|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.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
This material has been received and accessioned to Rod’s herbarium.
At the following URL (on the brief tab)
I describe how Neville and Poumarat (2004) treat f. amici. They claim that it differs from the type form of gemmata by the size/bullk of the fruiting body…with f. amici being larger than the type form. However, that difference does not seem to be born out by the data that they provide.
Given their interpretation of the form and their data, f. amici would be a synonym of the type form. Hence, the correct name would be simply Amanita gemmata.
One should, of course, look at the genetics. I think that I mentioned earlier on MO that the color of gemmata collections from Europe and Asia Minor seem to vary with geographic location: white, yellow, tan, etc. Hence, molecular study is very desirable. We will make sure that we have sampling of your material when it arrives.
Sending multiple collections at once seems like a good idea. Keeping the material as dry as possible after the initial drying is very important. Development of mold on the dried material and destruction of DNA by moisture are both dangers to the ultimate quality and utility of dried specimens.
the one I showed you these days: http://micoex.org/content/view/455/
I’m not sure of the identification though, since they were very young. I kept one of these for you (as well some rubescens, and the white amanitas I found this April). I am going to collect until the end of April and then I can send you all.
Thank you, Rod.
What reference do you use to separate gemmata from its forma amici?
Created: 2014-04-26 13:34:17 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-04-26 13:34:46 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 37 times, last viewed: 2016-10-28 01:20:56 PDT (-0700)