Notes: Unusual color to the cap maybe because of age. Veil appeared grey.
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
216104; 216093 I see no further communication about these two specimens, I remember collecting a couple instances of them and I believe I sent them out to you. I mentioned this in the observation for 216104, but I juxtaposed the 0 and the 9 so it read 216903 instead of 216093. The only thing that remains a mystery to me is why it’s dated 9/14/15-9/15/15 when it clearly should have been 9/4/15-9/5/15. I assume that is another clerical error on my part. Sometimes I did mark the wrong date on material, but so far I think I was only a day or two off and not ten days, I will do better!
Today we found a padded envelope with five specimen packets in it.
One packet contained specimens with the present MO# and a note saying “Amanita sinicoflava.”
The other four packets (in snack bags) with other collections of Vaginatae are numbered 9/14/15-1 though 9/14/15/-4.
On the outside of the envelope is a note saying “needs to be decoded”. I think that that is still true. Can you help on this account? I imagine the collections could have been made 12 days after the original collection in roughly the same local…and were thought to be the same species. Does this make sense to you?
For sinicoflava, the cap color should have more yellow in it. I think this species is related to sinicoflava somehow because of the gray upper portion of the volval sac.
If it is possible, I would like to take a look at your dried material.
Created: 2015-09-02 19:09:20 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2015-09-02 19:09:28 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 70 times, last viewed: 2017-05-17 13:12:51 PDT (-0700)