|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.79||2|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||9.71||2||(Herbert Baker,AmatoxinApocalypse)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Inteesting to see the differences in color.
Now collected.. Not very good pictures, but the colours are pretty accurate, from grey to brown.
I found Secretan’s description of umbrinolutea. It says a “jaune bistré” cap with a blackish umbo and a darkening striate margin. I have never seen anything that could be called yellow (-“lutea”) in these, which I have been calling battarrae because of the distinctly zonate cap, although the cap colour seems to vary from a pure brown to more greyish brown. It would be interesting to know how closely related they are to submembranacea.
I will do my best and try to collect and make better documentation of Amanitas this season (including close pictures of gill edges and volva, of course..)
Just like with everything else I’ve looked at lately, primarily Genus Cortinarius and Russula, but not exclusively, we need to see a good set of molecular data from well documented collections before we can start “making our mind” on what is what on a species level. We need it also in order to direct our research. It is perfectly likely that we have a couple of hidden species in that complex, as well as some that are the same but vary greatly in appearance. We will certainly see that across Europe things are not monotonous, but have a gradual shift, like what I see here in Western America, which can be applied to morphological features, if one goes back and look at them again. I will almost certainly collect a bunch of Amanita from that group during my European trip in a couple of weeks, and will get it sequenced eventually, but the lack of quality European data to compare against is a problem that renders a lot of ids rather speculative. Additionally to me at least the micromorphological data can be hard to interpret conclusively. So, what’s the good news in all this? WE, the people who love these studies will probably move them forward – I do not see how an institution can hire a student and train him anywhere near the level of a passionate amateur in understanding what goes on in the field. The institutions will have to pair more and more with us and rely on us the amateurs, as we’re actually the professionals when it comes to walking that Earth and seeking these species…
My concept of A. battarrae (which is now A. umbrinolutea ss. NEVILLE & POUMARAT): http://mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name/14973?q=1EGb
My idea of A. umbrinolutea (which disagrees the concept of N & P and might be their concept of A. battarrae, but might also be yet another species): http://mushroomobserver.org/27953?q=1EKM
I appreciate both your persistence and your kindness.
I fully agree with the statement of Rod concerning the problems of the publication(s) of Neville & Poumarat. They have exhaustive macroscopic descriptions and often many collections, but miss often important details in microscopical features. On the other hand, I like that they lay importance on ecological circumstances as well, though they lay too much stress on it in my opinion. So I’m the same opinion here as Rod, but think that ecological circumstances may well have some importance – but of course only when there are anatomical differences as well.
Let me try to shorten it.
I agree that at least the second picture of this observation appears to be a species of the submembranacea group.
I have edited one of my recent posts to eliminate two sentences.
In my opinion, the choice to eliminate some anatomical microscopy in favor of increased dependence on ecological information was an error by Neville, Poumarat, and the friends who helped put the recent publication (cited by Andreas) together. The difficulty in reasoning about taxa based on tree associations is illustrated in the cited work by descriptions of species with very different spores coming from different collections that are considered to be a single species without sufficient taxonomic review of the material. Secondly, the species descriptions in the work are not comparable to those of other workers because of the elimination of key taxonomic characters from the descriptions. This means that all the species will have to be reviewed all over again by persons who rely on anatomy for species definition.
When only a few collections of a species exist and the authors EXPECT different species to be associated with different woody plants, it is very unlikely that evidence will be found that a given species has multiple symbionts. On the other hand multiple taxa may be combined because they grow under a single tree. Only anatomical study can break a mycologist out of such a self-set trap.
Without going into further detail, I have a number of problems with the cited work.
On the other hand, I felt that the section of the work that deals with the segregation of umbrinolutea and battarrae made the case well…although I don’t have much faith in the information about distinct tree associates of the two species.
Did you read already the new treatment of this two species by Neville, Poumarat & Redeuilh in “Fungi non delineati LI-LII, 2009”? Here the authors distinguish between an mountainous species under conifers with distinct zonation on the cap, a more brownish cap colour and a distinctly rusty coloured volva to which they apply the name A. umbrinolutea – and a species from decidous forest with less pronounced colouration change in the cap, a more grey cap colouration a whitish volva with only a few rusty spots which they give the nam A. battarrae.
The problem is, that what they now give the name A. umbrinolutea is in 90% of all books and publications called A. battarrae in Europe. What they now call A. battarrae has been sometimes been mistaken for A. pachyvolvata. I agree to that, but have two remarks to it: First were my findings of the A. pachyvolvata-like fungus from coniferous forest and should therefore not be the fungus N & P call umbrinolutea. Second is, that in my experience the species from conifer forests is the one which tends to be grey and the one from decidous forest is brownish. So just the other way round as N & P describe it ….
I know their A. battarrae as a fungus from decidous forests on neutral to basic soil, with (nearly) white volva etc. Just judging from the colouration of the cap, I have always had the fealing that THIS should be the real A. umbrinolutea ….
The fungus here shown by Irene is in my opinon still A. submembranacea b.t.w.
best regards, Andreas
Over the last few months there have been a number of posts on this topic on MO. In them the case has been made for the two species to be segregated. I accepted the segregation after reading the protolog of battarrae.
While I have carried out a detailed revision of A. umbrinolutea, I have not been able to do so on material that might be A. battarrae. There is no type collection of either fungus; and the literature is confused.
As a consequence, it is not possible to know how many characters separate A. umbrinolutea from A. battarrae. I have never read anything that wasn’t either confused or very incomplete. Having been able to ascertain that there were color differences in the taxa as they were described, the conservative thing for a mycologist to do (especially a mycologist who has never seen one of the two taxa) is to accept the European mycological position that accepts both names.
I apologize for any confusion that may be caused by the old Amanita Studies site. I am unable to maintain it while I am working on its replacement. The new site will have A. battarrae as an accepted name with a separate description when the new site is formally announced.
If that’s the case why do you say A. battarrae is a taxonomic synonym of A. umbrinolutea?
Are these species separated only on the bases of the cap color?
According to Dr. Bas that would only get form status.
Amanitopsis battarrae Boud., Bull. Soc. mycol. Fr. 18: 272 (1902)
Amanita umbrinolutea (Secr. ex Gillet) Bertill., Bull. Soc. mycol. Fr. 26: 139 (1910)
I’m going to erase my previous email (references to books from memory) and wait until I can get home and give a coherent answer after actually looking at the books!
>> my interpretation of umbrinolutea is based on […] the Fungi of Switzerland series
But the foto of Amanita battarrae in Fungi of Switzerland undoubtly represents Amanita submembranacea! I can not comment on the specimen, as I have not examined it, but the foto is not Amanita battarrae.
My concept of “A. castaneogrisea” is based on the type material of A. submembranacea var. bispora D. A. Reid (the intended basionym of A. castaneogrisea) and fresh material of the species collected in Scotland and Norway. I have never seen (or read of) a zonate pileus in the case of A. castaneogrisea. The second picture is hard for me to interpret in terms of its color and could be either A. submembranacea or A castaneogrisea (and I wouldn’t want to exclude some other option that I don’t know about).
As to the first picture, my interpretation iof umbrinolutea is based on the original description, […cut erroneous item..], material collected by Bas in northern Europe and Switzerland and deposited in L and Himalayan foothill material from India and Pakistan (all of which was examined in detail microscopically). The Tulloss et al. article about Pakistan amanitas contains a published description from which the text (I think) is downloadable from the Amanita studies site A. umbrinolutea page. If you segregate, umbrinolutea and battarrae, I would very much like to know the details by which the segregation is made. Also, one or more literature sources that makes those distinctions would be something that I’d be very glad to know about. As far as I could tell, the material that was available to me represented a single species; however, that doesn’t exclude the possibility that I completely missed a second taxon.
Thanks for the push for an answer. I hope that this correspondence will lead to clarifications.
Why do you think the first to be A. umbrinolutea and not A. castaneogrisea? And is the name umbrinolutea in use for battarrae, or is this another species in your eyes?
Just two minutes between the photos, they were growing next to each other. It was never in my mind that they could have been two different species (and I still don’t think so). Could these patches of veil have caught a bluish reflection from the sky, maybe..?
Well, must look closer to these in the future. It’s always more interesting to collect and make more efforts with them, when you know there are people out there that can help.
Sunny, warm, and very dry woods here right now. The mushroom season is at least a month away.
I wonder if Irene could tell us if these two photographs show the same specimen at different stages? I agree with Andreas that the second image is at least CLOSE to S. submembranancea. However, the first seems to me closer to A. umbrinolutea.
I beleive we have a lot of misunderstood and poorly known species in Vaginatae.
These are seen almost every year at the same spot, and I’ll try to get more detailed photos (as well as saving collections, as I have promised Ret).
I hope to find this one again too (I wonder what that is):
Created: 2008-11-07 02:53:58 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2010-07-25 08:30:04 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 431 times, last viewed: 2016-09-17 15:51:13 PDT (-0700)