Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
spiders

Corrections to subaeruginosa allies

Recommended Posts

After having the chance with my new scope to sit down and really have a look at the subaeruginosa specimens in my collections Id say that we have two distinct groups.

Firstly after examination the clasification Ps.australiana is a complete misnomer - there is no species in Australia of Psilocybe that has only lageniform cystidia.

Most of the collections are all exactly like Guzman's eucalypta - that is four distinct shapes in their cystidia - these range from Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and New Zealand and most collections of Ps.subaeruginosa have these characteristics - since Ps.subaeruginosa predates Ps.eucalypta, Ps.subaeruginosa stands.

(cystidia 50% capitate to sub-lechnyniform, 30% lageniform, 12% mucronate ventricose, 8% lancelate to ventricose rostrate (globe on a stem, bowling pin, pointy and like a finger)).

The most interesting thing about Ps.subaeruginosa is that it has identical cheilocystidia to Ps.cyanescens but collections i have of Ps.cyanescens have no pluerocystidia. So Ps.cyanescens and Ps.subaeruginosa is almost identical macroscopically, grows in similar conditions, have similar potency and have similar cheilocystidia and spore sizes... Its quite possible they are cross compatible and I agree with Buchanan in suggesting that they are possibly the same species. Cross compatibility tests are the next step to confirm this.

Then there is the South Australian subaeruginosa - macroscopically quite different from subaeruginosa - yellow cap, darker stem with more rhizos, and the cystidia are quite different. I think these are more different than Ps.cyanescens is from Ps.subaeruginosa!

The only thing that stops me from claiming instantly that these are two seperate taxons without firm cross compatibility tests is that there is one collection if have from southern NSW quite possibly has bridging characteristics that could suggest they are phenotypes. The bad thign about this collection is that its quite similar to the dung lover collection from northern victoria. its all very confusing - more collections from SA and NSW are needed.

More news to come

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work! And interesting results (although I admit some of the terminology was foreign to me).

Do you plan to submit a paper on this at any stage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent work. Can you explain the methodology behind the cross compatibility tests?

And will you be publishing this study?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ill be publishing it on my website - but i doubt i could get it published in written form - id need to be a graduate student aor above and im not one.

However I know a few, and im sure i could con one of them into getting a spore compatibility test done and/or attempting to write a thesis up on this if it eventually pans out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the jist of what this suggests is that all Ps.subaeruginosa are the same in WA, VIC, TAS, NZ, ACT and the ones in SA are very different. Secondly most of the subs are closer to Ps.cyanescens than they are to the specimens from SA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well ill be publishing it on my website - but i doubt i could get it published in written form - id need to be a graduate student aor above and im not one.

How about the victorian naturalists club?

Also, you could write in a short communication to an australian mycology or botany journal and see if it gets published as a letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words we ALL need to look a little harder next season. I still hold the belief that there is more than two types in a certain patch i know of. Just need a decent season to prove or disprove the theory.

more collections from SA and NSW are needed

What areas in NSW are you talking of BM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Southern Highlands?

I have a couple of prints from the ones in the photo gallery if they're any good to you BM?

I also have quite a few prints left from ferret's findings including what he's labeled as 'wavey cap' you're welcome to.

Next season I'll do my utmost to get some specimens for you as my dad lives not far from the patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you need prints from Tasmanian varities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should stress that this is only from specimens of subaeruginosa - ive got about three or four collections now of what appear to be different species and from his descriptions im quite sure that Passive has at least one different species growing in dung up there.

The location in NSW was in teh southern highcountry - over towards thredbo i believe.

Yeah more specimens are needed from everywhere pretty much bar victoria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you consider that Pluteus's work on Ps.cyanescens demonstrated that the Ps.cyanescens in america with capitate pluerocystidia and Ps.cyanescens in britain that lack pleurocystidia were found - through DNA - to be quite different entities - almost undoubtedly different species with the only difference measurable microscopically or macroscopically being the pluerocystidia, it would be interesting to review these variations using DNA techniques as well. Or spore compatibility tests.

If you assume that the cystidial differences map the type changes to these mushrooms you can map it in terms of degree of variation like this in terms of linking the charateristics:

1 --------3---4----------------------------------5

I--2

1. Ps.subaeruginosa (Guzman's Ps.australiana/Ps.eucalypta entity) Found in Vic, Tas, NSW, WA, NZ

2. Ps.cyanescens (from united kingdom) found in Europe various areas...

3. Pale gill sub (more like Ps.eucalypta but does not match any descriptions) Found in NSW

4. South Aus subs (VERY DIFFERENT) Found only in SA

5. Passive's Dunglover (Very DIFFERENT)

So basically Ps.cyanescens is closer to the common sub than either a collection by Spiraleyes in NSW and the SA variants are and but quite a significant degree. Infact if someone is going to tell me that the SA and Spiral eyes collections are the same species then I would HAVE to conclude that then they are all actually Ps.cyanescens or perhaps Ps.subcyanescens due to their slight difference in cystidial shapes. No cheilocystidia size differences were noticed between 1 and 2 despite Guzman's assertion that there were.

The Dunglover has some cystidia - the odd Cheilocystidia that resembles the subaeruginosa collections, but it also has 3 spore basidia commonly and a variety of pigmented pleurocystidia - chocolate brown. What this means that its either a new species as having coloured cystidia is uncommon in Psilocybes and all other natives have pigmented cystidia, or as Guzman says THIS species is the correct Ps.subaeruginosa with his description of brown pigmented cystidia.

This single collection is probably the most significant find in the study of subaeruginosa, since no other mycologist since Guzman and Watling have been able to collect specimens of a Psilocybe in Australia with pigmented cystidia. SInce its rare, it should be catagorised as Ps.subaeruginosa, so its Ps.dunglover or what ever you want to call it.

The full new descriptions microscopically are given below as I see them after considerable study:

1. Characterised by rows of hylaine capitate to sublecythiform or lageniform to sublageniform cystidia with extended necks - both pleurocystidia and cheilocystidia, with much rarer cystidial forms, all hyaline such as rostrate, ventricose with an obtuse apex, very occasional cheilocystidia finger-shaped or lancelate. Collections viewed from WA (1), Vic (9), NSW (4), TAS (2) and NZ(4). SPore size ranges from Guzman's Ps.eucalypta to guzman's Ps.australiana.

2. Cheilocystidia hyaline ranging from capitate to sublecythiform to lancelate or finger shaped. Pleurocystidia hyaline much rarer the rigidly mucronate, rarely capitate or finger-shaped. Collections viewed from UK (2) and cultivated(3). Spore size slightly smaller than subaeruginosa, but ranges into it.

3. cystidia hyaline broadly accumunate tapering to a subcapitate or rostrate apex. Occasional sublageniform, less common mucronate, tapering to a point and small obtuse shapes. Very rare clavate cheilocystidia sighted. Minor variations in neck sizes between Pleuro and cheilocystidia. Collections NSW (1). Spore size unknown.

4. 2 and 4 spored basidia, sublagniform to rostrate to mucronate cystidia, cheilocystidia more common than pleurocystidia, all hyaline. less common shapes are fingers with subcapitate apexs, ventricose with obtuse apex (connection it to the above), and clavate - again connection it to 3. spore size again unknown, colletions from SA (3).

5. 3/4 spored basidia, pigmented brown pleurocystidia rostrate or blunted hyaline obtuse pleurocystidia with thickwalled apex. One hyaline finger found as pleurocystidia. Inski found one cheilocystidia of the same shape. Cheilocystidia always hyaline and very different, mucronate, hyaline, elongated finger shaped, or sharply acuminate, or ventricose with a bulbous head. Clavate and very odd and irregular hyaline cystial forms noted on gill edge. Collections from VIC (1) found in manure. SPore size unknown.

Conclusions.

The common variant of Ps.subaeruginosa is closer to Ps.cyanescens than it is to its cousins in SA. If I were reclassifying these mushrooms using the rationale above I would state that this is the correction delineation:

Ps.subcyanescens (1 - common subaeruginosa specimens)

Ps.subaeruginosa Cleland (3 and 4 collectioned from SA and rarerly NSW)

Ps.Wallabiensis (Subaeruginosa as loosely described by Guzman) (newly described dunglover from Northern Victoria)

Three distinct entities. And none of them really fitting Guzman's descriptions - and even less so of Johnson and Buchanan's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same goes with the prints from Southern Highlands NSW.To me these were unique in colour and umm other things :wink:

Will definitely collect specimens next season as I missed out this year due to no transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks guys - prints and dried specimens would be ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the similarities between cyanescens and subaeruginosa would it possible they may have 'evolved' to local conditions from introduced cyan's (spores etc) due to logging and foresty relationships between australia, NZ and north america? Many of our plantation species (as well as general nursery plants) are from northern california, where cyan's occur. I reckon it could be a decent theory on where they orignated from and might assist in further IDing differences in australian species..

I believe some of the first introduced logging initiatives were set up in Bundaleer, SA, during the 19th century and while radiata pine ended up being the most 'successful' timber for logging purposes, many other north american species were trialed early on and it may be possible somewhere along the line spores or cultures were transported to australia that ended up being what we now call subaeruginosa. I dunno - just a wacky theory!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno - just a wacky theory!!

I dunno about wacky, you could be onto something. I never thought about it that way and there are other introduced mushrooms so why not a psilocybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno about wacky, you could be onto something. I never thought about it that way and there are other introduced mushrooms so why not a psilocybe.

In particular the noted similarity between psilocybe's in NZ and australia - they both share similar logging backgrounds and introduced timber species, yet NZ's environment is quite different from australian forests, and the PWN usa is different altogether again. How could they indigenously evolve to be so close? During the mid 19th century australia had a fair degree of influence from america, the west coast in particular, with gold rushes and acceleration of the timber industries. Its plausible more than skills, seeds and machinery were exchanged across continents.

Maybe this is why the aborigines have no record of using tryptamine mushrooms - because they simply weren't here before introduced logging and pasture farming.

Edited by botanika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is definately the case with WA and NZ - the theory being that subaeruginosa was spread to WA through cattle manure and to NZ through wood debris and importation of pinus radiata from Australia.

Psilocybe azurescens only grows in the US near a type of grass that is an immigrant from the baltic sea, although it doesnt need that grass to fruit in any way now.

Semilanceata, cubensis, pan cyanescens and strictipes are all imports that most likely came with cattle or a type of grass.

Subaeruginosa is definately another candidate - but most mycologists think it got to australia before white people did - although its very plausible that it arrived 170 years ago to Melbourne as Ps.cyanescens, threw off some strange phenotypes to fruit off the local woods being different to hardwoods, and then changed into its current state over time. QUite possible. People like Michael Bock and Bruce Fuhrer would probably not agree but what can you do,

passive - did you like my name for your dunglover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
passive - did you like my name for your dunglover?

LOL yeah, but it was cow shit not wallaby :P

i will try get the wallaby/roo poo variety for you next season, although the way ppl are talking 'bout all this global warming stuff, my patches will be a wasteland by next season. :wacko::lol:

Edited by Passive Daemon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fucken oath mate - its a worry - since the firs tthing that a 2C increase will do is make sure that the trade winds dont blow right, so that all the cold pressure systems dont rise enough to get to southern australia...could be a real worry.

Well cowshitensis might be better??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fucken oath mate - its a worry - since the firs tthing that a 2C increase will do is make sure that the trade winds dont blow right, so that all the cold pressure systems dont rise enough to get to southern australia...could be a real worry.
:( Stop trying to scare me BM.
Well cowshitensis might be better??

HAHAHAHA PMP, yes that is much better.

Edited by Passive Daemon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×