Notes: Open area along trail. Birch, hemlock, oak.
Preserved for study.
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.30||1||(Dave W)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
and your white form is one of them; my issue is that we DON’T have rubescens in NA so this name is clearly a misnomer and confusing, even if it has a page on Rod’s website.
When provisional names are being used helter skelter everywhere, why not just admit this one is wrong and put up yet another provisional name that clearly shows what we already know?
Or better yet, start publishing this large and growing backlog of provisional names and wrongly named amanitas.
In the west we also have Validae that start out pure white and then redden. But they have names appropriate for NA, one even published.
In other words, this isn’t a “white form” of “rubescens” at all, but a white member of section Validae, just like some of our western forms.
Rod’s short comment; about 8 deep in the previous comments. Apparently, molecular data suggests this entity has it’s own place among the rubescent Amanitas. (There are other eastern blushers that appear to deserve species status. Presently, I believe these are still named as numerical varieties of amerirubescens.) I’m no expert on taxonomy/nomenclature, but my guess is that “rubescens var. alba” is a name specific to a NA taxon. So if it does deserve species/varietal status, then this name may need to stand as per the rules of the game.
lots of colored amanitas sometimes show white forms.
are you saying that this whitish form is a distinct SPECIES and not just merely a color variant of one of our currently unnamed eastern blushers?
and which blusher would that actually be, since we don’t have the true European rubescens here?
the name proposal is misleading. it is not “rubescens var. alba,” merely a white version of an unnamed eastern blusher.
what do we call THAT, for accuracy here?
On the other hand, the data we’ve built up on the webpage
shows the distribution is rather broad in the eastern U.S.
It’s good to know this. Not a real common species for me.
It fits both genetic and morphological concepts of rubescens var. alba. Sorry this is so brief. It’s been a long day.
Thanks for finding that problem. Luckily, I had instant diagnostic help, and the page is back on-line. (An unpaired quotation mark in an html command. Killer. Computers are so….)
Amanita rubescens var. alba is a valid name. It is incorrect in that it treats a distinctive North American species as a variety of a European one. This will be corrected someday.
For now, we have to used the name we’ve got.
I thought that there was NO rubescens in NA. So which of the several new purported eastern blushers is this a white form of? Or are you claiming this white form to be a true species, and not merely a color variant?
Your webpage on rubescens alba doesn’t open, so no help there!
rubescens var. alba.
Thanks for sending the collection.
Very nice looking material.
Created: 2013-07-13 11:21:33 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2013-07-13 11:21:39 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 133 times, last viewed: 2017-02-04 02:02:20 PST (-0800)