Observation 199723: Psilocybe subfimetaria Guzmán & A.H. Sm.
When: 2015-02-25
No herbarium specimen

Notes: 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.

Cystidia:
(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

Images

509440
509878
My dad sent me a picture.
514711
pileipellis 800x
518173
Cheilocystidia congo red stain.
518174
Cheilocystidia congo red stain.
518175
Cheilocystidia congo red stain.
518176
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
518177
Basidia; Congo Red.
518178
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
518179
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
518180
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
518181
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
518182
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
518183
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
518184
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
518185
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
518186
Cheilocystidia; Congo Red.
518187
Spores 800x + cropping.
518188
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)
Eye3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Not yet
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2015-06-03 16:28:53 CDT (-0400)

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

How are these doing?
By: Anglerfish
2015-06-03 07:52:29 CDT (-0400)

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 07:00:18 CDT (-0400)

It should be labeled.

what…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2015-04-22 01:47:55 CDT (-0400)

does the pileipellis look like?

A few micrographs
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2015-04-04 13:10:31 CDT (-0400)

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

Hmm
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2015-04-01 15:13:49 CDT (-0400)

A quick link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28S_ribosomal_RNA

I think they meant 28s. Thanks!

Dunno…
By: Django Grootmyers (heelsplitter)
2015-04-01 13:33:59 CDT (-0400)

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 and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2015-03-31 22:52:32 CDT (-0400)

;)

Thanks for the input!
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2015-03-31 22:41:00 CDT (-0400)
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)
2015-03-31 20:27:09 CDT (-0400)

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
`—Hymenogastraceae

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)
2015-03-02 18:36:03 CST (-0500)
Pileipellis could help here…
By: Byrain
2015-02-25 21:59:23 CST (-0500)

Created: 2015-02-25 09:45:07 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2015-05-18 00:30:48 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 671 times, last viewed: 2016-11-23 13:14:24 CST (-0500)
Show Log