Observation 161695: Amanita sect. Lepidella sensu Bas
When: 2014-03-19

Notes: Well formed fungi with cap showing signs of milkiness and some loose body parts.

Proposed Names

28% (1)
Recognized by sight
78% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: white amanita with friable, easily removed volva and swollen base.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I would say that your process actually preserved the part of the volva below the soil line.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-04-17 14:42:03 PDT (-0700)

The top of the bulb was so clean that I wondered if it had been cleaned.

I think we can say that this species does not have a volva that is “tough” enough to leave a limb or limbs attached to the top of the bulb. There is also not groove running around the base of the stem. Hence, this species would be a special case in the Limbatulae: a submembranous volva, but not rim or ridge or limb of volva around the top of the stem’s bulb. This with ellipsoid to (occasionally) elongate spores make the species “special.”

As you say, we’ll probably know it if we see it again. One thing we might not see in a more mature specimen is the loose volval covering on the cap. It looks like it could disappear easily. This would make placement of the species in subsect. Limbatulae more difficult.

Thank you for the collection and for being patient with my questions.

Very best,

Rod

Comment re Volva and soil

Rod, I am usually very careful when keeping specimens as far as the removal of soil about the base. Sometimes it is necessary to lightly rub the soil to remove the lumps of excess soil. I do not scrape or rub the volva to any degree, as I thought this wasn’t a good idea if the soil portrayed evidence in the aid of identification. Sometimes for photographing the specimens, I lightly and carefully remove some soil from around the base to expose the volva. Incidentally, when I have been using the dryer there is always an amount of soil droppings in the bottom tray. Sometimes when handling after drying soil also drops away from the base.

This material keys out to Bas’ Amanita stirps Preisii.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-04-17 07:45:44 PDT (-0700)

However, it doesn’t match known taxa of this group…so far as I can tell at the moment. It differs from the current interpretation of A. preissii (a species named by Fries for which no type was found by Bas) by lacking a membranous and persistent partial veil (annulus) and lacking distinct and persistent limbs attached to the top of the stem’s bulb.

Bas’ drawing of A. preissii is reproduced here:

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

Amanita preissii was described from SW Australia; and Bas knew it from two collections made by Gentilli in Perth in the 1950s.

The material of this observation can be segregated from A. kammala by lack of volval limbs on the basal bulb and by very different spore size.

Very best,

Rod

Was the top of the bulb (top two pictures expecially) cleaned of soil?
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-04-17 06:05:28 PDT (-0700)

If so, more evidence of a limb on the bulb might have been removed.

Rod

I further explored the universal veil with the dissecting scope.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-04-17 06:03:05 PDT (-0700)

On one side of the stipe a slender strip of volva is appressed to the lower stipe descending onto the bulb. On the other side of the stipe there are a few small torn fragments or shreds of the volva above the soil line. Below the soil line, where the soil is not removed, many larger, irregular (torn) fragments of the volva are present despite the extraction from the soil, handling, and the sectioning of the stem. This is consistent with a universal veil of the type described for subsect. Limbatulae. There are very few taxa of this subsect. with ellipsoid to elongate spores. Either we will get a name or we will have a good claim that the species is presently undescribed.

Very best,

Rod

Thanks for the responses.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-04-17 01:50:13 PDT (-0700)

The explanation of the bulb sectioning is very helpful as is your observation concerning the immaturity of the specimen. I will take this information into account. There were plentiful spores on the gills; however, their length distribution is not a bell curve and the size is probably reduced by immaturity in this case. I’m a little under the weather, but spent some time yesterday going through literature.

At present I’m looking at the possibility that the thin, submembranous, volval material on the cap may point to placement in Amanita subsection Limbatulae. We will see if that thought leads anywhere. You are certainly right that immaturity can be a problem for morphological identification.

Thank you very much for your responses. This is certainly a curious collection.

Very best,

Rod

Specimen

Rod the specimen may be to immature to give you a specific result. kk

Reply to query

Rod, The two different bulb shapes is due to the way I cut the specimen in half. Not a perfect bisection. Only one fruiting body was found and loaded..
To your question about the veil >Also, was the partial veil material entirely composed of fluffy stuff…with no membranous ring present?< ans: I could not see a veil Rod, or sign of it on the stipe?. Hope this helps. Chow, kk

Spore are amyloid, but not strongly so. EDITED
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-04-16 12:37:32 PDT (-0700)

I would call the universal veil, thin and submembranous…probably dominated by filamentous hyphae (as opposed to inflated cells). We can see the fibrous character along torn edges in the photographs. This character of the volva will limit the number of possibilities in sect. Lepidella.

Rod

Hello, Ian.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-04-16 12:14:49 PDT (-0700)

There seem to be two different bulb shapes in the pictures. One bulb seems to be almost perfectily spherical while the other has a shape that is more carrot-like. Were there two fruiting bodies? If so, I think there may have been two distinct species … that is, if I’m interpreting the bulb pictures correctly. I need your advice on this.

Also, was the partial veil material entirely composed of fluffy stuff…with no membranous ring present?

Very best,

Rod

Material has arrived and is accessioned for the herbarium
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-04-13 12:23:03 PDT (-0700)

Many thanks.

Rod

Specimen (RET)

Rod, This specimen seems to be drying ok. Dryer should arrive in next few days. I will use the dryer on the specimen and the post it. (my pleasure) Will contact you when(and if ) posted.

Re Milkiness

Rod, When I found this specimen it was raining lightly, and the cap was wet, and sort of sticky, with the outer layers falling away. The moisture on the cap had a milkiness condition that I have not seen before. (The texture looked milky and icecream like.?) Reminded me of some plants that exude milk when surface is broken. This was before I had cut it in half. Have a look at (largest) image _1D72639. I didn’t really see any fluid when I cut the specimen. It all seemed to be on the outer surface of the pileus/Cap. Hope this helps. The specimen is drying out at the moment, and if it looks good enough to send , no problem!. The dryer is ordered and this will hopefully help in the keeps. chow, kk

Very interesting.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-03-20 18:25:12 PDT (-0700)

By milkiness, do you mean that it exuded white liquid when it was cut?

The structure of the volva is very interesting.

I’d like to see the dried material if that is possible.

Very best,

Rod

Created: 2014-03-20 05:13:19 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-03-20 13:53:19 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 86 times, last viewed: 2016-10-21 02:17:37 PDT (-0700)
Show Log