Observation 215133: Amanita “barrowsii” A.H. Sm. nom. ms.
When: 2015-08-18

Notes: Found at around 10,000 with aspen and conifer.

Proposed Names

28% (2)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
55% (1)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight: a provisional name for this species or sp. cluster.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Similar case?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-12-28 09:17:57 PST (-0800)

See how Matheny et al. approached the same situation in Inocybe:
http://www.mycologia.org/content/105/2/436.full
Adolf

by “validate”
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2015-12-28 08:17:36 PST (-0800)

do you mean publish?

certainly makes sense than one could take the work of a predecessor and add to it, refine it, and then do what was necessary to make it “official.”

BTW, now that you have made us aware of potential cryptic sp. within the barrowsii group, I have to say that I may well have found one myself last August in NM … it did not have a purely white stem like the majority of those pictured here, but a highly decorated orange-chevroned stipe, like the macro diff between fulva and crocea.

I saved half and ate half!

Yes the name is in a manuscript.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-12-27 18:32:56 PST (-0800)

It is now possible to validate a name from a manuscript as well as a “provisional name” that is more accessible.

Hence, it will be important to know more about the material to which Smith applied the name “Amanita barrowsii.”

Rod

Yes the name is in a manuscript.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-12-27 18:32:46 PST (-0800)

It is now possible to validate a name from a manuscript as well as a “provisional name” that is more accessible.

Hence, it will be important to know more about the material to which Smith applied the name “Amanita barrowsii.”

Rod

just saw your note here, Rod.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2015-12-27 08:32:39 PST (-0800)

gosh, cryptic sp. within the grisettes? Say it ain’t so! ;)

or does that sequence variability also speak to our lack of firm means of delimiting species through DNA sequence? relatedness, sure. species is more of a judgement call tho, eh?

Shouldn’t “barrowsii” be in quotes, anyway? It was never formally published, was it?

Thanks!
By: Athena (Apfelmusser)
2015-10-02 11:46:38 PDT (-0700)

Hi,
Your mushrooms have been received and accessioned to Rod’s Herbarium.
Cheers!

Morphologically, the description here:
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-09-03 07:40:57 PDT (-0700)

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita%20barrowsii

is worth a look because it is based only on the original material sent to Dr. Smith by Charles Barrows.

Very best,

Rod

I think we have to have some caution about using the name “barrowsii.”
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-09-03 07:30:19 PDT (-0700)

Two collections from almost the same spot in Custer Co., Colorado (sent to me by David Lewis in 2010) produced “proposed fungal barcode” sequences that differed by more than 6.5%. This suggests to me that there may be at least two species going under the name “barrowsii.”

Very best,

Rod

Created: 2015-09-02 21:46:20 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2015-12-27 08:38:25 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 112 times, last viewed: 2016-10-26 15:04:24 PDT (-0700)
Show Log