teonanacatl Posted February 13, 2009 Hey Guys found these sexy beasts around camp If anyone wants spores from some wild cape york sp for research let me know. Thought Id just throw up two pics Copelandia cyanescens or tropicalis I dont know and Psilocybe cubensis. Im in town about once a month so pm me your addy if you want some, only older members need bother. Fuck it internet is too slow pictures next time sorry guys, offer still stands though. Got some unknowns also. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incognito Posted February 13, 2009 what the fuck r u doing these days teo? r u a hermit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mycot Posted February 13, 2009 Tropicalis hasn't been confirmed in Australia. Unknowns ??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teonanacatl Posted March 2, 2009 Living the dream jono in cape york :D Taking 6-12 months off :D SO when you coming fishing up here mate? Pics in a mintute its difficult even posing replies at the aboriginal centre due to this website being somewhat blocked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zen Peddler Posted March 7, 2009 tropicalis as far as i was aware was differentiated from Pan cyanescens based purely on two-spored basidia instead of the classic four-spored variety. A while back Teonan on the shroomery did a major study of collections of Panaeolus cyanescens from a variety of sources and found that the cystidia and basidia variability was massive - the differences in collections would have provided someone like Guzman with an excuse to break cyanescens up into 12 different entities. Im talking differences that were far more pronounced than between Ps cyanescens and azurescens, or more importantly the minor differences between US Ps.cyanescens and our own Ps.subaeruginosa (which are fairly minimal and could all be accounted within one species entity without proper spore compatibility studies). The point is minute cystidial variations do not equate to anything more than phenotype variants. Guzman has over delineated the Psilocybe group. Conclusion: I doubt that Pan Trop or Pan Cambo are actually anything more than phenotypes of Pan cyanescens. peace! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teonanacatl Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) unknown below Edited March 19, 2009 by teonanacatl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t st tantra Posted March 19, 2009 i could get some prints off those pics,lol.......fingerprints,lol......something i've wondered about,they could do it on the teev? t s t . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teonanacatl Posted March 19, 2009 Dont have any in possesion so really got nothing to worry about. I would assume the laws are the same as for plants in national parks. Enough of the plant is allowed to be picked to determine its identity, likewise I picked the mushrooms to check the gills and collect spore prints so I knew what species they were ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t st tantra Posted March 19, 2009 are you saying that in a national park you are allowed to pick enough plant material to confirm an id for a plant?interesting and useful,i didnt know that! t s t . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teonanacatl Posted March 19, 2009 yep thought as you would know that is not a lot of plant material Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chiral Posted March 19, 2009 mmmm lucky bugger...prints ahoy...! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheDudeAbides Posted March 19, 2009 awsome would love to get some ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Workman Posted March 21, 2009 tropicalis as far as i was aware was differentiated from Pan cyanescens based purely on two-spored basidia instead of the classic four-spored variety.A while back Teonan on the shroomery did a major study of collections of Panaeolus cyanescens from a variety of sources and found that the cystidia and basidia variability was massive - the differences in collections would have provided someone like Guzman with an excuse to break cyanescens up into 12 different entities. Im talking differences that were far more pronounced than between Ps cyanescens and azurescens, or more importantly the minor differences between US Ps.cyanescens and our own Ps.subaeruginosa (which are fairly minimal and could all be accounted within one species entity without proper spore compatibility studies). The point is minute cystidial variations do not equate to anything more than phenotype variants. Guzman has over delineated the Psilocybe group. Conclusion: I doubt that Pan Trop or Pan Cambo are actually anything more than phenotypes of Pan cyanescens. peace! Panaeolus taxonomy is a mess. I've been trying to sort it out and can confirm Teonan's findings on the massive variability. The Copelandia are oversplit, but it does appear that there are at least a few valid species. I can readily differentiate Panaeolus cyanescens from P. cambodginiensis/tropicalis. I have yet to find a convincing tropicalis so its probably rare or doesn't exist as a distinct species. I have examined a sample of P. bisporus which does have two-spored basidia. Here is a summary gleaned from several sources and my own experiences: Panaeolus cyanescens: The most common (in the wild) species, pallid pins or only slightly pigmented that soon fade with maturity, large spores (majority over 12 microns). Panaeolus cambodginiensis: The second most common species, very dark chocolate to olive pins, small spores (majority under 12 microns), sometimes produces sclerotia-like bodies. This species seems to be overly represented in circulated strains compared to purely wild collections. Panaeolus tropicalis: rare, pallid pins, small spores (like P. cambodginiensis). This is the most confused documented species. Stamets (1996) indicates that it is an exclusively two spored species (two spores per basidium) which is incorrect according to all other sources. Gerhardt's (1996) key to the Copelandia implies that it’s a darkly pigmented species which conflicts with the actual description in the same document (which is based on Ola’h’s (1969) original description). Ola’h (1969) gives great importance to the internally granulated transparent spores of P. tropicalis, but Gerhardt’s (1996) examination of Ola’h’s herbarium deposits notes only opaque spores. Gerhardt instead gives importance to the form of the pleurocystidia, which are distinctly cone-shaped compared to other Copelandia. I can offer microscopy to confirm the identity of species if needed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
occidentalis Posted March 21, 2009 are you saying that in a national park you are allowed to pick enough plant material to confirm an id for a plant?interesting and useful,i didnt know that Hold on Things may be different in different states - and nearly always are - but in WA, you need a license from the department of environment and conservation to pick any amount of plant material at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zen Peddler Posted March 26, 2009 Cheers Workman - I dont get over on the shroomery now days so im a little behind but catching up slowly - Bluest Meanie... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
