Waterdragon's mushroom specimens

[spiders]

Finally got some feedback from one of the three mycologists that are examining your specimens.

As im sure you guessed, the pale gilled specimen was sterile and sporeless - possibly similar to the other pale-capped specimen.

I should have results from this first guy by the end of the weekend.

[waterdragon]

smooth.

[spiders]

Some early results:

A is the Azure look-alike

B is the pale gilled specimen

C is the pale capped specimen

d is the suba lookalike.

I think youve got something very interesting there - B and C are unique!

Link: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.p...vc=1&PHPSESSID=

more info as soon as possible.

[waterdragon]

okay, A and D are not the same species. no way. they are found a few miles apart and grow with distinctly different shapes. A was found growing under pine in a large patch. D was found under bracken and native plants beside the roads. different shaped caps. my offer still stands if u want to do a field trip next season - i'm in the snowy mountains region near the victorian border, just a short drive from corryong. B and C may be related as they can be found growing in the same patches as well as one other type that is hard to attribute to a,b,c or d. the ones labelled as pale-capped have a very dull finish ie a matt fawn colour.

[spiders]

Well Id love to come up and have a look around next year - might even try and get some time off in advance for that.

Although the mushrooms may look very different macroscopically, they are both growing in lignious wastes and it appears that they have the same spore size and pluerocystidia. However, until we have time to sit down and really examine these mushrooms for sure, we dont know one way or another.

That being said Subaeruginosa itself has been collected not only on a variety of lignious wastes (wood / mulch debris) but also on manure and grass wastes - and its macroscopic variations in form are quite unique for Psilocybe mushrooms - ranging from petite light gilled orange capped mushrooms with bands on the cap to thickly stemmed mushrooms with dark brown wavy caps similar to ps.cyanescens.

I should mention that the results are tentative and that the proper basis for identification of psilocybes is generally by microscopic and not macroscopic means.

Until we have good mounted pictures of these gill fragments using KOH where we can see the shape of the pleurocystidia without a doubt it is hard to say.

At the end of the day, the results are extremly interesting simply because they demonstrate that we have two definate wood-loving psilocybe entities in Australia atleast - and this is an important breakthrough!

Next we will have spore measurements to help the identification

[This message has been edited by bluemeanie (edited 24 August 2002).]

[This message has been edited by bluemeanie (edited 24 August 2002).]

[waterdragon]

all this progress can only be a good thing.

[spiders]

D has smaller spores than the others - make that possible three species! Im coming up there for sure next may

[spiders]

ive sent the specimens on to two other mycologists and the initial results from the second guy are as follows:

A,C and D have ellipsoid thick walled yellowish to hyaline spores.

B has thin walled hyaline spores.

A,B and D have classic lageniform to sub-lecythiform with the odd mucronate hyaline pleurocystidia - C had only a few lageniform hyaline cystidia.

B and C had a different colour gill which he feels was due to the immaturity of the specimens. I have explained that these two are actually uplifted with possible full-maturity but he's results are a litle different to the first.

Ill keep waiting on further results.

These indicate that this could be all one wide-ranging species - good old Subaeruginosa - unlike the other two results ive got back. Ill keep you posted.

[This message has been edited by bluemeanie (edited 03 September 2002).]

[waterdragon]

if indeed these are all subs then they must be different variants or mutants of subs because they are all distinctly different at maturity. they all look like standard psilos when young ie before the cap spreads and the veil breaks. you could try to grow the spores and you will see the difference between the varieties, i'm confident that if you can view these buggers in situ then you'll end up confused as i am.

[waterdragon]

if you decide that field trip is the go then try to bring a digi camera or somesuch, putting the pics on the shroomery might get some thoughts going.

[spiders]

Well im not making any conclusions now - suffice to say that id be surprised if they are all Subaeruginosa proper. Im still waiting patiently for results.

I dont think pics on the shroomery will help - impossible to identify aussie natives by site alone although MJshroomer may try and think otherwise.

The best bet here is detailed analysis of sporesize, pleurocystidia and other microscopic features.

Ive germinated the three (well only A and D so far) on agar so ill have them in the garden by next year hoopefully - along with a suspected ps.tasmaniana, ps.Eucalypta, an odd unknown psilocybe from NSW and well compare with the native melb psilos

[spiders]

Ive got more results:

A - lageniform to lechy. p.cystidia indicates that is is our classic Ps.Australiana/Subaeruginosa (which ever you want to call it)

B and C have mucronate p.cystidia with the rare lageniform. p.cystidia have small apexs, some on B have a slight hook on one side and a third type that is more common with c has a shape like 'a round tit with elongated nipple.'

D has four types of p.cystidia differing in the length of the apex all Ventricose Rostrate.

I dont have any books here at the moment as so i cant do any research - ill try and do a search to determine which mushroom if any are know with B,C, and D's microscopic characteristics.

[theobromos]

Quote: "although MJshroomer may try and think"

[spiders]

To get a definative answer we will need to conduct a protein test or something like that.

Anyway, im moving towards the conclusion that firstly Stamets is wrong about ps.Subaeruginosa - this mushroom has hyaline lageniform to lechy. pluerocystidia with large spores 12-16 by 6-8. This mushroom is nearly identical to Guzman's Australiana.

Of this microscopic mushroom there seems to be two distinct varieties - the orangey-capped, umbonated, heavily translucent/straite Australiana lookalike or the wavy-capped brown-capped mushroom that ranges in size significantly.

Waterdragon's version looks strongly like Eucalypta rather than Australiana.

Next we have Waterdragons strange looking B and C mushroom that is very thin-stemmed and light gilled, with a flat non-umbonated cap.

It had three types of hyaline p.cystidia, cylindrical mucronate, a cylindrical type with a strange hook and a tit shaped cystidia with a central nipple.

D has four types of p.cystidia ranging from egg shaped to three variations of ventricose rostrate.

It could be possible that D is Psilocybe Eucalypta as described by Guzman and it fits microscopic characteristics - although the spore-size hasnt been measured.

B and C seem very unique and it doesnt really fit any of Guzman or Cleland's psilocybes.

[This message has been edited by bluemeanie (edited 12 September 2002).]