I have observed very similar mushrooms growing in central melbourne. Macroscopically they appear identical to published images of Ps. cyanescens. During extensive wanderings in victoria this winter i examined at least 100 patches of Ps. subaeruginosa, including mulch, native forest and pine plantation habitats. The consistent irregular form of the mushrooms in question and their darker brown colour, immediately struck me as being different to the other patches and i assumed they were most likely Ps. cyanescens.
However, upon reading the excellent posts by Spiders on this site it wouldn't surprise me if they would most confidently be identified as a variety of sub, although according to Spiders, microscopically it is very hard to differentiate between the two. This makes me wonder: if somebody was to cultivate a patch of pacific northwest cyanescens in a park in Melbourne, and some sharp eyed person found them, would anyone be able to confidently identify them correctly on the basis of their macro and microscopic characteristics? Spiders also mentions the idea considered by some that Ps. cyanescens may actually be synonymous with Ps. subaeruginosa. However it must be remembered that some species of plants have been found that are almost identical in appearance yet have been found to be distinct entities when advanced methods of testing have been applied. I think it was in one of Spiders own posts that he mentions that the UK and the PNW cyanescens were clearly different on the basis of the results of some form of advanced molecular or intercompatibilty testing.
If Ps. subaeruginosa is found in the higher altitude undisturbed temperate forests regions of northern NSW, i would consider this good evidence that it is native. After 14 years of spore transferal experiments and observations i think it is unlikely that the distribution and variations of subs in australia would have arisen in the last 100 years. Because of cyanescens extensive distribution, it has clearly been present in the northen hemisphere for some time. If cyanescens has been introduced into australia it is more likely to have arrived in the last 40 years then at any earlier time. Given that there are also many closely allied species in the northern hemisphere that appear similar, i would be surprised if a DNA analysis found that true Ps. cyanescens were the same species as subs even though they may appear nearly identical, ie i suspect that cyanescens as a species has originated in the N hemisphere. Interestingly, in Stamets' first edition of Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms he speculates that the Ps. cyanescens group may be a recent immigrant to the Pacific Northwest from Australia or Europe, owing to the observation that they have not been found growing in natural settings (page 334). However i am skeptical of this idea. Australia has many introduced fungi and it is surely possible that Ps. cyanescens could have been transported here. In this age of rapid transport we can expect an increasing number of fungal immigrants every year.
As for these mushrooms, a lack of pleurocystidia would confirm their identity as the UK cyanescens. In the next week or so i will examine these specimens under a microscope. Spore compatibility and genetic analysis are perhaps the only conclusive ways to confirm their identity as different species. If we are able to recognise the characteristics of these mushrooms and they remain true to form when reproducing from spores in different habitats or substrates then they deserve at least an informal variant name.
Of the wavy-capped variant of sub, Spiders also notes the characteristic is inherited. I observed numerous populations of a wavy capped sub, in both mulch and pine habitats, and these appeared different to the central melb cyanescen-like mushroom in the following ways: young mushrooms caps acutely to broadly umbonate, yellowish orange in colour; stems dirty white with greyish and brownish streaks; gills adnate to adnexed in juvenille specimens; habit often solitary. The cyanescens-like mushrooms frequently had +/- subdecurrent gills, never had a prominent umbo, caps were chestnut brown with slightly inrolled margins when young, cap margins where always strongly undulating at maturity, stems were sharply white and they frequently grew in dense clusters of up to twenty mushrooms. On agar the cyanescens-like fungus appeared more cottony and slightly faster growing than typical melb subs.
CYANESCENS-LIKE SHROOMS:
These mushrooms were primarily growing in a rose garden, on private property dominated by european trees. the tenants of the property have historically and currently hosted many international guests. Unlike many of the suburban parks this central location would be a likely place for foreign fungi introductions.
The strongly undulating margins are very distinct in this taxon. I have witnessed undulating margins in subs from WA and Vic, but the patches always have some mature specimens with very even caps.
The stems were stark white when fresh. This image shows the tight clustering habit of the mushrooms and the uneven margins also present in the pins.
This cropped image shows the whitish +/- subdecurrent gills of a young cap.
The majority of the mushrooms in the population grew in these tightly packed clusters.
WAVY CAPPED SUBS:
Here is a patch of wavy cap subs from the outer melb suburbs. They were common in the area and i also observed them growing in mulched garden beds, where they were a little shorter but otherwise identical. They were mainly solitary, as were the populations i observed in the garden beds.
The stems of these mushrooms where always greyish and streaky.
They almost always had an obvious umbo when young. As these mushrooms mature and the cap margins lift, the umbo often becomes plane with the cap surface. The young specimens of the cyanescens-like mushroom never have this pronounced umbo.
TLC analysis revealed some differences to typical melb subs also. In the analysis, a typical sub (found growing around 10 m away from the cyanescens-like mushrooms) was compared to the cyanescens-like mushroom and the wavy capped sub, as well as a cubensis sample and two species of Gymnopilus. The two Gymnopilus samples were fresh. the 3 caramel-capped Psilos were collected within several days of each other and were selected as to be comparable in age, size and health. The cubensis was around 2 months old and cultivated. Approximately equal amounts of chopped material was used for the 4 psilos, and they were extracted with an equal amount of warm methanol containing a few drops of 25% acetic acid. The TLC solvent system used was ethylacetate, methanol, conc ammonia soln approx 2:8:1. Please note that this hurried analysis was undertaken only to compare the chemical profiles of the species and not to identify the actual constituents. I don't have any data relating to the use of this solvent system with fungi so i won't speculate on the identity of the small spots, however i would be very surprised if the large blue resulting from the Van Urk reagent application wasn't psilocybin.
The most obvious difference between the typical melb sub and the cyanescens type was the presence of a blue spot under longwave UV light in the cyanescens-like sample. Also, the melb sub had more of a van urk positive, violet spot above the probable psilocybin spot. The wavy capped sub appeared to be particularly weak, this sample was collected from grassy mixed euc/ pine trees. In the future i will arrange a more careful analysis with more samples. Given the approximately equal amounts of samples analyzed and the application of equal sized spots to the plates, the size of the blue spot suggests the cyanescens-like mushroom would have comparable potency to the sub and certainly more than the cultivated cubensis and wavy capped sub samples.
From left to right the samples are cubensis, typical melb sub, wavy capped sub, cyanescens-like mushroom, unknown purple gymnopilus, gymnopilus sapineus and an unknown psathyrella. This was photographed under UV without any other treatments. The blue spot present in the cyanescens-like mushroom was also present in cubensis but not in the typical sub or the wavy capped sub to any detectable extent.
This is the same plate after application of some very old van urk reagent. There are some slight differences apparent here also. Notice the orangish spot under the blue spot in the cyan column and the violet spot above the blue spot in the subs column. The gyms and the psathyrella tested negative for indoles.
Until detailed molecular analysis can be performed on these complex species clusters i always side with the 'splitters', it may be more complicated and it may turn out to be wrong, but there is a very real chance that you may find something special. Macroscopically these mushrooms appeared uniformly different to subs. If they maintain their characteristics in different substrates and regions while growing alongside subs, and they begin to turn up more often and we can still recognise them apart from subs, i believe they deserve a name of their own, if they aren't cyanescens that is.
