Observation 106019: Psilocybe caerulescens Murrill

When: 2012-08-19

Collection location: Fulton Co., Georgia, USA [Click for map]

Who: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)

No specimen available

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)
2012-08-19 21:49:18 PDT (-0700)

just a realization that a better name applies.

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2012-08-19 20:23:13 PDT (-0700)

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

By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2012-08-19 20:16:31 PDT (-0700)

So when will the name change become official?

By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2012-08-19 20:08:44 PDT (-0700)

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.

Psilocybe caerulescens
By: maynardjameskeenan
2012-08-19 16:55:57 PDT (-0700)

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.

Created: 2012-08-19 16:37:56 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2012-08-19 20:23:26 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 237 times, last viewed: 2017-11-15 10:51:35 PST (-0800)
Show Log