Observation 106019: Psilocybe caerulescens Murrill
When: 2012-08-19
No herbarium specimen

Notes: I observed some nice patches of these today while out looking for edibles. It’s amazing how many of these are fruiting at the moment.

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
It’s not really a name change
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2012-08-20 00:49:18 CDT (-0400)

just a realization that a better name applies.

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2012-08-19 23:23:13 CDT (-0400)

Since P. caerulescens is the original and correct name, feel free to use it!

By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2012-08-19 23:16:31 CDT (-0400)

So when will the name change become official?

By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2012-08-19 23:08:44 CDT (-0400)

Psilocybe caerulescens has been described many times under different names. When it was origionally described from Montgomery, Alabama in 1923, Murrill missed the pleurocystidia. It can be hard to see because it is rather small and the spores often get in the way. Later, when people found the same species they noticed pleurocystidia and described it as new. This has happened around 7 times. I think P. caerulescens is the best name for this collection because it is the oldest name. Alonso is the expert in this area as he has taken a close look at the type collections and has a pretty good idea what kind of variations exist.

Scoping Psilocybes is not an exact science unless you spend a lot of time and consider the full range of variations in several fruit bodies.

By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2012-08-19 20:02:30 CDT (-0400)

Oh I was not upset, just curious. I hope I didn’t come off as being upset, I have had other members play games with me before that is all, no worries.

I don’t get upset that easily. I would like to see some information about what Alan is saying though. Also if its not named caerulescens now then what is wrong with using weilii?

There was a collection that was posted on the shroomery a few years ago that workman did the microscopy on and that was Ps. caerulescens, he said it was not weilii, so obviously caerulescens must differ from weilii but in what ways? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Edit: Here is the collection from SC from 2008 that workman worked on.


Thank You.

Psilocybe caerulescens
By: maynardjameskeenan
2012-08-19 19:55:57 CDT (-0400)

I Didn’t mean to upset you.
Alan Rockefeller says that all weillii are Ps. caerulescens. When weillii were discovered they were realized to be very similar to caerulescens , but the location in georgia and a misinterpretation of microscopic features (if what alan says is correct that is) led to it being a new species, when in fact it is the same as Ps. caerulescens. Some people have speculated about this for years, its cool to hear its going to be official. In the next couple of years they will prove to me synonymous.

By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2012-08-19 19:43:55 CDT (-0400)

maynard, why do you think these are Psilocybe caerulescens?

I have been around weilii for many years, I am sure that these are weilii, but I am curious why you would think they’re caerulescens.

I would appreciate it if you would back up your claims rather than playing around with the voting system here. This is not like other mushroom websites, this is a site that is to actually learn about all fungi, not just Psilocybes. I understand that on some other sites playing around might be OK, but please keep things professional here.

If you would care to back up why you think these are caerulescens I am all ears.

Thank You.

Created: 2012-08-19 19:37:56 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2012-08-19 23:23:26 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 220 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 02:36:09 CDT (-0400)
Show Log