Name: Psilocybe "franciscana"
Preferred Synonyms:Psilocybe allenii Borov., Rockefeller & P.G. Werner
This is an unpublished species that has been collected in the San Francisco Bay Area and Humboldt County for over a decade. It is also know under another unpublished name, Psilocybe “cyanofriscosa”. I am giving a different name here, as I plan on publishing this species under the name Psilocybe franciscans, using the proper Latin epithet for “of the San Francisco Area” and not continuing the trend of excess use of “cyano-”, “caerul-”, and “azur-” species names in this genus.
The species has been misreported by Stamets as Psilocybe cyanofibrillosa, a species quite distinct from the P. cyanescens group. P. cyanofibrillosa proper has yet to be reported outside western Washington.
This species is distinguished from Psilocybe cyanescens by a consistent set of macromorphological features. The pileus has a distinctly convex to hemispheric shape and non-wavy margin that is quite different from the wavy shape of P. cyanescens. (Though, like most agarics, the pileus may take on a certain waviness as it becomes uplifted with age.) Second, the pileus color of the freshly emergent pileus (prior to hygrophanous fading) is yellowish brown to medium brown, rather than the distinct butterscotch to medium orange-brown color of fresh P. cyanescens.
When growing on fresh nutrient-rich substrates (eg, “gorilla hair” mulch, woodchips with large amounts of broken down leaf material included, etc), the fruiting bodies of this species can grow to be quite large and robust, and very strongly blue-staining.
Several observers report some differences in seasonality between these species, with P. “franciscans” reaching peak fruiting in December and disappearing by the end of January, while P. cyanescens reaches its peak fruiting in January and continues to fruit well into March or later. However, the seasonality significantly overlaps and the two species can sometimes be found fruiting in close proximity.
Stamets also reports a distinct culture characteristic of this species, namely, the ability to grow in a unique “cyclonic” or spiraling pattern, though most workers who have cultured this species do not report this behavior in culture. (I will note that I have seen one of Stamets “cyclonic” cultures first-hand, though I did not get a detailed description of what culture techniques were used and how this might induce a different growth pattern than that observed by others who have cultured this species.)
Sorry that I did not respond earlier.
The two words do not need to agree in case, number, and gender. Adjectives, yes, two nouns, no.Placing a non-Latin word into one of the declensions is difficult as there is no right or wrong. That being said, Francisco was a male, so it would make more sense IMO to treat the word as 2nd declension, which consists mostly of masculine nouns. That is entirely my opinion however. In that case, the genitive form would end with “-i,” and you would be expressing “Psilocybe of (location).”
Interestingly, the examples you provided seem to be incorrect if the intent was to say, “of San Francisco.” The endings are correct if the authors’ intent was to make Francisco an adjective. “Franciscan” is an adjective in English, so it does work, but it completely changes the meaning of the phrase.
IMO, naming a species, “Psilocybe of San Francisco” makes much more sense than calling a species, “Franciscan (like the monks) Psilocybe.”
There is some excellent information about Latin grammar on wikipedia, using search terms, “Latin grammar” and “Latin declension.”
edit: While I know very little about ancient Greek words, I believe Psilocybe is feminine, so in any case, neuter endings would not apply here when using adjectives.
It appears to be a misspelling on my part. “franciscana” or “franciscanus” is a standard epithet for “of San Francisco”, but I may be conjugating it wrong. Compare Battarrea franciscana, Castilleja franciscana, Rubus spectabilis var. franciscanus. If there is a neuter conjugation that better matches the ending -e, I’m not aware of it.
There are no pigmented cystidia in P. subaeruginosa, they are all hyaline and I suspect that what Dr Guzmán was looking at represented a different species or the cystidia appeared pigmented due to some unknown factors, possibly contamination or preservation methods, to top it off the syntype examined by Dr Guzmán is now lost!
The macroscopic and microscopic characteristics of P. subaeruginosa agree nicely with those described for species belonging in Section Cyanescens and the spore length more commonly ranges between 12-13µm not 13.2-14.3µm as the description states, only very occasionally will you see spores that range between 14-15µm.
Here is one of my old observations of that species with some micrographs, I am able to make much better micrographs now but will have to wait until April-July to make a new collection and will also be able to get some DNA sequencing done to make comparisons, this was an unusual find because it was in Native bush not urban wood chip landscaping and the fruit body looks slightly different to the wood chip specimens, lighter in colour and a bit taller than usual.
If Guzmán’s description is correct. P. subaeruginosa has distinct brown cystidia, not hyaline, as in this species and in other members of the P. cyanescens group. Also, the spore size of P. subaeruginosa is somewhat larger than in the P. cyanescens group, averaging around 13.5-14.0 microns in the former, versus 12-12.5 for the latter. That doesn’t sound like much, but 14 cm spores are on the extreme end of the range of variation for P. “franciscans” and are not terribly common.
Again, I think all species and type collections of Psilocybe need to be gone back to, looked at, and photographed with fresh eyes and newer microscopy to get more accurate measurements and descriptions. I’d love to know if there’s anybody studying Australian Psilocybe (and I don’t just mean on the level of macro features, but microscopy and sequencing as well). There are a number of species in Australia that are related to what occurs in western North America, and having side-by-side comparisons would be very helpful. If anybody in Australia is doing this work, I’d love to exchange material.
This name is proper Latin. Since the species is undescribed and ugly, and since common usage does not seem to play a role in preferred common names on MushroomObserver, I am deprecating P. “franciscans” in favour of P. “turpis”.
Until this species is formally named does it matter what we call it if it is at least proper botanical Latin or Greek?
Because this will never be published under its “Shroomery” name, Psilocybe cyanofriscosa I don’t that should be the preferred name, period. I wouldn’t deprecate any name (except for any version without quotes around it, in its present unpublished form), but the MO setup seems to require a preferred name and deprecates all others. If there’s a way around this, I’d like to know.
In response to Caphillkid, you are not correct. Binomial names are Botanical Latin, no matter what language either part of the binomial name comes from, and follows Latin gender, suffixes, and other rules. (Digression: interestingly, if the name is taken from somebody’s surname, the pronunciation of that part of the name follows that of that person’s country of origin)
Appropriate Latin suffixes of the genitive form would be “Francisc-i” or “Francisc-is.”“-ans” is not a Latin ending meaning “of the.” You need to apply a Greek or Latin genitive case suffix to the word to give it that meaning. The reason “cyan” is applied here is because it is the Greek for “blue.” [Edit] I believe I misunderstood the discussion of “cyclonic” so I have edited my statement.
I do not see why the name Psilocybe “franciscans” is a “better name”. The species is unpublished, and thus, any name applied is a common name. With common names I tend to think that the most commonly used name is the best name. There is no reason that a common name needs to be in correct latin. I think the preferred common name is P. “cyanofriscosa” because it has been in use for years before you started calling the species P. “franciscans”, and a lot more people recognize it as “friscosa” and “cyanofriscosa”.
When you describe it as P. franciscans I will start using that name as the accepted scientific name. Though I do not see the common name P. “cyanofriscosa” dropping out of favour.
A better name for this previously unpublished species of Psilocybe, and the proper Latin epithet for “of the San Francisco area”. More importantly, this is the name I plan on actually publishing for this species.
This species is clearly distinguished from P. cyanescens on the basis of consistent differences in pileus shape and color of the fresh sporocarp, as well as slight differences in seasonality.
Created: 2010-05-22 22:58:32 PDT (-0700) by Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
Last modified: 2012-12-13 18:25:49 PST (-0800) by Jason Hollinger (jason)
Viewed: 1321 times, last viewed: 2019-04-10 10:51:43 PDT (-0700)