're lighter, brighter compered to psilo, in the way T.bridgesii is reported 'darker' than normal tricho experience, [note: I think Vermorpheus had brought this to some discussion, thanks for the tip]

[Ace]

Different in what way

Panaeolus (especially Pan. cyanescens) are often described as incredibly intense and far too overwhelming in comparison to the average P. cubensis. I have no experience with them but have a suspicion that it could be a case of underestimating their potency (several times that of cubes). There are different concentrations of psiloX and baeocystin (and possibly other active compounds) from the average cube so you would probably expect slightly (or even vastly) different effects. I've read reports of them being very 'dark' and even terrifying (seems to be somewhat similar to the bridgesii vs PC pachanoi of the cacti realm), however the same sort of adjectives are often applied to unsuspectingly large doses of cubes.

I think essentially the differences in effects probably come from different concentrations of active compounds, higher levels of active compounds (than cubes) and possibly even people's preconceived notions about them (there are a lot of reports of negative experiences about them - if people read them then trip on them they are likely to also get a negative experience because of their expectations).

That photo seems to be pretty much standard Pan. subbs. From what I've read they are rather weak (in terms of psiloX potency) compared to Pan. cyans and even P. cubensis (however it has been a long time since I've done any reading on the subject so dont take my word for it).

Teotz, if its not self-incriminating, do you mind elaborating on what species put you off the Panaeolus genus (providing the OP and mods dont mind)? I think I read about it ages ago, however cant seem to dig up the details. Was it Pan subbs or Pan cyans (or another species)?

[AndyAmine.]

Ace Teotz already stated that they were 'Subbs' in his post?

[Moses]

I have teken it for granted, but please confirm: the zone is an ID sign, but it isn't always there, right? I mean, we can still have a P.subalteatus with no zone across the margin, no?

we get them in the backyard and some of the older ones can have virtually no zone (but that's not an endorsement to eat them,be 100% sure))

I was a big Subb hunter until I actually ate some. It's really a different trip than Psilocybes and I'll never do it again

i could'nt say a bad word about them

[Teotzlcoatl]

I think it was Panaeolus subbalteatus, but now that I've learned more about mushrooms I think it may have been Panaeolus campanulatus or even Panaeolus papilionaceus.

There are different concentrations of psiloX and baeocystin (and possibly other active compounds) from the average cube so you would probably expect slightly (or even vastly) different effects.

I think there is actually other chemicals in it that Psilocybes just don't have... I'll try to get a link and confirm this.

It just gave a really intense, scary, dark experience... the likes of which I'd never seen with Psilocybe.

It has lasting effects for 6 months after (tho I know that these were not chemically induced, but purely mental, it was something like post tramatic stress disorder, I had horrible anxiety attacks and thought I was going insane for the better part of a year)

I still love 'shrooms and entheogens of all types, but I'm more wary and respectful of them now! Y'all wanna know why I don't trip often... the above is the reason!

Respect the plants! Know your botanicals! Know your mind/body! And be prepared!

Edited September 30, 2008 by Teotz'

[Ace]

Ace Teotz already stated that they were 'Subbs' in his post?

Oh crap - sorry I misinterpretted the post

It has lasting effects for 6 months after (tho I know that these were not chemically induced, but purely mental, it was something like post tramatic stress disorder, I had horrible anxiety attacks and thought I was going insane for the better part of a year)

I've often read about the same for any psilX containing mushroom - even cubies (I had a thread a while back about a very similar thing with cubensis). I think you're spot on with it being a purely mental thing - however a large enough dose can throw even 'shroom veterans' into a horrible mind space (as soon as someone feels a little overwhelmed and like they are losing control they usually try to fight for their normal headspace and that is where the downward spiral begins IMO). The after effects can be very debilitating and can last for months which is why set, setting and dosage should always be taken into account - especially if you're not familiar with the species.

I still love 'shrooms and entheogens of all types, but I'm more wary and respectful of them now! Y'all wanna know why I don't trip often... the above is the reason!

The negative side of psychedelics are what keeps people from abusing them IMO - they can only be fucked with for so long before they fuck you right back. One of their most admirable (and scary) qualities IMO.

[mutant]

I've often read about the same for any psilX containing mushroom - even cubies (I had a thread a while back about a very similar thing with cubensis). I think you're spot on with it being a purely mental thing - however a large enough dose can throw even 'shroom veterans' into a horrible mind space (as soon as someone feels a little overwhelmed and like they are losing control they usually try to fight for their normal headspace and that is where the downward spiral begins IMO). The after effects can be very debilitating and can last for months which is why set, setting and dosage should always be taken into account - especially if you're not familiar with the species.

right on mate

glad to read your words...

And Teotz, respect and sensibility are the major keys to exploring psychedelics , no?

[mutant]

here's the whole batch...

hey, I don't expect no firm opinion... just a first ID attempt...

[Undergrounder]

Don't particularly look like subbs to me but more importantly the spore print needs to be jet black.. have a look at the base of the stems for blueing as well.

[Vertmorpheus]

COMPLETELY OFFHAND AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED ID I AM NOT A MYCOLOGIST FOR MONEY.

They look bang on old subs from around here, esp those grown in high lignin or more alkaline than usual situations ie very cheap potting soils made of woodfines and sludge waste,rather than broken down manure-based lawn. Should be leathery, almost scaley, distinct pissy odour. Stems stringy. Prints black, but can seem al il blue or red when aged like that. Caps bell shaped, pointy to kinda flat. Rare to see a big patch of old ones without some discernible traces of zonation, esp in shady situations.

Simply saying that photos of SOME examples of old subs I have taken look 99.9 like most of the caps in that pic of yours. Don't go eating any damned thing based on that, please. Most of the real certs dried to an entirely uniform silvery-brown... goldy beige kinda colour, wheras the ones that look like yours seem to usually dry to a dark gunmetal with coppery highlights.

Now I sound like a hairdresser.

I have only seen any kind of blueing at all at the base of any sub, maybe twice. And one of those was probably wishful thinking. ... shroomerjohn is a champ but I don't know if reports from halfway up some blessed hawaiian mountain can be taken entirely as gospel. Not that it can't happen, but plenty don't bruise and do work. Myc remants at the base can seem a lil blue grey but never seen internal blueing, and they took over the place a few years ago to the extent of just hoeing em back into the soil.

I found three typical "strains" pretty common... the typical stripy red-browns... very "chubby" usually... the more ethereal brown-greys, prone to smaller pointer caps but still zonated, and the white-greys which tend to just throw an almost beige ring around their caps... these are usually very rank smelling, so never had much to do with them. Some things just smell bad. But all key out to subs, and if you threw a few of each on a plate most ppl would have a hard time unsorting em.

I have seen some around that end up a bit like that too, tried my almost hardest to suss em out but ended up mentally dubbing them the inbred cousin of subs and ovatus... very hit and miss goods wise, more singular in appearance.

Never found em darker... I found trops the darkest, but then also took em in some dark times, so whos to say... generally, I find the more goodies something packs, the more baddies it can bring out though. Still, very notable "microanalysis" tendency. Cubes, more like a qualified psych than some backwoods sham-man. And one capable of just shutting up and having a good time at that, wheras trops and cyans were always more, maybe alien? not quite the word, very loaded, but getting there.

Subs, I found to have about half the "goods" and despite others common reports, personally half the nasties too... some very feint extremity tingling and mid chakra flipflopping, whcih sounds like a typical fungal evening but was somehow a lil different... bear in mind, I always could find enough to chuck the more urea inspired ones... might be something to that. Would they smell more of nutes at the start of their lil dance and less like...anything much once they had worked out what they wantedto make themselves into? dont know.

Very light on the mind, body, spirit... no "Stern, Dire, Realisations, You Squirming Little Man" just "hey matie, you can sort that lil thing out cant you? would make things a bit quietier...".

Seemed to do more with the sleep cycle, I hear theyre high in trypto so might be it... very easy to slip into sleep and dreams, or not, thoughts and nonthoughts seem about as interesting and informative. Distinct sense of "reduced pressure" in the mind, never felt on the usual suspects.

All in all, personally, "Diet Cube" ;) Twice the Quiet, half the nuttiness. BUT that's just my head, at the time. Some people can stand the sound of their own thoughts (or the absence of what they usually mistake for thoughts) better than others, maybe.

I suspect where ppl may be going "wrong" is in trying to get really tripping balls of what is more of a quietly meditative creature... by the time youre anywhere near as high as you want, the nasties have caught up with you, as its just better suited for "lower" level stuff. More subtle applications. trying to get maggot on good port, rather than average brandy...

VM

Edited October 1, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[Teotzlcoatl]

And Teotz, respect and sensibility are the major keys to exploring psychedelics , no?

Hell ya dude. I learned that one the hard way...

Ace, I think it was the unexpected difference in the trip was what made it so hard for me...

as soon as someone feels a little overwhelmed and like they are losing control they usually try to fight for their normal headspace and that is where the downward spiral begins IMO

Your exactly right... don't EVER fight it! Go with the flow!!!

Don't particularly look like subbs to me but more importantly the spore print needs to be jet black.. have a look at the base of the stems for blueing as well.

I never say any bluing what so ever with me Subbs, but the spores will be black as black can be.

Still, very notable "microanalysis" tendency. Cubes, more like a qualified psych than some backwoods sham-man. And one capable of just shutting up and having a good time at that, wheras trops and cyans were always more, maybe alien?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

All in all, personally, "Diet Cube" ;) Twice the Quiet, half the nuttiness. BUT that's just my head, at the time. Some people can stand the sound of their own thoughts (or the absence of what they usually mistake for thoughts) better than others, maybe.

At one point I couldn't... think... a thought Now I've had ego-death before, but never like this.. I simply could not form a single thought or word or ANYTHING! Tho I tryed my hardest... I should have just let go... thats when it went dooooooownhill.

I suspect where ppl may be going "wrong" is in trying to get really tripping balls of what is more of a quietly meditative creature... by the time youre anywhere near as high as you want, the nasties have caught up with you, as its just better suited for "lower" level stuff. More subtle applications

I agree, before that last trip with them I was eating like 10-15 dried mushrooms, like 1-2g and they never really worked that great... so that final night I ate like 60+ dried Panaeolus subbalteatus preserved in honey... guess that was a little much...

Edited October 1, 2008 by Teotz'

[Undergrounder]

Vert you are seriously wack. seriously. I'd love to see pics of any subbs you find, i've never found them here, or know of any confirmed finds of them here so that would be really cool.

I didn't see that earlier habitat shot before... The gills look nice and mottled, and the zonate ring thing is a little more obvious. The stems also have those nice twisty lines. If the prints turn out JET Black, then its probably a safe bet they're Panaeolus and probably subbs.

I still reckon the group shot of those decapitated mushroom caps look non-descript, could be anything IMO. I can count maybe three that have the zonate margins, so maybe its a mixed bag, make sure they print black.

I never say any bluing what so ever with me Subbs, but the spores will be black as black can be.

It's rare but it happens, and as Vert said, its more often on the attached mycelium than the stipe itself..

http://www.impakt.net/~tyler/subbs/demo1.jpg

[mutant]

Thanks a lot everybody for answers...

I have been pretty responsible and sensible for 4 years now while hunting for edibles, so I wouldn't stop this now...

All the batch picked and dried showed the same ~black~ print, genus is Panaeolus whatever the case....

[Vertmorpheus]

Sometimes people happen to have a personality collapse while they happen to be drugs, too.

Also wonder how many ppl are cooking up a nice jar of botulism when they go stuffing dunglovers into honey... esp when you read some accounts of "paralysis" in extremities.

besta luck... a fresh good PSub should be pretty hard to mistake for anything else, bit harder once they go leather like that. But looks like you're onto a wiener.

under, UTSE for the last major psubs thread, plenty of good piccies of local variety in there, plus another hangeron that didn't cause any dramas.

VM

[Monk]

Some pics of recent N.Am P. subbalteatus finds:

Printing:

Print color - dark purple/black:

P. foenisecii will have dark brown spores.

They were not consumed, only studied, seriously. Mainly because they were found in a 'well manicured lawn' as the OP stated. Around here, that means they were likely treated with ridiculously high levels of high N fertilizers that often contain significant quantities of heavy metals (concentrated by mushy mycelium) as well as contact and pre-emergent herbicides. None of these things were desired to enter the mycologists body and mind. Should be easy enough to grow, though, for those who live in a place where that's okay.

[Undergrounder]

Thanks FM, those rings are pretty clear in your photos hey..

Vert: You sure you're not talking about Ps. subaeruginosa? AFAIK there are no major Pan subbalteatus threads here, mainly because i don't know of anyone whos actually ever found a confirmed Pan. subb here... unless we're talking about different things by 'here'.. Australia here.

Edit: I get it now, yeah i was talking about Pan. subbs sorry

Edited October 3, 2008 by Undergrounder

[Vertmorpheus]

Rings are most clear in fresh wet morning specimens. Overcast mornings after evening storms. even putting the hose on a patch helps muchly in terms of compost conversion.

UG: no, I mean pan subs. Not the southern cold climate subs, which ive never seen, and what are usually meant by "subs" in aussie freak circles..."subs" to mean "pan subs" is purely something i picked up thanks to reading erowidness

I tried to UTSE to find my own thread (or whichever one had a bunch of my pics dumped into it), can't. But it's there.

further edit: UTSE for more info "about those pan subs". Trust me, it's Australia. There was a Toyota nearby.

Barring DNA, you'll never get a "confirmed" in that puritanical sense of the term fungus... the mystery is the magic, the chance is the chalice.

I mean S/SE QLD by "here". Mostly by here i mean where i am at the moment of writing. 999 digits from gpo 4000.

Some photos of things that a person noone like me has never found that don't look like Panaeolus subbalteatus at all .... because they don't occur here

Lucky for fringe dwelling organisms, plants themselves rarely read plant books or websites. Otherwise I'd only be able to find for three months what I can currently find for 6 months ;) Across the board. Try telling any of my cacs or succs that they wont root midwinter, even if it is zero overnight.

Also some very, very aged fungus that are starting to fungus up themselves... crazy. Plus one playing peek a boo with the unbelieving. Plus some non zonated specimens that I watched from normally zonated to faded-gold.

Nothing quite like looking, for finding.

VM

edities... photo three features a tag along concurrent sprouter... suspected papillionensis. No dramas.

ace, I think cyans are now Copelandia aren't they? Or is it the other way round? Certainly not helpful when something looks like huntsmen spiders...

mutant, might like to compare second last pic with your "group photo".

pic 9: the Subbiest Subb that ever did Subb on the Subbiest day of its life with an electrified Subb machine. This is in Joh Country, mind you.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[mutant]

thanks again, great pics

I am going back there hunting this weekend, I will be readier ;)

[Undergrounder]

Thanks for the pics vert, i did find your thread, i'm impressed if they are subbs (i use 'subbs' to avoid confusion between them and 'subs').

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...hl=subbalteatus

I'm gonna come right out and sound like an asshole but are you sure they're not all foes? You know that you have a big bunch of definite Pan cyans in the zip file in your original thread right? You didn't mention that you had Pan cyans in the thread.. And yeah you have a couple of papilionaceus in there too and a few maybe foes, is it possible you took the cyans and presumed that the rest were subbs? I mean you say "I have found probably three other "ecotypes" of em but haven't eaten em...got some stored though... got enough of the "real" deal to not have to take that risk." Are you 100% sure you didn't just take the definite cyans that you definitely did pick and took photos of the rest? Because on photos alone the rest could be either

For instance just on pic 9, they could be foes IMO, the caps could be either way, the stems could be either way (foes get that mealy texture on them too, not all of em are white) the rest look a mixed bag of maybe subbs/foes, Pan papillonaceus/antillarum, maybe last pic cyanescens.

[Vertmorpheus]

From keys and books I have access to (some gooduns in there too) and a lotta googling around, and plain old looking groundwards a lot, I reckon they're subBs. Bar the odd hanger on. Many other smart arses have also come to similar conclusions , with many happy endings I am sure.

No blue meanies in there whatsoever. Like, none. Big bubble headed old subBs, yes. No meanies. You hafta remember that when you see all of these things on the dirt, within a lil wander of each other (in time, if not in space), it's MUCH easier to get an idea of what is what and what is not what, than when you're relying on a few uploaded piccities.

Some ppl mix Pan. ovatus etc with meanies, in paddocks prone to stock rotations ie meanies from the semi broken down cow pats, and pans from the horsey grass bits... easily done esp if picking old ones, as the bluing is reduced. But even in the most gently sheltered paddock specimens, you will almost ALWAYS see blueing from raindrops, wind, etc.

In the last of the pics above, the "blueish" looking thing going on is SPORES, not STAINING. Dodgy pic, I know. But once again anyone looking into clumping fungi will get used to seeing that too. meanies are in the flesh much chubbier, stinkier, generally meatier things. Turning bright blue. Not usualyl found in horse poo garden beds, more cow poo halfway up mist-prone mountains, in my neck of the woods.

If "in the original zip" you think the blurry ones on the black background are, they're not. They were stripy as hell, and had faded characteristically enough. Truuuuust me, I could tell a subb from a bluey in the DARK And would know if I cooked one for tea, thinking it was the other, at that. What I took pics of might be Conocybes hey, theyre kinda pointy with skinny legs under them too. Prone to going a lil wrinkly. In some ways, thats the reason i whacked em up... i "know" theyre all the same thing, but they do look pretty different, at different stages and from different locations.

I have also seen many, many, many foeniscii on the ground here also, and if you saw em both in the same day let alone day after day, you'd know they were different too. I do have pics of those too, somewhere.

Not sure what the problem is with subbs occuring here? Just about every other common "tagalong' fungi does, and the grounds "these ones" lurk in are well treated with stable manure, bagged poo, etc, in an area that used to be lousey with south american cattle and horses.

I have to say that " is it possible you took the cyans and presumed that the rest were subbs?" is probably the funniest shit I have read all week, though :D cheers. If you saw both in the flesh, once again, you'd be able to draw a line no worries. Let alone tried accidentally eating both of em! next I'll be mistaking fine ganj for grass clippings and using them as mulch.Ask the rest of the paddock people around here. Subbs do pop up. Most ppl can't be arsed as they have better options, picking wise.

"For instance just on pic 9, they could be foes IMO" - of course. But assume (yeah, maybe) that they're every last one of em things I saw every morning when watering the pumpkins, and can with a pretty solid sense of reliability assume that noone has snuck in overnight, duffed all the (blatant, universally accepted) subbs and replaced em with foes... I am trying to show that they CAN look very different with ageing, but then others retain some zonation forever. the stripe on foes is a dull thing, more of a hatband, whereas subbs only look like that after about 4 days ageing, usually. Woman look kinda the same to me in their 90s, but in their 20s, I can tell em apart really easily

That and "DEFINITE pan cyans". cept, they're not. I'd know if they were ;) Who'd let bragging rights like that pass, meanies in the marrow patch? jeebus. Probably the second funniest shit I have read this week. heres me having to look at most things in the flesh or at least see...hell... distinctive traits attributed solely to them, photo wise, to hazard an ID. You can just look at em, even WITHOUT any blueing, being about half the average size and in cross section youd see the gills were much less elliptical and more elongated.

It also goes without saying that the particular personality traits of said specimens were correlated by other research/ers and found entirely, entirely consistent with reports and pretty concrete exps overseas, too. Speaking of OS, I'd be curious as to how my "typical" specimens differ from FM's pics? The youngins or oldins I can see being a bit suspect without any context, but a subb cap is a subb cap, surely?

We get subbs here.... they're listed for here (and distinguished from foeniscii etc) in a mushy book I have written by entirely grown up ppl that get paid moolah for the mushy mojo that was printed about 10, 15 years ago? foeniscii apart from almost always printing a touch more in the brown-purple end of the "black" spectrum vs pan. subBs JET JET black print, foeniscii are also IME usually much bigger, chunkier heads for their heights, etc. And whilst they can have that rim banding, rarely go psycho nemo. campanulatus almost always IME have that cap nipple thing, much "scrawnier" critters and very boring looking. Almost always go "copper" tone rather than "gold-brown" as per subBs.

I have also mentioned previously being a great fan of printing EVERY cap before any further decisions are made. Unless youre entirely trusting in your own ability.

the professionals say they're here, I freely admit to being an amateur, not to mention tacking a disclaimer up there ^ and down there in my sig. but thems pics of pan subbs, that looked/grew/smelt/printed/broke/rotted/aged/felt like pan subbs, versus many many other pretty similar things that I did NOT end up calling pan subbs.

But if they're not pan subbs, then theyre foeniscii that tend to be freakishly decorative, rather than looking how pan subbs look only after a bit of drying, ageing and dodgy lighting

And, at the end of the day, don't go scoffing something because someone on the internet mentioned they have seen examples of something that someone ELSE on the internet, said you could eat... that's just daft behaviour Take care of your organs, you only get the one of most of em. Buy a good book, train your eye and then make your own decisions based on the information available to you.

Don't make me start a "312 pics of things I know aren't subbs but look kinda similar after a week in the sun" thread now. Really, an antillarum cap is usually about the size of my PALM If you et meanies thinking subbs, in dosage terms, who'd describe the outcome as "pleasant and light in nature"? thatd be like mistaking a bottle of vodka for a bottle wine, or something along those lines. With more Voices of God action.

BTW, I think you really mean Copelandia cyanescens, not to get technical but "Copelandia differs by possessing thick walled, coloured and pointed cystidia on the sides of the gills." Shepherd and Totterdell, Mushrooms and Fungi of Australia, 1988. Which was a while ago, may be time to catch up if you want to play mushroomy-spoony... not to sound like an arsehole.

VM

Edited October 4, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[Moses]

Thanks FM, those rings are pretty clear in your photos hey..

Vert: You sure you're not talking about Ps. subaeruginosa? AFAIK there are no major Pan subbalteatus threads here, mainly because i don't know of anyone whos actually ever found a confirmed Pan. subb here... unless we're talking about different things by 'here'.. Australia here.

Edit: I get it now, yeah i was talking about Pan. subbs sorry

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...showtopic=12397

i'm in south australia undergrouder and in spring i get Panaeolus subbalteatus coming up in my backyard after my missus bought home two large chunks of mycelium she found at a local landscape supplier, above is link to pix from pots in my yard.

horse manure is supposedly the big key so if you've got local stables check them out.

Edited October 4, 2008 by MOSES

[Undergrounder]

Well im relieved that you're both happy to entertain my scepticism without taking it personally, .. Because im going to keep doing it for another post sorry it's a pretty well founded scepticism built from seeing many supposed subb finds in Australia and having them all turn up false.. it's not that i don't believe that foreign mushrooms CAN turn up here (they do all the time, and not least from the nursery trade like MOSES' mycelium find), its specifically that i haven't seen much evidence that Subbs HAVE... i get a North American birds nest fungus in a pot of new guinea impatiens every year that shouldn't exist here, but it does, and i think it might be the same with both of your finds if they are subbs - spores imported at some point by potting soil and/or bagged manure.

I'm not going to try and convince anyone that subbs don't exist here, im happy to believe that they CAN, but i want to make a few points:

1. MJs book isn't worth the 'paper' its published on. That's probably harsh, but its absoluteley chock full of errors and at the very least needs serious updating. To MJs credit i heard he's tried to submit to erowid to have it updated and they haven't done it. There is a common thread to -every single subb find in Australia-. Everyone says "they do exist here i read it in MJs book", well frankly i don't believe MJs book, and at the top of the list is his entry on Subbs. I should add that the book actually says that subbs don't exist in QLD OR SA, so you can't cite that book as evidence.

2. I don't think you or anyone else can tell a subb from a foe from its look alone. Zonate rings, thickness of stem, texture of stem, 'chunkiness' of cap, colour of stem, differences in how they age or any combination of the above, i've seen pictures of "the subbiest of subby looking subbs" that turned out to be foes, and "the foeyest of foe-like foes" that turned out to be subbs. Subbs TEND to grow gregarious, in clumps, foes TEND to grow in small groups or as singles, but that's a real TEND, not always. I have been convinced I found a field of subbs that were foes a couple of times and even the yanks that pick subbs as their only active mushroom mistake the two on sight. You cannot know for certain a subb from foe by sight, even if you're the most experienced subb hunter in the world.

Telling a Panaeolina print from a subb is also not easy unless you have a to compare it to. For instance these are foe prints (from Gumby's site):

Easy to tell they're brown next to a truly black print, easy to think they're black without a print to compare them to.

3.

I think you really mean Copelandia cyanescens, not to get technical but "Copelandia differs by possessing thick walled, coloured and pointed cystidia on the sides of the gills." Shepherd and Totterdell, Mushrooms and Fungi of Australia, 1988. Which was a while ago, may be time to catch up if you want to play mushroomy-spoony... not to sound like an arsehole.

They're PANAEOLUS, that book was written in 1988, FFS. If you want to risk sounding condescending, at least make sure you're right first, it looks really bad when you're not. Copelandia is not used any more. Or i -think- it might be a subgenus now in an informal sense (by the way we really should start calling them Panaeolina foenesecii now if you really want to play mushroom-spoony). PANAEOLUS cyanaescens is a Panaeolus. but one thing's for certain: there's no such thing these days as a Copelandia cyanescens. And AFAIK there hasn't been for quite some time... A.M. Young 2005 is the book i have, uses Panaeolus cyanescens, mentions Copelandia as an old syn. It's Panaeolus cyanescens, has been for some time.

Edit: I remembered i have a copy of Shepherd and Totterdell's "Mushrooms and Toadstools of Australia" (1988) in my bookshelf as well (an old relic of a thing it is)... something interesting i found, p.86, it notes that foe prints are "dark brown to almost black", which highlights how hard it is to tell the two apart. But its a pretty old, outdated book, almost worse than MJ's opus..

Edit Edit: By the way by MJ i mean John W. Allen (Mushroom John)

- The Conspiracy Theory-

My conspiracy theory in a nutshell is that:

a.) you found a whole bunch of mushrooms in your veggie patch and/or in your yard.

b.) You found cyans, which as you already said you don't believe could be in your patch, picked them and printed them.

c.) You thought they were subbs, because as you already said, how could you have cyans in your veggie patch? You figured they were active (the blueing is pretty strong), and you (or a friend, not saying you did anything illegal) ate them, confirmed they were active.

d.) You came BACK to that patch later, took photos of the foes and figured the ones that looked different (the actual cyans) were just older subbs from a previous fruiting that had lost their zonate patterning.

e.) From that point on, you just assumed most of the subb-like foes you saw were subbs and didn't bother testing them since as you said "you have better options".

For starters I'm not referring to the photos in this thread, most of which are in the original thread, some of which are new. I'm referring purely to the original thread here. You have a bunch of in situ shots of subb/foes (ignoring the imposters completely), and about four photos of the mushrooms you actually picked, plus a print of one of those mushrooms (which is definitely jet)....

Evidence that you have some cyans (b.):

This the photo im referring to:

They look like cyans to me. I hear what you're saying about the spores, but the spores should be -black- not blue, that collection sure looks like a stack of cyans. All of the photos of the ones you have picked, not the ones in ground, look like more typical Pan cyans/antillarum/papilonaceus. Obviously they'd be the only ones you would have printed as well, even if you printed every cap you picked. If you're wondering how you could get cyans in your veggie patch, it's the same way "spiders" found cyans in his veggie patch in MOSES's thread, the same way we COULD have subbs here at all... they're both dung lovers, it doesn't matter if its in a paddock or in your yard. You said yourself that you got the manure from a lady who collects the manure from neighbouring farms, you might as well be saying you scooped up a whole bunch of cyan spores and put them in your yard. I don't see how you could not believe that cyans could be in your garden.

Evidence for (d.):

You are originally under the impression that every mushroom you have is the same kind. You said in the original thread that "there's one in there with what looks like a different species popped up in the same clump as the real deal, it's not... just an oldie in a re-firing patch" This says to me that you think the imposter Pan. cyan/antillarum/papilonaceus that's in those photos was a subb, even if you changed your mind since. That also says that at the time you'd easily mistake a subb for a foe on sight if you couldn't tell a pan cyan/antillarum/pap from the others.

So i think you (or your friend) ate those cyans you picked thinking they were subbs (refusing to believe they could be cyans), and i think all the photos you've taken since of subbs are of foes.

So that's my theory..

-End of theory-

MOSES: Did you eat (or did your friend eat) your finds? Again im really happy if these are subbs, i've just developed a learned scepticism from these things, so don't take it personally that i'm doubting your ID, i just really want to get this straight and the subject deserves this ruthless specticism. Not least of all because foes and subbs look just about identical sometimes, and because the difference between black black and jet black black is so small and changes with the light. Psilocybe subaeruginosa prints always look jet black in my room for instance, i think its the fluoro light. I need to take it into the kitchen to see that purple/brown colour.

Also I noticed spiders didn't actually find conclusively on his spore microscopy, since he couldn't find any cystidia and just a few poorly angled basidia. The spore size was also smaller than he would have liked and last thing in the thread is he was going to find another spore print to compare it to.

Just as an example, this is a photo of your find and confirmed foes:

The difference of colour is not important (one is an overexposed scan as well), the variation in colour of both is not an ID feature. Im sure you CAN find differences. The point is that you can and will find subbs that look like foes and foes that look like subbs, and that from sight alone, its impossible to tell conclusively either way. I know if i found those mushrooms in the middle of my subb haul, I'd probably leave them in if i didn't print them and compare prints.

So if you (or a friend) ate them and tripped, or if someone was able to confirm the microscopy, i'd be thrilled.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Undergrounder

[Hyphal]

I am pretty sure I found Subbs once in my vegie patch, under some lettuce.... They printed JET black on a white china plate, but alas, I never kept the print nor did I keep the specimens, so we'll never know. I also never took a photo of the print unfortunately.

[shruman]

Heres another one undergrounder: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...hl=subbalteatus

Just to clarify a few things in that thread. They were about 1/2 as nice as cubes. They were not foe's. I've accidently eaten foe's to nil effect aside from minor stomach discomfort & taste shitty. In the thread I mention spores must have blown in but they must have already been here cause not long after I found thousands in different locations, all lawns/parklands & only found 1 Pan subb on dung but I do'nt look in horse poo.