Notes: This rather large specimen, (about 6inches in height and about 3inches width, across the mantle), was growing from the forest floor. When I touched it to check it out, the weight of the stem and mantle caused the stem to break away at the bulbous base. The specimen had an unpleasant smell but not significant. The mantle had warts on the top and the surrounding ground showed some signs of white (meal) droppings. The area was extremely wet at the time. This was a single growth. The name of this specimen was found in Bruce Fuhrer’s Australian reference. It was unusual to see the way the mantle tended to be slightly concave from the outer edges. Once again I am open for thoughts on this great specimen.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.06||2||(royh,kundabungkid)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
You are absolutely correct. Color is very important, and only the person that has held the mushroom in their hand and seen it in natural light knows what it SHOULD look like. altho many of us do not have your photographic skills, we can certainly comment on whether or not our photograph is a true representation of what we see…even if we don’t know how to match our photo to what our eye perceives.
One striking example here on MO were the several photos posted of a rare Hygrocybe, H. virescens, found back in January…only the in situ photographs captured the unique unripe lime green of that beautiful fungus in hand, and those who photographed them after collection didn’t mention that their color was off (and I saw those mushrooms in hand at the time of their photography, and their color was still true; of course hygrocybes will fade and change color over time). As always on this site, more info is better info!
Comment to these two images. Without too much technical description these images are the same as the earlier images, but have been colour corrected to Daylight. (5600K)
The latter images are the result if they were taken in normal daylight or in low light with a flash. That is why I state on my images that they are shown in true colour. I have mentioned to Rod that I thought a benchmark for light calibration is necessary when deliberating on an image for identification. I have not seen any reference used in descriptions, to say that the image is shown at any particular temperature. As can be seen from the images, a variation in temperature can change the whole evaluation of the image. A good example of this is when a photo is taken under incandescent light it is referred to as being “Warm”, and when the same image is taken under fluro light it is referred to as being “Cool” (as in temperature.) There is also a problem in the transition from the original image to the final print when printed by printing press. Some of the true colours are changed or varied from the original image whether it be digital or film. This is the reason photographers use filters to represent the image in true light. The eye deceives us, as it does all this for us automatically. Hope this helps.
Well, that was a bust. None of Wood’s drawings show a distinctly abrupt bulb of the form in Ian’s picture.
These lepidellas can be deceptive enough in hand, let alone with creative camera work…
a couple of remarks…a cream-colored lepidella with cream colored gills is not all that unusual and doesn’t make it necessarily one of the yellow gilled amanitas.
the very abbreviated and friable annulus present in this mushroom is also not a good match to the pendulous and membranous annuli of the ochro-anitas, at least insofar as my limited pictorial experience.
but what it actually IS…who knows? Time for that group foray to OZ, eh? With a side-trip to NZ…;)
be a third species standing between A.ochrophylla and A.ochrophylloides?
Debbie, Gerhard & Rod, Please see new additional images colour corrected to Daylight.
This latter image has been colour corrected to daylight (5600k) Not Falsh. As the original images were shown with true colour and temperature with existing light, some confusion may have been introduced for identification purposes.
But I have no idea what species it is. it’s veil remnants on the cap are amazing, those are some thick warts…
is this what you called ochrophylla?
Rod, Thanks for the great detail information. It is most appreciated. I did think this specimen was a bit different to others I had photographed. Incidentally, I do have great difficulty in getting spore prints\counts due to the area I work and usually alone. The terrain is very steep, usually damp to wet and provides for a great variety of native flora & fauna. It is very isolated and by the time I carry survival gear,(water fruit compass matches torch snake bite bits & pieces) GPS, tripod a couple of Camera bodies, several lenses etc I am pretty loaded up. I also photograph Birds and carry a 300mm f2.8 Nikon image stabilised lens that is not light. Having both knee joints replaced does place some restrictions on my agility. I have a circular track system that I use so I do not usually backtrack. If this were the case I could leave specimens on the way and then check them on the way back. This I did try but it had many failings and did not prove of any real benefit. I have tried small plastic containers with individual sections but this never seemed to be successful as some small particles from one compartment were contaminating adjacent compartments. I have resolved to attempting to give as much accurate physical detail that I can supply conditions prevailing. I do not always write up on the MO site all the information I recorded, but I do keep it in reference archives.
Amanita ochrophylla but this should have ochre gills. Found it two years ago during my stay in NSW but can’t remember about the stipe base right now.
Another great picture, Ian. Fascinating. You are quite correct about the unusual upward flare of the goop on the cap edge. [“Goop” is a technical term meaning “appendiculate material.”]
Amanita ochrophylloides is a member of Amanita [sect. Lepidella] subsect. Gymnopodae. All of the Gymnopodae have a slight volval limb on the bulb around the stipe base. The name means “naked foot” meaning that (for example) rings of volval material around the bulb are not present. For your information, here is most of the text from the Amanita Studies page on A. ochrophylloides:
“BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The cap of Amanita ochrophylloides is up to 150 mm wide, convex then plano-convex and finally slightly depressed toward the center, pale brown, with the margin of the cap conspicuously appendiculate with fragments of the volva in young specimens. The cap is covered with numerous warts (sometimes dark brown).
“The gills are pale golden yellow and up to 13 mm broad.
“The stem is up to 100 × 26 mm, white but discoloring to various shades of brown. The bulb is up to 45 mm. The ring is pronounced, off-white, and may disappear in mature specimens. The volva forms a short free limb at the top of the basal bulb.
“The smell is very faintly mealy.
“The spores measure 7.0 – 10.0 × 5.0 – 8.5 µm and are subglobose to broadly ellipsoid and amyloid. Clamps are absent at bases of basidia.
“This species was originally described from the state of Victoria, Australia. A. ochrophylloides occurs in rocky, black soil amongst ferns under eucalyptus of the “peppermint” group.
What might the species be? Don’t know yet. [I need to work on my taxes at the moment!] If I don’t post a suggestion in the next ten days or so, bug me. Please.
Created: 2009-04-03 11:31:30 WAST (+0200)
Last modified: 2010-08-15 06:00:13 WAT (+0100)
Viewed: 403 times, last viewed: 2016-12-06 08:42:57 WAST (+0200)