Observation 104258: Amanita parcivolvata (Peck) E.-J. Gilbert
When: 2012-08-07
(39.5093° -81.8038° )
No herbarium specimen

Notes: no idea. Doesn’t match anything I’ve seen in keys. White uv remnants, striate margin abruptish bulb

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
I’ll go
By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2012-08-10 18:33:24 PDT (-0700)

to the locale of the observation and see if I can find the one :)

You have found yet another species of Amanita.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-08-10 17:37:27 PDT (-0700)

You seem to have the touch. :) This one is a species of sect. Caesareae I think; but I can’t tell which one. It has a ring on the stem and (I think I see) a sac on the base of the stem.

Amanita parcivolvata is not cooperating with you, but its distant cousins are showing up instead.


By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2012-08-10 16:03:26 PDT (-0700)

those pics I removed were of one of today’s collection, these are the other…it?

By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2012-08-10 15:50:36 PDT (-0700)

I’ll pay more attention next time Rod, and get the ones you want. I hardly ever see tiny amanitas in the woods around here and I typically don’t look at them very hard. Mostly I forage for food :)

parcivolvata always lacks a skirt/ring on the stem.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-08-10 15:31:58 PDT (-0700)

If you make a new observation, and post the new pictures there, I think it would be a good idea.


good thing
By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2012-08-10 15:12:02 PDT (-0700)

I asked before I sent them then. I will visit the locale of the first pics soon and search for the right ones :)I thuoght they were just sun-faded, but no comparing the pics, not the case :(

Mixed collection
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2012-08-10 15:08:31 PDT (-0700)

The first 2 pics are A. parcivolvata and the second 2 pics are close to A. gemmata.

ok, I will :)
By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2012-08-10 14:56:43 PDT (-0700)

they did come from very near each other (within 100 yards) I can also give you gps coordinates of the local. I will upload a pic to this observation momentarily, just so you can confirm it is the right entity. Would you like colecions from multiple locals? these 2 were found about 3-4 miles from the original observation

Regarding the specimens…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-08-10 14:35:03 PDT (-0700)

I’d be glad to receive both. If they come from the same place, you can package them in a single plastic bag…as a single collection.


By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-08-10 14:31:39 PDT (-0700)

I didn’t realize that the html mark up characters would be replaced by empty quotation marks! Place these characters without intervening blanks or quotes at the end of all province or state names: “<” “/” “big” “>”… This is what I was trying to say before.


thanks Rod!
By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2012-08-10 13:37:46 PDT (-0700)

your the best! I’m checking out the list now :) also I have collected 2 specimens and they are drying. How many would you like?

We have found a way of eliminating the “false positives”.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-08-09 07:44:14 PDT (-0700)

You can add to the end of each state/province name "". For example, “Ontario” will not find the town “Ontario” only the province “Ontario” because we format the state and province names in larger font size than the geographic entities contained in the states and provinces. You can just add the additional characters to the end of every word in your search list (search takes place on our HTML-marked-up text).

We had never thought much about this issue of using “search” for your purposes before. However, I think we’ve now come up with something of value to you.

Very best,


Cristina and I are looking at your potential output…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-08-09 07:41:10 PDT (-0700)

and we see that the directional words “North” and “West” are causing a lot of stuff to be pulled in from “West Australia” and place data containing the word “North”. This will not be a problem for our checklist builder, but it is a problem for your using search. We recommend removing these two words (and the extra appearance of “Virginia” and trying again.

When we did that we still got a couple of ringers “Ontario, OR” pulled in armillariiformis, and “Virginia Garland Ballen” pulled in calyptroderma.

So you have more filtering to do than I would have hoped for. I think you should try adding Jersey, Kentucky, and Illinois to the list as well.

When we tried this, we got a total list of 123 taxa without duplication that we could detect in a quick review. You will still have to eliminate the two species mentioned above. There are a few things missing in Limacella because we didn’t add New York (you might add “York” to the string) and because we don’t yet have all the type localities for Limacella on the site.

Sorry about this clumsiness, but it gets you something close to what you want. We need to put the finishing touches on our solution and get a beta version on line. We’ll get to that after we get the basic genetic page up and running.

Very best,


it does help!
By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2012-08-08 19:06:53 PDT (-0700)

thanks, that will make my searching much easier :)

One of the most important elements of doing macrofungal studies in the U.S. is…[edit]
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-08-08 18:56:51 PDT (-0700)

to have a lot of collaborating collectors that show you the stuff that you never find yourself. Peck learned this during his career, and all of us in the NE have benefited tremendously from the resulting publications of species. It’s the only way to go. Among the reasons for the website is a combination of “give back” and “pass forward.”

Now that a North American Mycoflora project has been floated, the need for broad collaboration is greater than ever.

I’m glad you use the site. We’re working on checklists and other things that we hope will make it easier to come up with a set of good regional choices for various regions of the continent.

In the meantime, you can define a set of states that make up a region of interest for you and use the list as a search string to get a primitive checklist based on present features of the WAO site:

Example: Let’s say that you set up a region like this (no commas):

“Ontario Quebec Ohio Indiana Pennsylvania West Virginia Maryland Virginia North Carolina Tennessee Kentucky” […the word “Virginia” doesn’t need to appear twice…]

Go to


Enter the string (without quotes) in the input field for the search. In the field to its right, click for the drop down list and scroll down a little beyond halfway and select “materials examined”. Start the search.

The search will first look for the complete string in the “materials examined” data fields of all the species on the site. This will probably fail. The search will then look for species that are reported from all the places in the string. This will have very few, if any, results. Then the search will look for species with specimens reported from one or more of the states/provinces named in the string. This will produce the output that you want defining the species FOR WHICH WE HAVE DATA SUGGESTING THEY EXIST IN AT LEAST ONE OF THE STATES/PROVINCES LISTED IN THE STRING. Save this list of taxa. This is your regional checklist. It might help for you to sort the list by section.

In the future we plan to have illustrated regional checklists with added information such as spore measurement and shape data.

I hope this helps. If it does, please pass it on.

Very best,


sounds good!
By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2012-08-08 18:20:26 PDT (-0700)

I often times visit your site, since there are so many species listed there and when trying to id an Amanita, it helps to have options. I often find amanitas that I struggle to identify using keys in my books or the web. In the future, I will post my sightings and keep specimens, so if you see anything that tickles your fancy, you can have a better look at it. I’d be happy to contribute :)

That’s great, Leighton.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-08-08 14:04:43 PDT (-0700)

We got a new-to-us location for A. parcivolvata at the Northeast Mycol. Foray last weekend in PA. To also get material from a new-to-us location in Ohio is very nice.

I’ll use this posting as an opportunity to say that we are in the process of having our whole herbarium of amanitas converted to web-accessible data via Dr. Scott Bates (mycoportal). Also, he has extracted the list of species that is known from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico…presents these North American lists for both Amanita and Limacella. I’ve seen his trial translation program output, and it looks very good. When the data is on-line, we’ll add a link to the specific page in mycoportal which provides access to the data.

Then you (and all the other folks who have sent us material over the last 35 years) can see the data from our herbarium labels…including the names of collectors, etc.


I saw several today
By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2012-08-08 13:32:40 PDT (-0700)

and gps’ed the locale. I can hopefully get out there tomorrow and collect you some :)

I suspect that there was no sign of an annulus on this one.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-08-07 19:34:59 PDT (-0700)

If that is correct, then it is A. parcivolvata.

If you get a chance to collect this species and dry a few, I’d love to have it for the herbarium here in Roosevelt.


Created: 2012-08-07 18:35:57 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2013-01-01 11:38:19 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 203 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 05:02:09 PDT (-0700)
Show Log