Observation 222141: Amanita sect. Vaginatae sensu Zhu L. Yang
When: 2015-11-07
Who: zaca
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Growing in a mediterranean habitat, dominated by Quercus trees.
Four specimens, three together and the youngest some centimeters apart.
It is curious to observe that my camera reproduced some very light tan coloration for the caps, whereas I saw grey everywhere. The same phenomenum occured with the interior part of the volva.
I find the specimens of this observation very similar to those in observation 185697 from last year, at a different place though with similar habitat, but this time maybe due to youth none of the specimens had developed horizontal cracks leading to the break of stem tissues like those in that previous observation.
I’m experiencing some problems with my microscope that don´t allow me to observe (at least) the spores, and I will do it as soon as possible, but I’m quite confident about the above mentioned similarity.

Proposed Names

6% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Thanks Zaca,
By: groundhog
2016-02-08 13:32:21 CST (-0600)

This material has been accessioned to Rod’s herbarium. We have scheduled it to be sampled for DNA sequencing.

Naomi

This material received in good order.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-11-30 11:02:29 CST (-0600)

Thank you, Zaca.

Very best,

Rod

It’s me that owe you thanks, Rod!
By: zaca
2015-11-18 18:18:17 CST (-0600)
Many thanks, Zaca.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-11-18 16:44:17 CST (-0600)

I am taking a little break to bring the website up to date with recent collections and to update some of our regional checklists for North America that have gotten behind the current level of knowledge.

Very best,

Rod

Material sent!
By: zaca
2015-11-18 15:24:54 CST (-0600)

Dear Rod,
Today I put in the mail office the material of this observation: Specimens 3 and 4, mentioned in my last message. I took the opportunity to send also some material from observation 222884 (this year version of those in _observation 181564 _, that I sent you last year). Please see that observation for the description of the material sent.
Best regards,
zaca

You are very welcome.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-11-12 16:43:07 CST (-0600)

Good luck on revisiting the site.

Very best,

Rod

Hi Rod,
By: zaca
2015-11-12 15:57:05 CST (-0600)

Next week I will send you some material from this observation: the younger one and one of the others (the one the right hand side in the first three photos, which appears to be in better conditions).

In the meantime, this weekend I will visit the place of observation 181564 and observation 181567, that I regularly observed without success this autumn, hoping to see those species again.

Thanks for helping in this matter,
Best regards,
zaca

I have the same difficulty. <<EDIT
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-11-12 15:24:25 CST (-0600)

We need to record this specimen somehow so that we know if we see it again. I offer DNA sequencing as part of the effort.

Very best,

Rod

Hi Rod,
By: zaca
2015-11-12 14:47:14 CST (-0600)

I also came to that conclusion.
But then the conclusion is that this is not A. argentea, but another taxon in the same section, for which I have no clue. I looked to my former observations of specimens in this section and nothing similar appeared.
Best regards,
zaca

The “shift to the right” cannot be explained by miscalibration.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-11-12 08:00:26 CST (-0600)

Miscalibration should effect length and width measurements in the same way. The ratio of average length to average width should be unchanged by a miscalibration. If the width is multiplied by 1.2, then (in the case of miscalibration) the length would be multiplied by the same amount. But that is not what happened. Again, look at the fact that my range of Q is distinctly different from your range of Q. (The range of Q is associated with the lines in the sporograph that are not vertical or horizontal.) Because our ranges of length are somewhat similar, the difference in ranges of width cause the Q values for your material to be lower than mine. The Q ratio is a very powerful tool to use in addition to the length and the width of spores. Also, please note that one of the hexagons from my data represents my spore measurements from type material.

Very best,

Rod

Hi Rod,
By: zaca
2015-11-11 17:11:11 CST (-0600)

Thanks for your comment and sporograph.
I will analyze it in more detail one of these days, but it is clear that it seems there is a shift (to the right) in relation to your records of A. argentea. Looking for possible reasons, it came to my mind that my recent problems with the scope end up with a bad calibration of it and this will be my first step to check. Unless, you have a better idea and can say something more clarifying.
Best regards,
zaca

I think that a sporograph comparison would help in this case.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-11-11 16:01:53 CST (-0600)

I’m going to send you one by email.

The range of Q values are really critical in analyzing the spores in this case.

See what you think.

Very best,

Rod

Microscopy added.
By: zaca
2015-11-11 12:34:00 CST (-0600)

Spores:
(8.7) 9.8 – 12.6 (14.6) x (7.7) 8.6 – 11 (13.9) µm
Q = 1 – 1.2 (1.3) ; N = 35
Me = 10.9 × 9.8 µm ; Qe = 1.1.

I believe that the spores shape and dimensions are other points in favor of Amanita argentea.

I will be interested to hear about spore size-shape.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-11-08 20:53:13 CST (-0600)

Thank for the posting.

Very best,

Rod

Created: 2015-11-08 15:28:20 CST (-0600)
Last modified: 2015-11-12 15:24:51 CST (-0600)
Viewed: 110 times, last viewed: 2016-12-07 01:36:08 CST (-0600)
Show Log