Observation 206153: Amanita albemarlensis Tulloss & Kudzma nom. prov.
When: 2015-06-08
No herbarium specimen

Images

526482
06-08-15-iPhone 5-RMNA 012.JPG
526483
06-08-15-iPhone 5-RMNA 013.JPG
526484
06-08-15-iPhone 5-RMNA 014.JPG
526485
06-08-15-iPhone 5-RMNA 037.JPG
526486
06-08-15-iPhone 5-RMNA 038.JPG
526487
06-08-15-iPhone 5-RMNA 040.JPG

Proposed Names

ret
27% (1)
Recognized by sight: The cap coloring and the prominent umbo
Based on chemical features: Genetic distance from penetratrix is dicussed in a comment.
ret
78% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Based on chemical features: Compared the nrLSU fragments from this material with those from MO 206151, and the longer fragments do not differ. Probably we need to try a different gene to get more information; however, I’d say there is a very good chance that the two collections are of the same species.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
See comments on proposal of “albemarlensis.”
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2017-01-12 19:32:05 CST (-0500)

The fact that both sequences produce over four hundred characters starting at the 5’ end of nrLSU (the left hand end for people whose languages are printed left to right) is a very strong case that the morphological similarity of the two mushrooms of the observations is being supported by the molecular evidence. It is interesting that both attempts failed to yield sequence data between the initial 480 or so characters of nrLSU and the relatively distant sequence fragment from the 3’ end (right hand end etc.) of the read from the LR5 primer. (This read provides what might be called a middle region of the LSU locus.) So we lost the “front end of the middle.”

Any way, I’d say that this has a good chance of being “albemarlensis.”

Very best,

Rod

Thanks, again, Dario.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2017-01-09 14:06:44 CST (-0500)

It was very interesting to have another specimen from the “penetratrix” group.

Very best,

Rod

Possibly due to aging of the mushroom before drying, we had a little trouble with…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2017-01-09 14:01:50 CST (-0500)

deriving sequences.

We got two small pieces of nrITS (not enough to submit to GenBank and not close to each other).

On the other hand we have the “first” 484 characters of the nrLSU gene. This data is sufficient to show a fairly close genetic relationship to Amanita penetratrix. Your photos show a mushroom that is very strikingly similar to penetratrix macroscopically. Before this specimen all the material we have of penetratrix was from Connecticut and was more uniform in terms of similarity (almost identical) of all the derived nrLSU sequences.

The sequence we derived in the present case differs in slightly more than 1% of the characters (5 of 484) from the Connecticut material.

I hope you can find a fresh specimen of this species in the coming year. It will be interesting to see what we can learn from it.

Very best.

Hello Dario,
By: groundhog
2015-06-23 16:55:11 CDT (-0400)

This material has been accessioned to Rod’s herbarium and we are scheduling it for DNA sequencing.
-Naomi

Created: 2015-06-08 21:24:25 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2017-02-03 23:00:41 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 65 times, last viewed: 2017-06-21 21:56:54 CDT (-0400)
Show Log