Psilocybe semilanceata

[Zen Peddler]

Where did you get that info? My friend had a collection of alutacea when I got him involved in looking at aussie species and it was inactive and looked quite different to semilanceata. Sure its from the same family but it was quite distinguished macroscopically from semilanceata. For a start if I remember it had a reddish stem and looked quite different to your average active variety.

On the other hand there are confirmed collections of semilanceata in the melbiurne botanical gardens herbarium and I know of one collection on Mount Buffalo that was 100% confirmed based on cystidial examinations and spore measurements as well as obvious macroscopic characteristics.

lastly I wouldnt put much creedance on Guzman's work. The man delineated species based on flimsy reasoning and at times quite shoddy collection techniques.

[tripsis]

Chang, YS and Gates, G and Ratkowsky, DA. Some New Species of the Strophariaceae (Agaricales) in Tasmania. Australasian Mycologist. 24 (3) pp. 53-68 (2006)

Edit: I agree with your comments about Guzman. Having said that, taxonomy of fungi is not easy. More DNA testing would no doubt help, but all delineations above species is pretty arbitrary anyway.

By the way Zen, what's your background? You seem to have in-depth knowledge on the subject.

Edited September 23, 2009 by tripsis

[SunChaser]

Some of you guys wouldn't be getting confused with panaeolina foenisecii would ya. Cause they roughly kind of resemble semilanceata and they grow in grass in big bunches just like semilanceata and although I know a lot of people here will tell me there not active, I've actually found a few hundred fresh to be active, although when dried have absolutely no effect. I'm positve it's not psilocybin either, it is more of a uplifting MDMA sort of buzz, which is the main reason I thought that some of you might be refering to foenisecii since other people have described the exact same high.

I disagree that there easy to identify though, I mean Ive found shrooms in melbourne a few times that look just like them in everyway, yet have no noticable effect.

[Zen Peddler]

But that article didnt describe bluing did it? If it did I have a friend who lives quite close to Mount Field and I could arrange for him to have a look about.

My background isnt botany academically or anything but I got interested a while back and two of my friends were PhD students in relevant fields so they helped me out a bit.

Mind you hours of looking at cystidia through a cheap scope can give you a migraine LOL.

I made a wenbsite that used to be on here that catagorised all the known active species from Australia and through access to some of the herbariums I was able to piece together a fair bit. Unfortunately some of what you hear is based on heresay - like the cubensis finds near geelong and on the peninsula - could be true but we never saw any out that way.

[tripsis]

It does mention blueing in the comments section. Have a read of the article here if you don't already have it or have access to it.

I don't doubt that some of what you hear is hearsay, but some has basis in truth. Just last year, someone off the Shroomery who lives in Melbourne sent a bunch of samples away to Workman to identify. Most of what he had were subs, but he also found an unidentified Psilocybe species and another closely related to P. tasmaniana. It goes to show that there is still much to be discovered out there and much of what we think we know may be something else altogether.

[Zen Peddler]

Funny, I spoke to Workman recently and he never mentioned this to me at all. Surprising given I used to moderate the hunting forum on the shroomery with a particular interest in Australia finds.

tasmaniana is synonymous with subaeruginosa and there were no forked cystidia found in any of the type-specimens/collections of Guzman and Watling which they used to describe Tasmaniana. What this means is that Guzman and Watling described a mushroom that they did not actually have in their collections so obvious errors were made.

A thorough search by Chang and Mills as well as Johnson and Buchanan also failed to find any mushroom that had the microscopic or cystidial forms of tasmaniana. No forked cystidia where found in any of their quite thorough collections.

So when Workman stated that the mushroom resembled tasmaniana Id be surprised, since he was aware of our work (where we did not find a specimen that looked like tasmaniana and we had people from all over Australia contributing at the time).

It should be noted that most subaeruginosa specimens from Victoria and WA do not actually have classic lageniform or ventricose cystidia - they all have lechniform cystidia in Melbourne which is at odd with all the published material on them.

Collections from NSW seemed to vary more in line with what was published about subaeruginosa in New Zealand.

SA subs were more divergent from subs elsewhere than azurescens is from cyanescens. Interesting mushrooms...

As for unusual collections from Melbourne - possible but unlikely. Possible in that cystidia variations are possible, but unlikely in that there is a second non-compatible woodloving psilocybe growing in melbourne either on our unique lignious substrates or on manure.

I did receive an interesting collection from a guy on this site but it turned out to be subaeruginosa with strange cystidial forms in some locations.

Here is a cut and paste of some earlier work we did:

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

[Zen Peddler]

Thanks for the article link BTW. I never got that one as I was convinced to lose interest in this field for a while just before it became available. LOL.

[botanika]

Zen, if they were in fact the same species or very closely related do you have any theories as to how this could happen? Could wind systems take spores from PNW to Australia or perhaps logging equipment with spores transported from PNW to Australian forests?

[Zen Peddler]

I remember Stamets thought that azurescens was an import from the baltic where some kind of grass that azurescens is associated with came from.

As for subaeruginosa and cyanescens - well subareuginosa does well in Australia on our local woods like eucalypta, but it also does well on pine and pine bark and a variety of other woods. In New Zealand it is also common where eucalyptus is rarer. So its a pretty hardy entity.

It could be an import from winds but it wouldnt be from somewhere tropical. This means that it would have had to travel a long way - but the recent finds of that Psilocybe in San Fran from Japan lend support to the possibility.

Another idea was that subaeruginosa is a recent arrival - cyanescens that came with earlky settlers somehow and has gone through minor changes over a short period of time as part of selective phenotype expressions that were required to colonise our woods.

They are very similar either way - more so than most other species of Psilocybes.

[tripsis]

It's interesting that you say P. tasmaniana is synonymous with subaeruginosa. I was under the impression that it was a separate species, but suaeruginosa, eucalypta and australiana were one and the same.

Anyway, the link of Workman's microscopy reports for the Australian collection are to be found here. He clearly seems to think tasmaniana and subaeruginosa are somehow distinguished from one another. He also mentions the unknown Psilocybe species (specimen 4).

However, I just noticed that in this thread, which has been more recently edited, specimen 4 - the "unknown Psilocybe species" - has been changed to possibly being tasmaniana.

[mac]

Could wind systems take spores from PNW to Australia

The dust storm we had last week made its way over to NZ so i cant see why spores couldn't travel into the jet stream & find their way around the globe

Australian dust storm settles on new zealand

Edited September 30, 2009 by mac

[Zen Peddler]

Thanks Ill check that out. It was assumed synonymous because when you go back and look at the original collections made by Guzman and Watling when they described it, none of the type specimens even have its cystidial characteristics. Chang and Mills and then Johnson and Buchanan both pretty much suggested that no specimens of tasmaniana as described by Guzman and Watling had been collected or placed in any herbarium since their description, and none were found when they attempted to find specimens - the assumption being that none were found either in the field or in Guzman's type specimens because none actually exist.

If I remember correctly, tasmaniana was distinguished by forked c.cystidia? I cant remember 100%.

The collections from all over Australia - from the Nightcap Nat Forest in Northern NSW, Penrith/Blackheath and redfern in NSW, Canberra and surrounding area, Northern Vic, Otways and Colac, Ballarat, Grampians, All over Metro Melb, two collections from Tassie (burnie and launie) , three from Adelaide (Salisbury and somewhere in the hills) and a number from Perth. I think a guy even supplied a number from NZ if I remember - none had forked cystidia and the few found in dung had similar shaped cystidia to other subs - I think one collection had weird thicker cystidia but it was a minor variations. We generally found classic lageniform (bowling pin) shaped cystidia and the globey ones that were either like a globey bowling pin or an arm with a round ball at the end. These could vary to ventricose or mucronate a little but they were much rarer and would turn up randomly in collections rather than being collection specific.

The strange thing is that collections of Panaeolus cyanescens can differ so drastically under a microscope and yet be still cross compatible. Minor variations in cystidia alone is really a poor way to classify species - its like calling red heads a differnet species - we are talking about microscopic sterile cells on a gill face and edge. Guzman has used it in Psilocybes but in most other families of mushrooms I doubt they are considered as being that helpful in differentiating mushrooms into species.

[Zen Peddler]

Im not a member of the shroomery anymore so I couldnt view that - ill see if i can get on to Thor to get my old membership reactivated.

[tripsis]

I'm not sure if forked cheilocystidia are the defining feature of tasmaniana, I've never really studied the microscopic features of fungi much. Workman mentioned long-necked cheilocystidia though.

That's an impressive range to study specimens from. I really am surprised that over the entire range, you found nothing different. Subaeruginosa seems to be pretty damned widespread. To add to that is the arguement of whether they are synonymous with cyanescens or not.

But I agree, many of the features we use to delineate species seem to be rather minor and arbitrary. I realise that we need something to distinguish between one species and another, but sometimes it's just grabbing at straws. Some people wish to use even the smallest difference as a means to split one species into several, while others want to clump many into one. At the end of the day, the idea of a species is a human concept and can be pretty arbitrary. The BSC has credibility, but not for everything. Animals it works well with, fungi it seems to work well for, but plants and bacteria it does not do well with. Even DNA sequencing is relying on differences that we as humans decide are important.

Anyway, if you can't access Workman's journal, let me know. Maybe I'll copy and paste it to here if he doesn't mind.

[Zen Peddler]

Oh sorry we did find differences - but not major ones. Length of cystidial forms, but most shapes were pretty uniform. The SA subs were quite different however - mucronate if I remember correctly, similar to that sub that a dude here found in manure once in North East Victoria.

I will eventually get off my arse and rejoin the shroomery and have a look. Workmans account on here doesnt take mail so Ill have to get on there to chat to him anyway.

cheers for the info man.

[apothecary]

sometimes it's just grabbing at straws. Some people wish to use even the smallest difference as a means to split one species into several, while others want to clump many into one. At the end of the day, the idea of a species is a human concept and can be pretty arbitrary.

Hehe I dunno if you caught Michael Bocks talk at the mini EGA or not, but from my understanding, the "splitters" are about to have a field day with the genus Psilocybe.

[tripsis]

I did, but I forget what it was he said exactly. I recall it striking me as not correct from what I had read, but it could be. Time will tell.

This is what I have read is likely to happen. The type species for genus Psilocybe - Psilocybe montana - in non-active, so when the split comes, all non-active species will remain under the genus Psilocybe. All active species however will be shifted to the genus Weraroa, where the active Weraroa novae-zelandiae is the type species. This has implications too, as apparently (although I never read a follow up) there was DNA testing done on W. novae-zelandiae and it is actually a Psilocybe (an active one), meaning that all other species of Weraroa will need to be shifted elsewhere too.

[Zen Peddler]

Weraroa sounds so much fucking better in my opinion.

[The Dude]

Weraroa sounds so much fucking better in my opinion.

[stewie] "I don't like change!"

nah change is good, but c'mon!! It already took me long enough to get around the pronunciation. Reminds me of the echinopsis thing, that never stuck, we still call em trichs.

I'm sure the myco-nerds got their reasons, I didn't get a single word of this conversation, just good to hear about semis in aus, I excite!

[edit]

Jabez you crazy fool! I can't believe you eat non psilocybin mushrooms! I'd be hella scared, although now that you've done the crazy guinea pig studies i wanna give the panaeolina foenisecii a go!

"Panaeolina foenisecii seem to possess a psychoactive quality common to many little brown mushrooms. Symptoms of this unique form of inebriation are usually typified by inclinations to argue about inconsequential details, semantics, and jargon ad infinitum." - shroomery

Wiki source says: In 1963 Tyler and Smith found that this mushroom contains serotonin, 5-htp and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid

I'm no neurochemist but would ingesting the serotonin present in the shroom up the brains levels and be akin to the mdma serotonin rush? + obviously other chemical interactions.

Edited December 1, 2009 by The Dude

[SunChaser]

I found P. semilanceata in grass land just behind my property today, in central western victoria.

Found 3 small specimens this morning and was sure they were liberty caps, but couldn't find anymore. Anyway a few hours ago I found 1 more mature specimen and it has unmistakable blue staining on the base of the stem.

The spore print I got is very weak, but looks brown to me.

I have pictures, although I have no camera and the pictures are just off my phone and very bad quality, so I'll only post them if anyone is interested.

Like I said I only found 4 for now, but if theres anyone who knows how to identify them under microscope and is interested in confirming there P. semilanceata, that'd be really cool. But I do have blue staining, so that's confirmed it for me.

Anyway I'm stoked, I really hope there's a patch of them out there for me.

Peace

[tripsis]

Yes, we are very interested in the photos. Also, you should definitely send some gill samples away for microscopic analysis.

[naja naja]

Yes please and ask a friend if u can borrow a better digital cam if u can and try and get us sum mre pics. PLEASE!

[SunChaser]

Ok, I've been out all morning looking for more and managed to only find a very small patch of a few young ones under an acacia, havn't seen any blue staining on these ones yet, but I'm positve there the same. It was only that one older more mature one I found by it's self yesterday that has blue staining, none of the younger specimens seem to stain blue.

Anyway I warned ya about the quality.

[tripsis]

They don't look like liberty caps. They look like a Panaeolus spp.

What makes you say they are?

[ferret]

if sporeprint is brown then unlikely to be panaeolus. the photos look like they have brownish gills rather than pan's mottled black/grey, and makes them more likely to be conocybe in my opinion. could even be galerina.