spiders Posted June 5, 2005 I finally got Magicrooms to send me the pictures i assume may be Ps.tasmaniana - there is really no way to be certain, but they grow on shit so they go with the script anywayz. Should be up on the site shortly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiders Posted June 10, 2005 wow - no one replied for ages to assumed no one gave a fuck its coming i promise! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shroom-Aura Posted June 12, 2005 i give a fuck bm, when are you gonna add it to your site? its been down since yesterday so i assume youre in the process of updating your website? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SunChaser Posted June 14, 2005 Tell us when you have them I'd love to see some pictures of those rare little fellas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reshroomED Posted June 14, 2005 Come on man, the audience are getting restless ed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
occidentalis Posted June 14, 2005 I reckon he's just building us up. Gonna keep us in suspense for another week or so... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reshroomED Posted June 14, 2005 Yeh, then post a roo-turd with a gallerina on it . Who moderates this forum? ed [ 14. June 2005, 16:55: Message edited by: reshroomED ] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiders Posted June 15, 2005 Its coming - Ive actaully passed it on to T since he runs the whole thing. As he is in the process of fiddling with the server, there might be a small delay. I can link to it from the shroomery? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiders Posted June 15, 2005 here it is: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.p...&page=2&fpart=2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strangebrew Posted June 15, 2005 Just thought I'd post it here. Thanks BM & Magicrooms! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DuG Posted June 18, 2005 so they are actually found in tasmania? what sort of habitat do they live in? I would like to see one in the wild when i go walking there next. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gerbil Posted June 18, 2005 Woodlovers, but as you can see also on dung. Treat it the same as you would subaeruginosa. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiders Posted June 18, 2005 Its a weird thing - Guzman and watling came out and found this mushroom they named Tasmaniana growing on kangeroo terds near sydney and they found it again in Tasmania - on both occasions it had this VERY unique characteristic of a forked cystidia shaped. This is very unlike subaeruginosa and allies which range from the uniform cleland sub/guzman p.cystidia shape of lageniform (bowlingpin shaped) to the eucalypta mixed bag of cystidia shapes. The fact that they also described quite unique macro characteristics as well - yellowish coloured stem, flat cap, very distant stems and a unique spore size and above all - a shit substrate - makes me firmly believe that if they identified correctly, this is a different species. I did read somewhere that anotehr psilocybe found in victoria and tasmania - Psilocybe argentinea (or thereabouts sp?) which is inactive also has reported forked cystidia - so they could be one and the same and this mushroom may not be active. But if it is an active species, since i am only aware of VERY limited circumstances where a cyanescens family psilocybe will fruit well of shit, I feel that it just has to be a seperate species. Then i saw this picture. It does look quite sub-like = similar to the subs found in Adeliade - yellow-capped and off-white stems. But its fruiting directly off shit and has distant gills. Its gills also ascend quite strongly. Im not sure what it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiders Posted June 18, 2005 But again, it looks very similar to a cubie without the veil. Weird - yeah i reckon it could well be tasmaniana- the stem shape and colour as well as the cap shape and gills - and its fruiting so well off the shit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiders Posted June 18, 2005 Id pay $50 for a spore print of that! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ferret Posted June 18, 2005 nice work with the pic. i thought Guzman and Watling separated tasmaniana from the others on its longer cheilocystidia neck length, >5um, and its dung habitat. but then Chang & Mills went back and remeasured the specimens and found them all to be >5um. then in Chang & Mills' paper they examine 3 collections, 2 from Tas. and 1 from NZ. from pasture land, dung , and soil respectively. ah shit i dunno what it means, its a mystery Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiders Posted June 19, 2005 mmm. Chang and mills state in their paper that they couldnt find any specimens with forked cystidia - the characteristic that Guzman and watling mentioned in their literature. This was the reason that Guzman disputed Chang and mills' findings regarding Tasmaniana, and if i remember correctly, Chang and Mills didnt even find a specimen of Eucalypta that had its four varied cystidia shapes. To throw a spanner in the work, Watling came back and made collections of eucalypta based purely on macroscopic characteristics - and these all had lageniform cystidia and one of these were used in the Chang and Mills study. Stamets also craps on about the fact that Chang and mills had no collections with this forked ccystidia as a means of disputing their study. The best study i feel was the Buchanan study which found that subaeruginosa varied between Guzman's australiana and eucalypta, and that there were no collections available anywhere that actually had the forked cystidia. If i catch up with you ill bring over a copy of each study. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spaced Posted June 20, 2005 I noticed something very similar when travelling in tasmania a few months ago. I dismissed them as being Psilocybe coprophilia due to their liking of indigenous animal turds and lack of bluing reaction. Did these one's undergo any colour change? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiders Posted June 20, 2005 I stand corrected! Fezza - its all a bit confusing. I remember Guzman's PDF contains info on branched c.cystidia, but when i looked through Chang and Mills they have no mention of that cystidia shape. Buchanan and Johnson state that they doubt Chang and Mills collected tasmaniana because they never collected any specimens that had this branched cystidia. But im quite sure - but culd be very wrong - that copropilla and argentina both have some branched cystidia and are not active. Stamets also does not mention the branched cystidia but just says that Buchanan dismissed Chang and Mills claim that they found synonmy with this mushroom because of incorrect collection. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reshroomED Posted June 20, 2005 Excellent. What part of Tassie (vaguely)? Spent a few years on the West Coast and don't remember those, but don't remember seeing any subs either, and i'm sure they're there. ed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reshroomED Posted June 21, 2005 Also, what type of dung? Seems mainly hebivorous, but hard to say from pic. ed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Re[x] Posted June 22, 2005 very nice bluemeanie being a tassie local myself i still havent come across one that i am sure of being a Ps.tasmaniana. i've seen a few mushrooms that look a bit like them but i have never been sure of myself to call them the real thing. cheers for the photo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
