Observation 181564: Amanita sect. Vaginatae sensu Zhu L. Yang

When: 2014-10-04

Collection location: Serra de Montejunto, Portugal [Click for map]

Who: zaca

Specimen available

It was a large collection of Amanita growing in an area with a radius of about 10 m, in the transition zone between chestnuts and pine trees. Despite that the material was not in very good condition, especially by the action of caterpillars on hymenia. When choosing the material to present this observation I decide to present photographs of the specimen in a better state. However, this have some morphological differences compared to most, for example, has smooth stem while most of the other present some pattern (zig-zag). Therefore, also included some photos of other specimens (with emphasis on the caps and the bottom of the stems).
In my opinion this material has some similarities with that of observation 46090. However, there is at least one notable difference, the gill edge is not colored. Also seems to me that these specimens have a more robust appearance: are larger and the stem is thicker.


Other specimens: Caps;
Other specimens: Stems and volvas.
Microscopy: Spores;
Microscopy: Basidia;
Microscopy: Pileipellis.
Microscopy: Spores – Sp7;
Microscopy: “Bigger” Spores – Sp7.

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Thank you.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2016-02-10 18:05:52 GMT (+0000)


By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-02-10 10:15:17 GMT (+0000)

that made me laugh more than it should.
Clever answer.

We’ll certainly post any new data when and if we have it.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2016-02-09 23:35:02 GMT (+0000)

“Magic” is beyond me, I’m afraid. All the gear I brought back into the past from my encounter with Dr. Spock doesn’t work without the wireless transmission of electric power I was used to on the “Enterprise.” A useless tricorder is a sad little hunk of technology. :(

Very best,


By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-02-09 21:11:05 GMT (+0000)

what is the answer of the “magic” dna?

Thanks Zaca,
By: groundhog
2014-10-28 20:05:46 GMT (+0000)

This material has been received and accessioned to Rod’s herbarium. We have scheduled it for DNA sequencing.
-Naomi (working with RET)

Giant spores?
By: zaca
2014-10-09 14:26:39 BST (+0100)

Discussing the possibility of having more than one taxon in this collection, in a previous comment RET said that “The most distinctive cap is the one with a nearly white margin”.
This (labelled as Sp7) was one of the youngest observed and, since I have a sample of the cap, I decided to observe the spores. Generally speaking, these are very similar in form to the ones previously observed for the other sample (see the photo “Microscopy: Spores”) and their dimensions are comparable. However, it was noticeable the presence of some “non-normal” spores, bigger than the majority of the others. Probably, the term “giant spores” is not adequate in this case, because these bigger spores are only 30-40% bigger than the others, but I immediately recall it from the discussion on the subject of observation 181567. For the “regular” ones I got the following values:
(10.5) 10.8 – 12.9 (14.3) x (9.7) 10.2 – 11.9 (13.5) µm
Q = 1 – 1.1 (1.2) ; N = 32
Me = 11.7 × 11 µm ; Qe = 1.1
Including in the measurements five of these bigger spores one gets
(10.5) 10.9 – 15.4 (17) x (9.7) 10.2 – 14.2 (16.4) µm
Q = 1 – 1.1 (1.2) ; N = 37
Me = 12.3 × 11.6 µm ; Qe = 1.1
having the effect of increasing the averages of lenght and width of the spores by 0.6 µm, while the ratio Qe remains unchanged.
I uploaded two photos, one with the “regular” ones and other with a collection of “bigger” spores.

Microscopy added.
By: zaca
2014-10-06 22:15:24 BST (+0100)
By: zaca
2014-10-05 15:29:23 BST (+0100)

I gave a label to each different specimen by chronological order.
Anyone interested can see all the photos taken for this observation at:
which will be available for a short period (at least a week).
I have dried samples of the following specimens:
Sp1, Sp2, Sp3, Sp7 (only the cap), Sp18.
Anyone interested in a part of it, please let me know.

By: zaca
2014-10-05 14:55:48 BST (+0100)

I understood correctly, but it is a possibility that we have to take into account.

I wasn’t taking a definitive position on there being multiple taxa present.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-10-05 05:08:37 BST (+0100)

I’m uncertain. The most distinctive cap is the one with a nearly white margin. As you said, the others could be seen as slight variations with aging or drying.

The material is very interesting and a bit challenging.

Good stuff.

Very best,


Maybe you are right …
By: zaca
2014-10-05 00:05:06 BST (+0100)

concerning the existence of more than one taxa; I noticed some “slightly” (?) differences mainly in coloration and form of the volvas, but I thought to be an aceptable variation within the species, which may be not the case. When I found a bit of time, for convenience, I will label the specimens that appear in more than one photo.
Thanks, Dr. Tulloss, for the comments.

Wonderful photographs.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-10-04 23:37:01 BST (+0100)

No matter the condition of a particular fruiting body, this is interesting documentation. You might have seen two or more taxa or only one. I wish we could find out.

Very best,


Created: 2014-10-04 22:26:56 BST (+0100)
Last modified: 2018-01-05 16:13:03 GMT (+0000)
Viewed: 133 times, last viewed: 2018-01-05 16:18:36 GMT (+0000)
Show Log