Observation 16158: Amanita Pers.
When: 2009-01-02
No herbarium specimen

Notes: This fungi was moved to take the image. It is in some way similar to Obs image 8189. The stipe is not the same and I cannot find a reference that fits the image.
WOW, That was quick. Before I had finished loading the images the fungi had been identified for me. It was SO fast I thought I had suggested an incorrect name when creating the obs. Mant thanks. KK
The cap of the fungi that I showed was a “very dark chocolate brown” at first site. This has not been portrayed in all of the images.
Another small obs that I made was that the stipe did not have an annulus, but this may have fallen away?.
********************************************************
New images added.
Please accept my apologies for the image quality. I used a new conversion programme to change the file sizes from Raw to JPG. Some information was lost in the conversion.
Also as you noticed the images are not as sharp as usual. I must have been having a bad day and the leeches were intolerable.
When I cut the specimen I noted that the veil was still separating from the cap, and it was very distinctive from the fleshy part of the cap. I attempted to peel it back but not wothout difficulty.
I have great difficulty in getting spore counts in this area as the track is not retreative but circular and the terrain is difficult. Most of the fungi in this area are found in a gorge that is very steep on both sides. Pleasae note that the images to be viewed are in numerical order. When I deleted the old images one remained and I was unable to delete it. It may go when I refresh the screen. I have colour matched all the images and they were taken in natural light and I have also sharpened them as will be obvious at 100%.
(I have removed the image successfully that was in the first group.)
Image 34211 shows what I saw as a grey covering about 1mm in thickness between the cap top face and the outer most area of the cap. As I noted earlier I attempted to peel it back for a better view of its structure but this was not easily done. It broke away each time I tried to peel it back.

Images

34207
Copyright © 2009 Ian Dodd Kundabung NSW Australia
34208
Copyright © 2009 Ian Dodd Kundabung NSW Australia
34210
Copyright © 2009 Ian Dodd Kundabung NSW Australia
34211
Copyright © 2009 Ian Dodd Kundabung NSW Australia
34212
Copyright © 2009 Ian Dodd Kundabung NSW Australia
34213
Copyright © 2009 Ian Dodd Kundabung NSW Australia
40133
Copyright © 2009 Ian Dodd Kundabung NSW Australia
40134
Copyright © 2009 Ian Dodd Kundabung NSW Australia
40135
Copyright © 2008 Ian Dodd Kundabung NSW Australia

Proposed Names

-12% (4)
Recognized by sight
73% (4)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
ret
-30% (3)
Used references: Amanita Studies web site species page.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Absolutely,
By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2012-05-23 04:45:16 CDT (-0400)

This is definitely not A. nehuta which is always lacking an annulus.
http://mushroomobserver.org/63497?q=Fzmh

Amanita sp.
By: Clive Shirley (myxo)
2012-05-23 03:47:51 CDT (-0400)

I have never seen a ring or evedance of one. A few seasons back we had a bumper crop of A. nehuta in the Auckland region so I have seen a lot of them.

Ever find it wih a ring?
By: Cristina Rodríguez-Caycedo (Crispeta)
2012-05-23 03:04:53 CDT (-0400)

Clive, I was wondering if in your experience, you have ever come across a specimen of A. nehuta that had a ring?
Even though one is not reported in the protologue, it was not based on the observation of numerous collections.
The page you linked shows images that (from the parts of the fruiting body that are visible) fit the protologue descriptions and therefore support the exannulate stipe.

Amanita sp.
By: Clive Shirley (myxo)
2012-05-23 02:51:35 CDT (-0400)

Been familiar with A. nehuta I see no resemblance between this and Ian observation. http://hiddenforest.co.nz/...

nehuta and subvaginata are not ‘too fat to fit in there’
By: Cristina Rodríguez-Caycedo (Crispeta)
2012-05-22 12:30:10 CDT (-0400)

From measurements given in the descriptions by Gilbert (1940) and Reid (1980) for A. subvaginata, the cap and stipe of the images here are much too large to fit well. Small size seems to characterize A. subvaginata:

Reid: ‘Pileus up to 1 1/4 inch in diameter […] Stem, 1 1/2 inch long, […] base a little bulbous […]’

Gilbert: ‘Pileus up to 3.2 cm. diam. […] Stipe: sub-bulbous, short, up to 3.9 cm.’

In Ridley (1991) the description of A. nehuta, as well as the figure showing the habit and section of the species, do not seem to fit the robust-looking specimens in these photographs:

Basidiocarps of A. nehuta are said to be very small to medium, with a pileus up to 65 mm wide and stipe up to 75 mm tapering slightly from a clavate or abrupt bulb 10-16 mm wide.

The habit of A. nehuta is very much like that of A. farinosa, with a slender stipe (cylindric or narrowing upward) and small subabrupt bulb. The decoration on the stipe of these specimens discard A. nehuta, which can be compared to a possible A.nehuta photo in Michael Wallace’s observations (i.e. 63497, 19637).
I am of the opinion that A. nehuta and A. subvaginata are not possible candidates for what is shown here.

Coming back in 2012… [edited]
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-05-21 20:00:37 CDT (-0400)

The gray ring on the stipe eliminates the possibility of subvaginata for which no ring is reported. [Or the ring was missing in the original material of subvaginata? Possible, I suppose.]

Somehow I missed the posting of the second set of photos which make the ring very clear in this species. But even in the original photos it’s there.

It can’t be A. nehuta either for the same reason…the ring.

The stipe base looks bulbous to me; and the cap margin is striate. The shortest gills seem rather squarely cut-off in photos of the second collection. So it could belong in sect. Amanita nevertheless. If so, it seems that the cap surface must take a rather long time to gelatinize; the volva seems to persist in an evenly distributed manner up to maturity if not longer.

R

Three new images added

Rod & Debbie, I have added three new images of which I believe is the same species as the original loaded. The images are sharper and high resolution.The species was found growing in an area close to where the original was found. This last specimen was also taken from a cavity in a large trunk. Please see images 40133-35)

Now I see the marginal striations
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-01-09 09:23:41 CST (-0500)

OK, Deb. I see the marginal striations. Section Lepidella is probably not the home for this creature. We can focus on sect. Amanita. This helps alot. There is a reproduction of a painting from the protologue of A. subvaginata on the subvaginata page of the Amanita Studies site (I just saw some old typos on that page. I will fix them ASAP). [DONE 9:45 am EST]

I would say that the specimen you photographed is very similar. And…I’d say Michael’s suggestion of that name (below) was as right on as one can be from a photo

IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET DRIED MATERIAL OF THIS SPECIES? I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A HALF COLLECTION. The remainder should stay in Oz.

One of the curious things about the original illustration is that it shows what appears to be a limbate volva on the stipe’s bulb. Maybe I’m wrong about the possible “limb” in Ian’s photo. Another reason to obtain dried material if possible.

Very best,

Rod

Replaced images

Please see the replacement images for this specimen. My apologies for the poor quality images. I have manually resized and colour corrected each image. I hope you can see a difference. Originally I used a new Image Conversion programme to batch resize, but it looks as if some image detail is lost during the resizing.
KK

Deb’s comment…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-01-08 11:37:16 CST (-0500)

The striations on the farinosa group’s caps are long and very well-defined. I interpreted the markings on this cap edge as fine splitting of the volval covering of the cap. It does seem that the warts are surrounded by a nearly continuous layer of grayish volva. Can you help us with our interpretations, Ian?

R

More thoughts…no conclusions…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-01-08 11:34:21 CST (-0500)

Sect. Amidella can be eliminated be cause of the basal bulb on the stipe and the lack of the typical volval sac. Sects. Phalloideae and Validae can be eliminated because of the absence of an annulus (and, in the first of these sections, by the lack of a limbate volva). If the spores were amyloid, then we have only sect. Lepidella as a possibility. I don’t think I can match the specimen to a species with confidence due to lack of microscopic data. The match is not terribly good, but you might consider A. griseoconia D. A. Reid, which was described from the state of Victoria.

I’m interested in hearing any suggestions from others.

Very best,

R

No volval sac…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-01-08 10:28:33 CST (-0500)

I also think that sects. Caesareae and Vaginatae can be excluded because the stipe has a true bulb and no volval sac. The apparent limb shown in some images seems to be the result of the flesh of the stipe’s splitting.

R

I disagree, Rod. Enlarge that cap photo, and you can see subtle striations…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-01-08 10:22:01 CST (-0500)

altho the focus is not quite as sharp as we have come to expect from Ian’s work! Perhaps he, too, was in trembling awe of this amazing amanita?

The margin doesn’t seem to be striate…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-01-08 10:11:39 CST (-0500)

In Amanita nehuta (so far as I know, restricted to New Zealand) and A. subvaginata the margins of the pilei are striate; both taxa seem most closely related to species of the A. farinosa group. I don’t think that that is what Ian has come up with this time. Noah’s suggestion of A. cinereoannulosa would have a striate margin also AND an annulus (and from the distribution of volva on the stipe, I don’t think there could have been an annulus on this specimen in the past). To bad we don’t have a herbarium specimen or spores to check.

I’m guessing that this species could be in either subgenus of Amanita. I think, it belongs either in sect. Amanita or sect. Lepidella.

Ian, your photos are a real test for Amanita taxonomists!

More in a bit….

Very best,

Rod

By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2009-01-08 00:14:03 CST (-0500)

I have found Amanita nehuta many times but don’t have any worthy images, this season coming I plan to make some nice images of this species!

I think you nailed it. nehuta is a good match…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-01-07 23:29:31 CST (-0500)

powderey persistant warts, striate margin, exannulate, another photo of this sp. online even shows what looks like the weird, almost volvata-like volva in your photo, Ian. Very cool. did you save it…?

Spore print

I forgot to mention that I tried to get a spore print and did manage to get a very small imprint of white. I do not think the collection was strong enough to be creditable.

Amanita nehuta.
By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2009-01-07 22:46:59 CST (-0500)

Your specimen resembles Amanita nehuta, a native New Zealand species, from what I gather this is one of only three Amanita species that lack a partial veil, I am not sure if this species is present in Australia!
What type of trees were these mushrooms associated with?
Nice find.

most assuredly an amanita, but prob. not cinereoannulosa…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-01-07 22:16:41 CST (-0500)

doesn’t match Rod’s description for it, at any rate; no other photos available.

looks almost grisette like, or a weird cross between a grisette and a lepidella! but I do think that there may well be an annulus, and even a gray one, too.

but rod sez patch and these are warts to me….

Created: 2009-01-07 20:21:25 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2012-05-23 04:40:49 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 404 times, last viewed: 2016-10-10 15:02:42 CDT (-0400)
Show Log