Observation 26833: Psilocybe allenii Borov., Rockefeller & P.G. Werner
When: 2009-10-18
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Growing in irrigated wood chip landscaping.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Pretty pictures…
By: Hamilton (ham)
2010-05-15 15:19:50 PDT (-0700)

.

creative commons?
By: Dan Molter (shroomydan)
2010-05-15 06:07:47 PDT (-0700)

I wonder if we could publish sequences under the same license used for photos. Photos are intellectual property, as are sequences of words published in books and scholarly journals. Why not publish a sequence of nucleotides under a similar license?

Photos and text on this site are intellectual property in the public domain. We do not charge people money to reproduce them, but we do require citation. The same could be done with DNA sequences published here. Citation is worth more than gold in academic communities.

Inappropriate comment.
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2010-05-15 01:10:47 PDT (-0700)

The comment dated 2010-05-15 04:50:54 ADT (-0300) is crude, vulgar, and clearly inappropriate for this site. This is MushroomObserver. It is not a pornographic literature site or a suitable venue for grade-school-level potty-mouthed insult exchange, let alone both.

Twizzler -
By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2010-05-15 00:50:54 PDT (-0700)

If you remove the stick from your ass, you might not be so butt hurt all the time.

Christian -
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2010-05-14 23:37:10 PDT (-0700)

Is there a justification for the insults with which your comment is liberally sprinkled? I have my doubts.

Biotechnologically-created gene sequences were not at issue here anyway; this mushroom was found growing in the wild.

Investment into the determination of a DNA sequence is not relevant; a) the courts have explicitly rejected “sweat of the brow” arguments for granting so-called “intellectual property” rights and b) there is similar investment into many scientific discoveries, yet we do not allow scientists to copyright the top quark or patent the index of refraction.

As for your statement that my opinion is “worthless”, actually it is a carefully considered opinion. It is, ironically, your own snap judgment of it as unthinking that is more deserving of being scorned for being unthinking.

For further reading, I suggest the blogs Techdirt and Against Monopoly. Both are easy to find from these names with Google and have in-depth coverage of these issues.

If you then decide to consider all of the authors on both blogs, and the sources they quote (including Nobel Prize winning economists) and others, all to be equally “uninformed”, “oversimplified”, “worthless”, and such epithets, well, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but I certainly won’t understand it, let alone agree, at that point.

Twizzler -
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2010-05-13 20:23:03 PDT (-0700)

Your view of intellectual property with regard to DNA sequences is oversimplified.

In many cases, you would be correct in saying that there is no human-authored expression found in DNA sequences. But there are (increasingly many) cases in which this is certainly untrue. Current biotechnological methods have enabled the synthesis, insertion, and in vivo replication of sequences that have been designed down to the last nucleotide. Thus, we see the emergence of a cottage industry providing labs across the nation with PCR primers, vectors, plasmids, cosmids, silencer RNA, you name it. All of them are sequences inspired by nature, but explicitly human-modified. And you better believe they’re copyrighted.

Secondly, even in cases where the sequence is not obviously human-designed, there is still a great deal of investment in the forms of money, labor, facilities, equipment, and education that goes into the determination of a DNA sequence. So even if the sequence is not intended for commercial use, we would have to address the issue of appropriate credit if user-donated sequences were ever to be incorporated into a publication.

And while I don’t explicitly advocate or discourage the patenting of genomic information, I think your opinion of intellectual property as “a farce” “to keep pharmaceutical companies and Hollywood rich” is so superficial as to be worthless.

Big Pharma is easy to lampoon (and I’m not saying I’m wholly in favor of the system as it stands), but currently, society reaps some serious benefits from the continued efforts of pharmaceutical R&D labs. Their kind of research would not be viable by any stretch of the imagination if they didn’t have patent laws at their disposal.

So then what came first
By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2010-05-13 14:15:54 PDT (-0700)

Wow that is an incredible list, how did it happen?
Did each nucleotides evolve individually? or did It evolve into DNA all at once?

What “intellectual property” rights?
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2010-05-13 12:56:41 PDT (-0700)

Can’t be copyright — there’s no original human-authored expression in a gene sequence plucked from nature. Can’t be patent — there’s a billion years or so of prior art.

The concept of “intellectual property” is a farce anyway, invented mainly to keep pharmaceutical companies and Hollywood rich.

DNA sequence,
By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2010-05-13 12:50:59 PDT (-0700)

Nice one Alan, I wondered why I had to scroll for so long to see the images, were you able to compare this sequence to P. subaeruginosa?

what do you mean
By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2010-05-13 12:31:28 PDT (-0700)

we would have to deal with intellectual property rights?
Any way Yes that sounds Great!
if some thing is only 98% like this does it mean it is a different species then?

Long sequences…
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2010-05-13 10:38:01 PDT (-0700)

It would be great to have a page on MO where any sequences obtained for photographed/described collections could be stored, aggregated and searched.

We would have to deal with intellectual property rights somehow.

A search for Hebeloma crustuliniforme would return all sequenced collections obtained for that species, with the options of sorting by geography, collector, etc.

A search for “Psilocybe” would return all sequenced Psilocybe separated by species, then by modifiable parameters.

This would only be useful if DNA sequences start coming in here more regularly. (I think they will).

DNA sequences are in
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2010-05-13 09:51:23 PDT (-0700)

A 98% match to the P. cyanescens in genbank.

I’m Jealous!
By: Micah Courteau (waynegrompsky)
2009-10-19 23:53:29 PDT (-0700)

Very awesome Psilocybe find. I have yet to find any Psilocybes this year. Whereabout in Sunnyvale?

.
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2009-10-18 21:32:15 PDT (-0700)

This place is irrigated, the chips were wet before the rainfall, but didn’t really fruit until the rains came.

P. cyanofriscosa differs from P. cyanescens in that it has more robust, thicker fruit bodies, more rhizomorphs at the base of the stem, less wavyness in the cap, more aggressive mycelium, is less picky about substrate and fruits a couple weeks earlier.

what are the features that make this sp. unique?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-10-18 19:57:34 PDT (-0700)
was this an irrigated area?
By: Richard Sullivan (enchplant)
2009-10-18 19:53:19 PDT (-0700)

I was curious if this spot got other water than rainfall.

wow
By: Shane Marsh (Mushane)
2009-10-18 19:43:49 PDT (-0700)

they look fruitful despite the lack of rain and temps

Created: 2009-10-18 19:19:34 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-09-30 23:44:18 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 1916 times, last viewed: 2017-08-20 20:57:22 PDT (-0700)
Show Log