Observation 187518: Amanita sect. Lepidella sensu Bas
When: 2014-11-04
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
See new observation (MO) 194671
By: Taylor (mycogypsy)
2014-12-26 07:31:15 CST (+0800)

This and the following were all growing within 100 cm of each other: (TFL)2144273 (MO)187519 and new observation: (TFL)2144328 (MO)194671

I’m not sure
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-12-26 01:36:12 CST (+0800)

about the warts and their fusion with the lower layers of the cap. At first I thought this was a clear distinction, but I have now seen it vary significantly, even within single fruitings of what I am pretty sure is A. magniverrucata.

For example, look at observation 194665 for variation within a single fruiting (all fruitbodies within 1 m of each other, including smooth-skinned and fused-wart buttons within 10 cm of each other).

I think it may vary unpredictably with youth, age, rain effects, etc.

what Rod meant …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-12-26 01:04:55 CST (+0800)

A. magniverrucata is unique amongst the lepidellas in having its cap warts arise directly from the cap skin, rather than the universal veil. The warts that you show here on your lepidella can be readily removed with a fingernail. Not so with the warts of magniverrucata, which are part and parcel with the cap skin, like this example here:

http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/136722?obs=64239&q=2RGkX

sick photo though…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-12-25 11:22:17 CST (+0800)

thats for sure.

DNA
By: Byrain
2014-12-25 09:42:15 CST (+0800)

is not a magic bullet, someone has to sequence specimens that were properly dug up and worked on at some point for future sequences to mean anything. Sequences are only as strong as the morphological identification, for example genebank has Psathyrella piluliformis sequences under the name Conocybe appendiculata who are only known to be misidentified because they match collections that were identified by hand. Such examples are common.

gosh, no, I haven’t!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-12-25 08:50:50 CST (+0800)

I clearly meant that to ID an amanita in hand (some of us don’t need the DNA for the well known species) you need to dig it up. It might have helped you in your initial ID here.

DNA is great if what you dig up doesn’t fit neatly. But you still have to do the most basic work and look at the macro, all of the macro, not just the cap.

And then, you have to save the mushroom to do that DNA.

Who knows what you have/had here? Not enough information to say.

Certainly a lepidella and certainly not a magniverrucata, for the reason that Rod stated.

We all play on the same team, here.

>gotta dig ’em up… for any chance of a good ID.
By: Taylor (mycogypsy)
2014-12-25 08:38:16 CST (+0800)

Heard of DNA?

gotta dig ’em up…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-12-25 00:31:58 CST (+0800)

for any chance of a good ID.

The warts seem to sit on distinct pileus skin.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-11-09 09:01:20 CST (+0800)

A. magniverrucata does not have a distinct pileipellis.

If my judgment about the presence of a skin on the cap (pileipellis) is correct, then this is probably not magniverrucata.

Very best,

Rod

Created: 2014-11-07 23:38:32 CST (+0800)
Last modified: 2016-02-29 07:07:50 CST (+0800)
Viewed: 180 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 10:14:09 CST (+0800)
Show Log