Collection location: Franklin Parker Preserve, Chatsworth, New Jersey, USA [Click for map]
A single specimen growing in a sand dune. This was collected from the North Gate / Airport section of FPP.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.29||2||(IGSafonov)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Thank you for all your efforts and the material that you have sent to me over recent years.
You certainly deserve an answer to your questions.
It was easy to find that MO #114563 (herbarium no. 555-8) was sequenced successfully, and that information has been posted on MO.
17 collections suspected of being either dulciarii or vulpecula were sampled for sequencing. Of these, 9 yielded nrITS or nrLSU sequences. Most of the “failures” were samples derived from old collections (starting as early as 14 Oct. 1991). The success rate on younger collections (since August 2003) has been quite good. The latter period includes material from Franklin Parker Preserve and other southern NJ sites from which you sent me material.
The earliest of these is dated 3 Oct. 2010 (Franklin Parker, herb. no. 468-9 nrITS). The others are 25 Oct. 2012 (Franklin Parker, herb. no. 555-8, MO #114563), 14 Oct. 2013 (Wharton St. Pk., herb. no. 577-7, MO #148482), 3 Nov. 2013 (Franklin Parker, herb. no. 577-8, MO #151270), and 16 Nov. 2013 (Bertha’s Canal, herb. no. 580-1, MO #??).
The present collection was sequenced because I am currently working on about 500-600 collections from my herbarium that have had “sect. Amanita” or a name of a species thought to belong in that section on their herbarium labels. This “dragnet” scooped up this collection.
I had not planned to keep sequencing dulciarii material at the present because I had reached a point at which I thought I had a good set of sequences and needed to move on to species for which I had no genetic information.
Because of this decision, the following material has not been sampled for sequencing: MO #144001, MO #151105, MO #151169, MO #151171, and MO #179833. I intend to use these collections for enriching the morphological data on the species.
Thank you for the update.
I don’t know if this obs is the ‘last “vulpecula”’… There is still obs 148482, aka the “vulpecula” holotype, and a more recent collection of similar material, obs 181603. I believe both are in your hands.
In addition, there are a number of suspected dulciarii and/or dulciarii look-alikes the FPP team deposited in your herbarium in the past, e.g., obs 114563, obs 144001, obs 151169, obs 151171, and, most recently obs 179833.
I had been maintaining this collection in sect. Amanita, but can no longer do so. We have obtained a “proposed fungal barcode” sequence from this material. The closest match is to A. dulciarii; and the match is very, very close. So, this is the last “vulpecula.” And now it is dulciarii. We are swamped with work at the moment; so it will take a little while for the website to catch up with this news.
I’ll keep a look out for the package.
It looked like a beat up specimen of A. dulciarii in the field. The orangish snake skin pattern on the stipe and pinkish-orange volval patches seemed to indicate so. I agree that the stipal base looks weird for sect. Vaginatae, but there is a lot of dried up dirt/sand on the top of the volva that probably adds to the thickness. As far as the picture colors are concerned, these were taken with a flash that tends to redden the images. Anyway, this material will be shipped to you tomorrow along with 6 other FPP collections from Nov. 3rd, all of which have already been posted on MO.
Maybe those short striations on the cap edge are do to aging and drying int he field.
I think there is a bulb at the base of the stem. And isn’t that reddish bruising on the cap and stem surfaces?
Created: 2013-11-04 14:16:17 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2017-12-29 17:03:55 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 99 times, last viewed: 2018-04-11 15:12:17 CDT (-0400)