matty Posted June 25, 2005 I was in a state forest in victoria the other day and swear I saw some of these growing off dung. (kangaroo?) there was no blueing reaction well no instant reaction anyway, this was befor I had seen these pictures so was somewhat baffled as to what they were :confused: Are they active? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matty Posted June 25, 2005 Its hard to tell from the picture, but they're quite small (yeah?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiders Posted June 26, 2005 im not really sure - i dont know much abotu them. If they are part of subaeruginosa = then they would be very actve - if not then maybe not Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mindperformer Posted October 20, 2012 something new from P. tasmania or P. subaeruginosa? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
myco Posted October 21, 2012 They look exactly like wat I found here in W.A. Growing from horse shit Very much active but extremely weak Is this the case with these? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chilli Posted October 21, 2012 7+ year necrobump, nice work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SunChaser Posted October 21, 2012 “necrobump”! Damn, your impressive with your savvy little internet terms chilli. But I guess with 26 hundred posts, you were bound to post something impressive eventually. Btw, I was finding what I think was a psilocybe species, which inhabits wallaby (or some macropod) dung in western Victoria about 2 years ago. The lower stem stained blue and it was active. So there definitely out there. Sorry about the shocking quality, it was taken with an old iphone. They do look similar to the ones in post #12 to me. So guess they could be P. Tasmaniana. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chilli Posted October 21, 2012 “necrobump”! Damn, your impressive with your savvy little internet terms chilli. But I guess with 26 hundred posts, you were bound to post something impressive eventually. I am so flattered that you are impressed by me! You have me flushing red and giggling and getting moist in the general vicinity of my labia. When you get to as many posts as I have written you will no doubt impress people who have posted less than you in a similar fashion, by saying 'necrobump' at appropriate times and other such outlandish behavior. And don't worry, the Internet is big so there are lots of words which can be confusing. This is why God invented YouTube. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zen Peddler Posted January 1, 2013 that is one very, very old post. hard to say without viewing cystidia and spores under a scope whether its part of subaeruginosa or not. Looking at it now to me I see coprophila. Also looks somewhat similar to a specimen that I believe Rev found? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mindperformer Posted January 22, 2013 P. tasmaniana is synonymous with P. subaeruginosa (and also with P. australiana and P. eucalypta): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953756209810873 The fruiting body on your picture could really be P. subaeruginosa / tasmaniana in comparison with the picture from the small one on the bottom of this site: http://www.gotgames.com.au/forums/general-discussion-165/psilocybe-subaeruginosa-season-here-100419/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zen Peddler Posted January 23, 2013 Most likely but the best study was by Buchanan and Johnson not Chang and Mills and they concluded that there was confusion about the cystidial forms of tasmaniana therefore it was impossible to determine whether type collections had been contaminated by incorrectly identified collections and that subaeruginosa most likely represents an acclimitised variety of Ps.cyanescens. But yes it is much more likely an unusual collection found in dung would not be part of this family of Psilocybes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
