Notes:

Habitat: Sand dunes with pine trees. The specimens growing in the middle of a rural road in the dunes.

Dimensions: up to 6 cm diameter of cap and 6.5 cm for stem lenght.

#### Images

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. | |||||||||

Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||

Promising | 2.0 | 6.47 | 1 | (zaca) | |||||

Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||

Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||

Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||

As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||

Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
1.73 | 57.74% |

#### Comments

Add CommentAfter an analysis of the data and manually producing a summary of the data by my methodology. I am inclined to believe that the two number in square brackets are computed by taking mean values plus and minus a standard deviation. This will not produce a sporograph that is comparable with those on the WAO site. I have sent you the spreadsheets on which I played with your data. I also sent you two emails with some analytical comments. If you think that this material is worth sharing with others via MO, then we could select the parts you found valuable and you or I could post them here.

Rod

It certainly doesn’t produce an output in a format commonly used among taxonomists studying *Amanita*. I would really be curious to know how the two values in square brackets were computed.

Rod

you understood correctly, but I have doubts that “9 is the smallest measurement and 14.6 is the largest”; I think that the software evaluate this values based on all data furnished.

Thanks for the improvements made on WAO about this and related taxa and for your comments.

Kind regards,

zaca

In the case of spore length, I guess 9 is the smallest measurement and 14.6 is the largest. Does 11.2 represent the 5th percentile of your data and 12.4 the 95th percentile? The ranges all seem very limited.

At any rate, the result is that your data precisely lands in the area in which spore size and shape will not distinguish the two taxa. You must have a magic touch. :) I think you’ll need to collect data from other specimens in the collection. I’ll email you the sporograph that I generated from your data based on the assumption that the numbers in square brackets represent the 5th and 95th percentiles of your data distributions for length, width, and Q.

Very best,

Rod

I looked at the spores of one specimen, which are elongated to cylindric. I got the following dimensions:

9 [11.2 ; 12.4] 14.6 × 5.2 [6 ; 6.4] 7.2 µm

Q = 1.3 [1.8 ; 2] 2.5 ; N = 21 ; C = 95%

Me = 11.8 × 6.2 µm ; Qe = 1.9.

According to your comment, I think this points to _A. curtipes, right?

Kind regards,

zaca

I took a look at the WAO website and was displeased to find that I had never posted my material on European amidellas. I have added spore data and environmental data to the following two technical descriptions:

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita+curtipes

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita+valens

On the latter page, I posted a sporograph comparison showing that *curtipes* and *valens* can be segregated rather well by spore size and shape.

Very best,

Rod

*A. valens* is also a possibility. They can be segregated by the spore size and shape.

R

**Created:** 2012-11-08 07:26:30 JST (+0900)**Last modified:** 2012-11-08 07:41:37 JST (+0900)**Viewed:** 105 times, **last viewed:** 2017-09-28 20:34:00 JST (+0900)

Show Log

of comparing the two form of writting the data, concerning the dimensions of the spores, maybe you can summarize them for all of us. I will try to produce more data from the other specimens in due time.

Thanks,

zaca