Observation 224196: Amanita lavendula group

When: 2015-11-30

Collection location: Longview Arboretum at Maude Cobb, Longview, Gregg Co, Texas, USA [Click for map]

Who: L G Price (LG_Price)

No specimen available

Habitat: under Oaks, Sweet Gum and Elm. Collected in rain. I only collected one as all were very wet. there were lots like this one throughout the area.

Chemical Reactions: No immediate reaction on cap or gills to 10% KOH or 10% Ammonia.

Spore Print Color: white
Spore Photos: see attached. made in Melzer’s Reagent. Obvious immediate blue-black reaction in the spores to reagent.
Spore Measurements: ( measuring such globose spores are beyond the capability of my scope and my eyes.) This is the best I can do based on photos which are attached.

[12/1/1] L (8.0-) 8.4 –9.4 (-) μm x W (-) 7.9 – 9.4 (-) μm, (L = 8.8 μm, W = 8.4 μm), Q (-) 1.00 – 1.08 (-1.09), Q = 1.02 Globose

Cap: context thickest at center – 5mm thick at center, very thin at 1/2 point onward. Flesh white. Cap surface white with light tan spotted area.

Gills: Max Breadth – 6 mm, min at center, 2 mm . Close. Free.

Stipe:, 4.5 cm long not including bulb. 0.7 cm wide at top, 0.8 cm wide before bulb. Bulb – max 2.5 cm. Persistent skirtlike ring.


1000 X in Melzer’s Reagent
As Measured
1000 X in Melzer’s Reagent
As Measured
1000 X in Melzer’s Reagent
As Measured
1000 X in Melzer’s Reagent
As Measured
1000 X in Melzer’s Reagent
As Measured
1000 X in Melzer’s Reagent
1000 X in Melzer’s Reagent
1000 X in Melzer’s Reagent
1000 X in Melzer’s Reagent
1000 X in Melzer’s Reagent
taken with flash. reflection shows thin gelatin-like layer on surface
Scale – INCHES – 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6
Scale – INCHES – 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6
Scale – INCHES – 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6

Proposed Names

28% (1)
Recognized by sight
44% (2)
Recognized by sight: The size and shape of the spores suggests this is not A. lavendula itself but one of the other two taxa known in the group.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
You’re welcome.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-12-02 16:27:56 CST (-0600)

Very best,


Taxonomy Police
By: L G Price (LG_Price)
2015-12-02 15:24:04 CST (-0600)

Thanks Ron for taking the time to explain these naming conventions. The information is very helpful.

I am reading various information sources on the topic and trying to figure out how this fits with Species Fungorum, ITIS, the Catalog of Life, Species 2000. I have to read things about 5 times before it starts to make sense. I am only on reading #2 !

Linda Gail

I was driving around on errands today and thinking of your posts on … EDITED
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-12-02 11:57:35 CST (-0600)

this observation.

Naming is a sort of separate subject that doesn’t always get much attention.

Nomenclature is governed by a rather complex set of rules….the International Code of Nomenclature (which covers plants, fungi, fossil plants, hybrids, organisms that are not now considered fungi and are traditionally treated by mycologists , etc.)

Underlying a mushroom species’ name there is (nowadays and for some time in the past) a specific dried collection deposited in a specific herbarium. This collection (called the “type” of the name) ideally provides a connection between an organism’s macroscopic and microscopic anatomy, chemistry (of the preserved specimen), field notes and photographs, DNA, etc. and the name. Sometimes, especially with microfungi, the type may be a living culture.

There can be multiple names created for the same organism.

When this happens, if the names are defined by the same type, the names are called nomenclatural synonyms. The basic principals for deciding on the correct name are priority (which name was published first) and, more broadly, validity (which names were published according to the nomenclatural code that was in force at the time of the names’ publications).

It also may happen that two or more names may be demonstrated to apply to the same species even though they have different type collections. This demonstration requires scientific work, rather than a review of nomenclatural status. Usually, microscopic analysis of all the types would be necessary and, if possible, comparison of sequences from DNA extracted from all the types. Judgments that two names with different types apply to the same organism result in proposals of “taxonomic synonym.”

Judgments on nomenclatural synonymy are based on research in the literature (historic facts) and application of rules. Hence, the demonstration is more like a proof in geometry. It is based on historical facts, the meanings of words, and logic.

Judgments on taxonomic synonymy are hypotheses based on the accumulation of evidence presented in a rhetorical argument.

To change the status of a name (say from variety to species) you need to cover both nomenclatural issues. The original name and its type must be identified and formally linked to the “newly combined” name or “recombination.” In the article to which I referred in my earlier posts, you will see a few lines which are dedicated to making a valid recombination (Amanita lavendula) based on a clearly defined type and the originally published name of Coker (Amanita mappa var. lavendula) with the place and date of publication of the original name.

The new name has an authorial citation attached to it in formal publication. This citation preserves the key elements of the new combination’s history:

Amanita lavendula (Coker) Tulloss, K. W. Hughes, Rodrig. Cayc., & Kudzma

Coker’s name in parentheses indicates original publication of the “epithet” was by Dr. William Chambers Coker. The names of persons who are credited for this particular name change are listed following the parentheses. When names are cited in an article, the first time the name appears it is considered good practice by most journals to give the author citation. For this purpose, when there are more than two authors, the list may be shortened as follows:

Amanita lavendula (Coker) Tulloss et al.

On the www.amanitaceae.org website, I usually take the opportunity to list all the authors. When a name is validly published, then you can find the full set of authors, and the bibliographic citation (date, place, page of publication) on the technical tab near the top of the page.

I hope that I have helped clear up some basic points about naming.

I’m sure there will be typos in the above. If anyone wants to correct me, I will be grateful.

Very best,


By: L G Price (LG_Price)
2015-12-02 09:32:04 CST (-0600)

ok, thanks. All very confusing to me.

Index fungorum is wrong.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-12-02 08:10:35 CST (-0600)

I sent them a copy of the article in which I (with co-authors) raised A. lavendula to species rank. I will write to them again.

I sent you a link to the article making the name change. It was reviewd by top nomenclaturalists prior to publication. It was done correctly.

Very best,


By: L G Price (LG_Price)
2015-12-02 07:58:48 CST (-0600)

Thanks Rod for the information and links. I’ve been reading – reading and I think I have the gist of it.

However, it seems that Amanita citrina f. Lavendula is still the accepted name per species fungorum – index fungorum.

If I put together a collection to send to BRIT, it should be sent as A. citrina f. Lavendula or A. citrina f. Lavendula Group.

The group
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-12-01 23:41:25 CST (-0600)

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita%20lavendula (smaller less globose spores than in the following two species)

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita%20sp-lavendula01 (very complexly hybridized DNA)

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita%20sp-lavendula03 (rather clean DNA in contrast to the above.


see the second article published here:


Hope this will help a bit.

Very best,


I’m not terribly happy about the situation and am hoping to find some macro- …
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-12-01 21:22:07 CST (-0600)

or microscopic chateracters to separate the two non-lavendula members of the lavendula “group.”

Too little knowledge…

Very best,


Amanita sp-lavendula01
By: L G Price (LG_Price)
2015-12-01 19:21:32 CST (-0600)

This seems to best match Amanita sp-lavendula01 spore data and the image of the specimen found in Barnstable Co., Massachusetts (#8).

Or possibly

Amanita sp-lavendula03 K.W. Hughes, Tulloss & Rodríguez Caycedo

I guess the only way to be certain would be to test DNA.

lavendula group
By: L G Price (LG_Price)
2015-12-01 19:06:14 CST (-0600)

Thanks for the ID help Ron. I am looking into the group at the moment.

However, when I click on the link to lavendula group at www.amanitaceae.org


All I get is a blank page.


A nice grouping of information.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-12-01 00:32:31 CST (-0600)

The fruiting body images, the amyloid spores, and the spores’ size and shape suggest one of the species in the lavendula group other than A. lavendula.

The amyloid reaction of the spores in Melzer’s Reagent indicates the species cannot be placed in section Amanita.

Very best,


Created: 2015-11-30 23:37:26 CST (-0600)
Last modified: 2015-12-02 09:30:58 CST (-0600)
Viewed: 110 times, last viewed: 2018-03-02 12:28:18 CST (-0600)
Show Log