Observation 179726: Amanita elliptosperma G.F. Atk.

Proposed Names

17% (2)
Eye3
Recognized by sight: Chunky Amanita (sect Phalloideae) with a thick felted partial veil; was KOH negative. Other destroying angels also found throughout woods and with less substantial veils, and were KOH +.
27% (1)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Thanks Britt,
By: groundhog
2015-01-29 09:17:35 MST (-0700)

This material has been recieved and accessioned to Rod’s herbarium. We have scheduled it for DNA sequencing.
Thanks,
Naomi

The confusing image discussed…
By: Britt Bunyard (Fungi magazine) (bbunyard)
2014-09-28 20:56:24 MDT (-0600)

…below was removed. (It showed KOH + and KOH – reactions with a mixed collection of Amanitas.

Thank you very much for the clarification.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-09-23 12:55:02 MDT (-0600)

I think that you’re right. It would probably reduce misconceptions, etc. if the positive and negative KOH-reacting species were in different observations.

Very best,

Rod

Maybe I should delete the bottom photo…
By: Britt Bunyard (Fungi magazine) (bbunyard)
2014-09-23 07:23:26 MDT (-0600)

as the mixed collection in the photo may be confusing things. The observation reported, and the collection being dried and sent to you is not mixed, it’s for the KOH neg stuff only. I would never knowingly send a mixed collection of course.

It will be interesting to see what you have.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-09-22 08:50:09 MDT (-0600)

Thank you for drying the material and sending it here.

Please be sure that KOH- and KOH+ mushrooms are separated and that the MO observation numbers are associated with all collections.

Very best,

Rod

Given the partial veils, elliptosperma should be an option that is checked out.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-09-22 08:46:07 MDT (-0600)

Given your new information, I’d revise my former comment to say that the KOH negative material is unlikely to be magnivelaris because of the characters of the partial veils. The KOH+ material could be suballiacea, “sp-O01,” or “sp-bisporigera04.” Of course the caveat (as always) is “according to what we know now.”

Very best,

Rod

I have specimens
By: Britt Bunyard (Fungi magazine) (bbunyard)
2014-09-21 17:02:47 MDT (-0600)

in dryer now and will send to you. Partial veils were not yellow but were felty…in other images on MO and elsewhere I’ve seen “A magnivelaris” with non-yellow rings.

I think my notes confused
By: Britt Bunyard (Fungi magazine) (bbunyard)
2014-09-21 17:01:33 MDT (-0600)

what’s shown in the photo. This is a mixed collection with the KOH stain to demonstrate that my MO observation is KOH neg…you can see the others (which I would call Amanita sp-O01) did actually stain yellow. The photo with no yellow staining on anything represents the single collection of KOH neg stuff, which I was calling A magnivelaris. I did not check spores..so…maybe it’s A elliptosperma? Dunno.

Amanita magnivelaris has a cream-colored, thickish, felted skirt on the stem.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-09-21 16:51:34 MDT (-0600)

Also, it doesn’t turn yellow in KOH.

I think that this is probably “sp-O01” or “sp-bisporigera04”. See links for these taxa in comment on observation 179727.

Also,

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

Very best,

Rod

Created: 2014-09-21 12:31:30 MDT (-0600)
Last modified: 2014-09-23 07:23:55 MDT (-0600)
Viewed: 83 times, last viewed: 2016-10-26 11:49:48 MDT (-0600)
Show Log