Observation 199723: Psilocybe subfimetaria Guzmán & A.H. Sm.

When: 2015-02-25

Collection location: Nordland, Washington, USA [Click for map]

Who: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)

No specimen available

Growing from the same substrate as all the Panaeolus cinctulus last summer, completely as natural as can get in a greenhouse, I added no spores, or mycelium. So its pretty special little soil apparently.

Update: Checking spores tomorrow.

(Forgot to average, I will)
20.98 5.04
16.04 4.46
17.00 4.38
20.89 5.10
20.47 4.77
22.90 5.61
22.90 6.76
20.04 4.23
24.02 5.49
20.46 5.36
22.83 5.88
19.67 5.70
26.11 6.20
21.29 6.91
23.31 5.69
20.32 5.40
19.07 5.21
19.04 3.65
25.58 4.55
19.06 4.79
19.50 4.17
19.14 4.73
25.58 5.54
22.40 5.33
22.43 4.72
17.23 4.65
18.84 4.58
18.49 4.82
19.96 4.76
17.91 4.10
24.02 5.67
19.65 6.35
25.34 6.26
19.40 5.00


My dad sent me a picture.
pileipellis 800x
Cheilocystidia congo red stain.
Cheilocystidia congo red stain.
Cheilocystidia congo red stain.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
Basidia; Congo Red.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
Spores 800x + cropping.
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.

Proposed Names

-46% (6)
Recognized by sight: On dung, tawny color, has a pellis, mycenoid gestalt, fibrils decorating stipe, scant PV on pins
-55% (6)
Recognized by sight
-55% (6)
Recognized by sight
27% (4)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Not yet
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2015-06-04 03:28:53 WIB (+0700)

ive been super swamped, but its been on my mind consistantly

How are these doing?
By: Anglerfish
2015-06-03 18:52:29 WIB (+0700)

Really excited to see the result. Did you get the full-grown fruits under the scope?

It is that first micrograph.
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2015-04-26 18:00:18 WIB (+0700)

It should be labeled.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2015-04-22 12:47:55 WIB (+0700)

does the pileipellis look like?

A few micrographs
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2015-04-05 00:10:31 WIB (+0700)

I have many more and I have to do another round of micro.
I will post the rest at one time, but heres a few to digest in the mean time

By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2015-04-02 02:13:49 WIB (+0700)

A quick link.

I think they meant 28s. Thanks!

By: Django Grootmyers (heelsplitter)
2015-04-02 00:33:59 WIB (+0700)

here’s a quote from the paper “Here we present an analysis of 1090 DNA sequences for 146 genera and 238 species of euagarics and assemble them in a supermatrix of 5611 characters from six gene regions, rpb1, rpb1-intron2, rpb2, 18S, 25S and 5.8S rRNA, in an effort to assess the phylogeny of the Agaricales.” I searched for 28s and didn’t find anything. I don’t really know a lot about molecular genetics, so I can’t say if that’s correct.

thank god…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2015-04-01 09:52:32 WIB (+0700)


Thanks for the input!
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2015-04-01 09:41:00 WIB (+0700)
I have a quick question.

Why is the study looking at 25s ribosomal RNA that is found in plants? The fungal DNA would be 28s no?

I finally got my lab equipment back. I can Post micro tonight, ill look at the spores and cystidia first. and go from there.

Psilocybe is in Hymenogastraceae
By: Django Grootmyers (heelsplitter)
2015-04-01 07:27:09 WIB (+0700)

which is nested within Strophariaceae sensu lato. From Matheny et al. (2006): “Indeed Bayesian analyses of datasets II and III significantly support…the union of Hymenogastraceae and Strophariaceae s. str. Although not illustrated in our trees, the type of Hymenogaster (H. builliardii) is nested within the Hymenogastraceae clade (Peintner et al 2001). A recent 25S rRNA only analysis suggested a rather inclusive treatment of the Strophariaceae (Gulden et al 2005)”. Hymenogastraceae is either a clade within Strophariaceae or closely related to it depending on your definition of Strophariaceae. Basically:

Strophariaceae sensu lato
|—taxa not in Strophariaceae sensu stricto or Hymenogastraceae
|—Strophariaceae sensu stricto

All of these are valid clades. Personally I think Strophariaceae sensu lato should just be referred to as Strophariaceae, since it’s a valid clade and has been in use for quite a while and Strophariaceae sensu stricto should be given a name like “Strophariae”. Hymenogastraceae should be kept since it’s a smaller clade than Stophariaceae sensu lato. It doesn’t matter that they both have family-rank since enforcing ranks is silly anyway .

Psilocybe isn’t in Strophariaceae…
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2015-03-03 06:36:03 WIB (+0700)
Pileipellis could help here…
By: Byrain
2015-02-26 09:59:23 WIB (+0700)

Created: 2015-02-25 21:45:07 WIB (+0700)
Last modified: 2015-05-18 11:30:48 WIB (+0700)
Viewed: 715 times, last viewed: 2018-02-07 18:09:13 WIB (+0700)
Show Log