Mycological Society of America

Review
Author(s): S. A. Redhead
Review by: S. A. Redhead
Source: Mycologia, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1985), pp. 172-175
Published by: Mycological Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3793267
Accessed: 26-05-2015 23:00 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Mycological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mycologia.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Tue, 26 May 2015 23:00:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mycologia,77(1), 1985, pp. 172-178.
? 1985, by The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx,NY 10458

BOOK REVIEWS

The Genus Psilocybe. A Systematic Revision of the Known Species Including

the History, Distribution and Chemistry ofthe Hallucinogenic Species, by Gaston
Guzman. Nova Hedwigia Beih. 74: 1-439, 781 figs. J. Cramer, Vaduz, Liechten-
stein. 1983. Price, DM 200,-.

Monographing the genus Psilocybe on a worldwide basis was a monumental

undertaking. Keys to subgeneric taxa and full descriptions liberally illustrated are
supplied for the 144 recognized species. An additional 323 names were disposed
as synonyms, excluded, or were of doubtful status. An extensive bibliography is
utilized to support the revision and to document the history of the discovery,
rediscovery, use and misuse ofthe hallucinogenic species, as well as to detail the
ecology and geographical distributions of all the species. This book will be the
principal reference on the genus Psilocybe for many years and will serve as the
main frame for all future revisions.
Despite the substantial price there will be a heavy demand for the book from
taxonomists, ethnobotanists, forensic scientists, and researchers, and of course
enthusiastic amateurs. For this reason, the considerable interdisciplinary impact,
a detailed critique of selected items on taxonomy, nomenclature, and general
conclusions, apart from the format, is warranted.
Two major printing errors should be noted. Page 167 precedes page 166, and
the coloured plates are out of consecutive order as is noted on page 437. The
figures on the plates are individually numbered but the actual plates are not
numbered even though the captions refer to plate numbers. Also, figure numbers
are lacking on plates 2, 3, 7, and 8, which begin the coloured series and appear
to be printed in the order 3, 2, 7, and 8 to judge from the fungi illustrated. There
are many spelling and grammatical errors in the text which is wholly in English
with the exception ofthe description of P. schoeneti Bresinsky which is German.
For example "unic" on page 41 instead of "unique." These errors, easily unrav-
elled by those fluent in English, will cause considerable difficulties to translators
or those less fluent in English (or Spanish); however, it should be kept in mind
that Dr. Guzman has endeavoured to publish in a more widely used language in
the sciences than his native Spanish. For this reason he is to be commended.
A few nomenclatural technicalities need comment. The newly proposed see-
tional name Psilocybe sect. Cubense Guzman (p. 245) is an obligate later synonym
of P. sect. Caerulescentes Singer (Sydowia 2: 37. 1948) based on the same type.
Sectional names need not be derived from species epithets. On the other hand P.
sect. Semilanceatae Guzman (p. 342) is acceptable even though it seems to be an
obligate later synonym of "P. sect. Tenaces (Fr.) Sacc." as lectotypified by Singer
(1975). Saccardo (Syll. Fung. Vol. 5. 1887) excluded the type of Psilocybe (Fr.)
Kummer from his treatment of "Psilocybe" thereby creating a later homonym
with which sect. Tenaces was combined. Section Tenaces may not be transferred
to Psilocybe (Fr.) Kummer without creating a homonymous combination, hence
the acceptability of P. sect. Semilanceatae Guz.
The type ofthe new section Blattariopsidae Guz., Psilocybe blattariopsis (Speg.)
Singer, is the type ofthe genus Pholiotella Speg., a fact not noted (p. 100). The
combination "Conocybe blattariopsis" attributed to Rogers (Mycologia 45: 318.
1953) by Guzman was never proposed. Rogers was merely listing proposed re?
jected and conserved generic names, one being Pholiotella Speg., as is now listed
in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (I.C.B.N.). Aside from a
few technicalities such as these, Dr. Guzman has attempted to apply the rules of

172

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Tue, 26 May 2015 23:00:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Book Reviews 173

nomenclature fairly and consistently as is attested by his acceptance of the name

Psilocybe muliercula Singer & Smith (1958) over the name Psilocybe wassonii
Heim (1958) over the objections of Ott (Ethnomycological Studies No. 6. 1978.
Cambridge, Mass.), a reference notably not cited. A second paper addressed (pp.
18, 218) but not cited is Smith's {Mycologia 69: 1196-1200. 1977) regarding the
synonymy of P. aerugineomaculans (Hohnel) Singer & Smith and P. subaerugi-
nascens Hohnel. Dr. Guzman showed considerable statesmanship for objectively
handling a heated debate and cannot be criticized for not directly citing these two
references.
Two important references which were evidently missed are Urbonas {On sys-
tematics and distribution area of the fungi of the Strophariaceae Sing. et Smith
family in the USSR. 3. Psilocybe (Fr.) Kummer genus. Lietuvos TSR Mokslu
akad. darb. Ser. C. 1(81): 9-18. 1978) and VasiFeva (Agarikovye shliapochnye
griby [por. Agaricales] Primorskogo kraia. Akad. Nauk. SSSR. 1973). Both add
considerably to the geographic distributions. A number of inconsistencies were
noted regarding geographic distributions. Psilocybe callosa (Fr.) Quel., P.fimetaria
(Orton) Watling and P. caerulipes (Peck) Sacc, all considered to be hallucinogenic
by Guzman, were cited from Canada: Graham L, [Queen Charlotte Islands], B.C.;
Kouchibouguac Natl. Park, N.B.; and eastern Canada [L. Timagami, Ont. fide
Singer and Smith 1958 op. c] respectively, but these significant northern range
extensions do not appear on Plate 4 depicting the worldwide distribution of
hallucinogenic species. Also noteworthy is the nearly complete absence of reports
of hallucinogenic species from Africa, particularly the lack of documentation of
the coprophilous P. cubensis (Earle) Singer from Africa. Dr. Guzman (p. 30)
suggested that P. cubensis was introduced to the Americas from Africa by the
Spanish via domesticated cattle. On page 57 the introduction of the species is
accepted a$ a fact explaining the Spanish names. However, on pp. 247-248 the
statement is again qualified by the word "surly." Speculation regarding the origin
of P. cubensis is intriguing and educational but the fact that the species has never
been recorded from Africa precludes any conclusions about its origins on that
continent. Dr. Guzman's suggestion that Stropharia aquamarina Pegler, from
Africa, might be conspecific with P. subcubensis Guz. is not supported by pub?
lished data. Pegler's species had a glutinous pileus which was initially bluish in
contrast to the subviscid, brownish red to brownish yellow pileus of P. subcubensis.
A most serious flaw in the monograph, in my opinion, is the failure to recognize
ovate and ovoid spore shapes. Plate I depicts common spore shapes, but ovoid
forms are lacking and neither are mentioned in the text. Instead the user is forced
to place species with predominantly ovoid spores into the subrhomboid or sub-
ellipsoid categories. Spores of 9 out of 10 and 8 out of 18 species treated by
Hoiland {Norw. J. Bot. 25: 111-112. 1978) and Singer and Smith {Mycologia 50:
262-303. 1958), respectively, are ovoid or ovate. Some identifications and syn?
onyms are questionable as a result. Agaricus modestus Peck and Psilocybe sphag-
nicola Smith are listed as synonyms of P. phyllogena (Peck) Peck, but their spores
do not resemble the latter's according to the studies by Smith {Mycologia 48: 669-
707. 1948) and Smith and Hesler {J. Elisha Mitch. Sc. Soc. 62: 177-200. 1946).
Similarly the Canadian collection DAOM 169851 cited as P. modestus (p. 184)
has ovate-lentiform spores and represents to me P. montana (Pers.: Fr.) Kummer.
Under Psilocybe bullacea (Bull. :Fr.) Kummer (p. 165) Dr. Guzman cites Lundell
and Nannfeldt's Fungi Exsic. Suec. 1149 but LundelPs observations on the spores,
"ovate-ellipsoidal" were confirmed by me and therefore differ from Guzman's
interpretation (p. 164) "subhexagonal or slightly subrhomboid in face view, subel-
lipsoid in side view, . . ." allowed for P. bullacea.
Other observations or interpretations are less easily explained. The type of

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Tue, 26 May 2015 23:00:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 Mycologia

the name Psilocybe californica Earle (NY) synonymized with the following, has
a well developed gelatinous pellicle (pers. obs.) as does the type of P. castanella
Peck (Smith, 1948). Dr. Guzman reported only "a thin subgelatinous hyaline
pellicle,. . ." and the key choice (p. 288) leading to P. castanella is "Pileus without
a separable pellicle."
The treatment of section Semilanceatae which contains the most important
temperate hallucinogenic species needs further revision. For example, coloured
Figure 759 labelled P. fimetaria (Orton) Watling is to me P. semilanceata (Fr.)
Kummer, as is DAOM 169937 from New Brunswick, Canada, cited as P. fime?
taria, and Guzman-16658 from Washington (NY, spec. exam.) cited as P. callosa
(Fr.: Fr.) Quel. The application of the name Agaricus callosus Fr. to species of
Psilocybe, despite confusion with P. semilanceata by Fries in 1821 is not ac-
ceptable. The species name was originally proposed by Fries in 1818 for a black-
spored species with a basically white pileus and stipe, and ascending-adnate la?
mellae and a subradicating stipe. Panaeolus papillonaceous (Bull.: Fr.) Quel. is
about the only species fulfilling all of these requirements.
A number of statements or conclusions are based on errors or to me miscon-
ceptions. Psilocybe uda sensu Ricken from Europe is listed as a synonym of
Psilocybe paupera Singer from southern Brazil based on statements by Singer in
1953. Singer supposed that P. uda as treated by Ricken and Konrad and Maublanc
lacked the characteristic chrysocystidia of the true P. uda because none were
mentioned or illustrated by those authors. Failure to observe these structures by
Konrad and Maublanc and Ricken is insufficient reason for assuming another
taxon exists in Europe and Singer's suggestion should have been questioned.
Konrad and Maublanc failed to observe chrysocystidia in Hypholoma capnoides
(Fr. :Fr.) Kummer, Hypholoma dispersum (Fr.) Quel., and Pholiota astragalina
(Fr.) Singer, etc. where they occur. The continued use of the name Psilocybe
angulata (Batsch) Singer following Singer (Beih. Nova Hedw. 29, not Nova Hedw.
29) despite advice from Leiden is surprising. The basionym, Agaricus angulatus
Batsch (1783-89) was based on Micheli (1729, figure 4, t. 74, p. 146) and the
species epithet refers to the angular pileus and has nothing to do with spores
contrary to Dr. Guzman's statement, "The name of the species is related to the
form ofthe spores . . ." (p. 164). Listing "Geophila inquilina Fr. sensu Kuhn. &
Romag.," as a synonym is incorrect even for the concept accepted by Guzman,
as Kuhner and Romagnesi (1953) reported the presence of a gelatinous pellicle
not found in P. angulata sensu Guzman. The concept adopted for P. angulata
was based on Chilean material and probably represents an unnamed species. The
sole basis for the recognition of such a species in Europe is the Persoonian material
which Singer (1961) proposed as lectotype. Although it was said to be in good
condition and gelatinized tissues were not noted, the fact that no cheilocystidia
were noted in the Persoonian material whereas they are abundant in the Chilean
material indicates to me that either two taxa were involved or the Persoonian
material was not well preserved. Failure to observe a gelatinous pellicle in poor
material is insufficient evidence to recognize the existence of "P. angulata" sensu
Guzman or Singer (1969) in Europe.
A number of well described species were considered doubtful or excluded
because materials could not be located. Whereas this is acceptable for incompletely
described older named taxa it does not seem warranted when full macroscopic
and microscopic descriptions are available. Psilocybe cordobensis Singer (Beih.
Sydowia 7: 83. 1977) was originally described without chrysocystidia and therefore
should have been acceptable in the genus Psilocybe as accepted by Guzman.
Psilocybe mesospora Singer (Beih. Nova Hedw. 29: 245. 1969), P. sierrae Singer

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Tue, 26 May 2015 23:00:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BookReviews 175

(l.c. 240) and P. valdiviensis Singer (l.c. 251) are all too well described by a
recognized agaricologist to be dismissed and not included in the keys.
Although I have detailed weaknesses in this monograph, Dr. Guzman's book
is an impressive publication. A wealth of facts and ideas is presented in the book
and there are innumerable leads to follow. His treatment of the tropical species,
especially those of Central America, is detailed and will not be soon surpassed.
His contribution, based on firsthand knowledge of those species, their ecology,
distribution, and cultural uses, represents an important record for all who are
interested in the history of hallucinogenic mushroom cults.?S. A. Redhead,
Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0C6.

Illustrated Genera of Rust Fungi, Second Edition, by G. B. Cummins and Y.

Hiratsuka. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. 1983.
152 p. Price, $14.00 APS members, $16.00 nonmembers.

The first edition of this book was a boon to students, plant pathologists and
general mycologists. It was also a time saver and inspiration for anyone involved
in detailed ecological and evolutionary rust studies. Its main fault iay with the
illustrations. Those of the telia were excellent but the rest were not. Antedating
the study of Hiratsuka and Cummins {Mycologia, 1963) in which eleven pycnium
types were recognized, pycnium drawings usually lacked critical detail. Many
drawings of aecia and uredinia were so stylized as to be misleading. Urediniospores
are occasionally more distinctive than teliospores even at the generic level. In the
new edition aeciospores and urediniospores are described and/or illustrated ac-
curately in accordance with diagrams for shape, markings and pore patterns in
the introduction. Pycnium types (now 12) are illustrated in the introduction and
identified to type in the text. The introduction also deals with life cycles, host
relationships, Tranzschel's law, etc.
Keys to sections and to genera of each section are given. The sections are not
wholly natural, and several genera appear in two sections. Genera are numbered
in the keys, enabling the user to turn to the description without using the index.
Generic descriptions are followed by selected references, nomenclatural changes,
glossary and index. This edition recognizes 105 genera, against 95 in the first,
including several recently named or resurrected, and two new ones: Frommeella
and Arthuriomyces.
The most startling change is a radically new classification. Cummins did not
commit himself in the first edition (1959), at which time Dietel's 1928 classifi?
cation, of two families with several tribes, was widely followed. Indeed, when I
recognized five firmly based families (Evol. Biol 9: 137-207. 1976) I intercepted
some flak as a splitter. Well, the new edition proposes 14 families. (I am a lumper!)
The situation is not entirely horrendous. Three families, Pucciniastraceae, Puc-
ciniaceae s.str. and Phragmidiaceae, are essentially as I defined them. The authors
note that most Phragmidiaceae are on Rosaceae; more importantly, except for a
few Kuehneola species, all are restricted to subf. Rosoideae with which Phrag?
midiaceae clearly co-evolved. Raveneliaceae (sensu meo) is split into four families.
I saw two clans in the family, which I refrained from terming Ravenelieae and
Uropyxideae because there were various genera that I could not place with con-
fidence. The new split is not fully convincing. I question the removal of Uro-
mycladium, which evolved on Acacia isolated in Australia, from Raveneliaceae

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Tue, 26 May 2015 23:00:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions