Observation 179727: Amanita suballiacea (Murrill) Murrill

Proposed Names

2% (2)
Eye3
Recognized by sight: Chunky destroying angel that is commonly seen in WI at this time of year; KOH +; seems too robust to be A bisporigera.
ret
81% (1)
Eyes3
Based on chemical features: Based on very close match to sublliacea “proposed fungal barcode” gene, nrITS. Thanks to Dr. Geml’s lab in Leiden.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I caution you not to fix on the idea that large specimens of destroying angels…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-10-18 01:37:18 EDT (-0400)

all belong to one species. The species I’m tentatively calling amerivirosa is very large. You’ll need the spore shape to separate them, but that works rather well.

http://www.amanitacee.org?Amanita%20amerivirosa

Very best,

Rod

Rod this is exciting news
By: Britt Bunyard (Fungi magazine) (bbunyard)
2015-10-18 00:45:16 EDT (-0400)

I see this sort of big white chunky destroying angel commonly from several sites around Wisconsin in the autumn and likely they’re all the same. I have smelled them…but never really got a garlic odor. There is a foulish-spicy smell to them to be sure. As winter is bearing down on us it’s unlikely I’ll get a chance to sniff again until next season. I seem to recall posting one or two other observations here on MO of very similar mushrooms. Thanks!

The comment below has been edited….
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-10-17 19:55:45 EDT (-0400)

to correct the name of the species for the present observation.

Very best,

Rod

A quick report on the DNA. >>EDITED
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-10-17 19:53:10 EDT (-0400)

The DNA was very convincingly a match for suballiacea and not sp-O01. The images are more slender than I have grown to expect for the latter speices. Also, the spores of this material should be broadly ellipsoid on average rather than subglobose on average.

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita%20suballiacea

Thanks again for sending the material.

Very best,

Rod

Thanks Britt,
By: groundhog
2015-01-29 11:19:17 EST (-0500)

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

Robert Oppenheimer…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-09-23 14:51:13 EDT (-0400)

Just a matter of scale…I suppose.

Rod

Ulp…
By: Britt Bunyard (Fungi magazine) (bbunyard)
2014-09-23 09:14:56 EDT (-0400)

Was it Edward Teller who made a famous quote (upon seeing his creation detonated in a huge mushroom cloud) about becoming a destroyer of worlds?

I just had the thought…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-09-22 11:01:49 EDT (-0400)

Comments have an inherent psychological oddity on MO.

I just realized that on all my comments an option is offered:

“R. E. Tulloss [Edit | Destroy]”

Maybe I should feel more threatened?

Very best,

Rod

Thanks, Britt.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-09-22 10:59:09 EDT (-0400)

DNA sorting is a very useful thing. No doubt. However, you and others are customers of taxonomy that need clues that deploy the skills of the naked eye, the hand lens, and the microscope.

You shouldn’t be satisfied with the current state of affairs regarding recognition of taxa that are “sorted” into “observable reality” by DNA sequences.

For taxonomists to do the job for all their customers, we need physical details…lots of them…in order to be able to offer people the possibility that they will someday be able to sort out such groups as the destroying angels. I think there is some progress…although the sample sizes are still small. We need size measurements to go with well-photographed collections. Etc.

Nowadays, a large percentage of the new material for my herbarium comes from people other than myself. I do not get a chance to write descriptions on the fresh material. This is something that can only come from collectors with the time to do the job…which, I know, isn’t everybody.

Very best,

Rod

Good to know
By: Britt Bunyard (Fungi magazine) (bbunyard)
2014-09-21 19:06:25 EDT (-0400)

about the spore sizes of spO01 and bisp04. Rod, this collection is new, not the material I’d recently mentioned being examined chemically. However I see this mushroom in WI and elsewhere in the upper midwest several times each year. If your seq analysis gets a handle on this, I’ll be MOST delighted to call it by an accurate and reliable name once and for all. Until then I’ll just keep collecting from all over and save for you until you tell me to cease and desist. Hope you’re feeling better soon!

Spore measurements are necessary to segregate sp-O01 from sp-bisporigera04.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-09-21 18:45:51 EDT (-0400)

I recently posted comparative sporographs for taxa that have been called bisporigera or (years back) virosa in eastern North America. Feeling a bit under the whether today; so please excuse if I guess wrong on the following:

The comparative sporographs (all with data streamed from the relevant species pages to keep the graphs up to date) can be found on one of these pages:

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita+bisporigera
http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita+sp-O01
http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita+sp-bisporigera04

I gather that these are pictures related to the amanitin assays about which you wrote to me?

Or is this something new?

At any rate, we’d certainly like to take a shot at identifying the material.

Very best,

Rod

Created: 2014-09-21 14:37:10 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-10-17 19:27:22 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 116 times, last viewed: 2016-10-01 16:36:44 EDT (-0400)
Show Log