Observation 211276: Amanita tullossii Guzmán & Ram.-Guill.
When: 1991-07-31
( 1300m)

Notes: Isotype collection # A. Rodriguez & Perez Ramirez 1385.

The difference between Amanita jacksonii and A. tullossii is supposed to be the number of cells thick the subhymenium is. Unfortunately, the subhymenium in the type collection has been crushed due to repeated drying, and it is difficult to observe.

Species Lists

Images

542085
IMG_2228.JPG
542079
IMG_2222.JPG
542080
IMG_2223.JPG
542081
IMG_2224.JPG
542082
IMG_2225.JPG
542083
IMG_2226.JPG
542084
IMG_2227.JPG
542086
IMG_2229.JPG
542087
IMG_2230.JPG
542088
IMG_2231.JPG
542089
IMG_2232.JPG
542090
IMG_2234.JPG

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Someone should head over to Nayarit
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2015-07-25 04:29:05 CEST (+0200)

and collect a neotype.

I have in my herbarium material that was included in the original description of…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-07-24 15:25:20 CEST (+0200)

tullossii. There is no difference whatever between the subhymenia of jacksonii and the Mexican species.

As I noted yesterday, there is a paper expected to be published sometime soon in which the Mexican material most similar to A. jacksonii is proposed to comprise multiple taxa on genetic grounds. The last time I heard, DNA had not been extracted from any of the types deposited in Xalapa that define taxa in the Caesareae. Hence, I don’t know if it is possible to assign tullossii to one of the taxa that will be reported in the coming paper. I’m waiting until the data becomes available, and then hope to see what specific collections yielded what specific sequences.

Rod

Created: 2015-07-24 08:37:35 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2015-07-24 08:37:52 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 29 times, last viewed: 2016-09-16 22:51:42 CEST (+0200)
Show Log