Notes: The group of fungi were found growing in a neighbor’s yard (who is not fond of people snooping around in his yard, completely understandable), growing under a white oak (Quercus alba)in a mycorrhizal fashion. Since they were found in this context, I had no opportunity to spend a sufficient amount of time to observe them. I posted pictures on shroomery.org resulting in Alan Rockefeller’s identification as possibly Amanita gemmata. Upon handling one, a resinous substance was left on my fingers, which seems to support Mr. Rockefeller’s claim. There were no distinct markings on the stipe bulb except for one specimen.
Here is a link to the shroomery thread: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/10986953
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.03||2|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Just wanted to document the general date
Hieronymus asked for detail on gill attachment in species S1.
I claim nothing polished about the following. It is a rough draft of a description of S1 from a manuscript. Ellipses indicate removed references to specific collections exhibiting a given character state.
Amanita species S1
PILEUS: 54 – 70+ mm wide, very pale yellowish cream (3A2) to slightly sordid yellowish (less gray than 4B4), unchanging when cut or bruised, convex, sometimes markedly umbonate, tacky, subshiny; context off-white, unchanging when cut or bruised, 4 mm thick at stipe, thinning evenly for 80% of the radius, then membranous to margin; margin tuberculate striate (0.35R), nonappendiculate or appendiculate with fragments of thin membranous annulus (sometimes also covering parts of lamellae); universal veil absent or as scattered pale tan scales.
LAMELLAE: free to narrowly adnate with decurrent tooth (lens), close, white in mass and in side view, becoming creamy to tan in age…, 4 mm broad, thin; lamellulae truncate, very plentiful, of widely varying length.
STIPE: 87± × 7.5± mm, white, faintly tannish after handling, narrowing upward and flaring at apex, satiny above, finely fibrillose below, becoming subsquamulose at base near bulb; context whitish, becoming very faintly orangish tan when cut or bruised, faintly orangish tan in larva tunnels, stuffed, with central cylinder 2.5 mm wide; bulb 17.5+ × 13.5+ mm, subglobose to ovoid, white; partial veil ephemeral, sometimes in shreds on pileus margin, white, thin, membranous; universal veil limbate, short, submembranous, white, with thickened or rolled edge free about two thirds of distance around stipe base.
Odor lacking or mild to somewhat fishy…. Taste not recorded.
There are lots of caveats. Will you allow putting iodine solution on a pile of spores as being a task that could be done in or near the “field”? If so, then the first step of the key is: If spores turn dark —> subgenus Lepidella. If spores are the same color as the solution (don’t turn dark) —> subgenus Amanita.
But I have for years given a talk about recognizing the seven sections of the genus (well, I used to believe there were six). I could try writing this talk down in the form of a key. I’m sure there will be some caveats…
This is the best idea that has been suggested recently for general users of the Amanita Studies website. Let me see what I can come up with.
I’ve read that, and it focuses more on developmental patterns and microscopic features of the tissue structure. There’s some mention of common field characters, but I was thinking something like a specimen-in-hand key usable in the field. (I expect such might not always be able to distinguish them perfectly, but perhaps narrow them down and indicate which remaining ones are more or less likely.)
Information like, for example: if it’s all white or white with grey, and has fine powder on it or else a chlorine-like smell, it’s probably a lepidella. Maybe structured into a dichotomous key, maybe kept as prose.
I suggest reading the home page of the Amanita Studies web site:
There are seven sections. On the cited page, there is an overview and a brief summary of the seven sections, the sister genus Limacella, and two names for genera that are probably synonyms for sect. Caesareae according to the current state of knowledge.
From each of the brief descriptions, you can link to a list of the known taxa of the relevant section as vetted as well as currently possible by Tulloss and Yang (editors of the site).
Once you know how to get to the seven sectional lists, you can access species descriptions on the site from a checklist, from a sectional list, or by an embedded google search tool.
I think some yellow or yellowish taxa can be excluded: A. crenulata has a powdery volva; A. xylinivolva has a cottony limbate volva and somewhat suggests a species of the Phalloideae. The habit would appear to include taxa that are most frequently associated with Tsuga canadensis (A. albocreata and A. praecox nom. prov.).
Except for the pyramidal or conical warts on the cap, the specie rather strongly suggests Amanita species S1 from the Amanita Studies site New Jersey Pine Barrens and Great Smoky Mountains checklists.
What is the source providing the information that A. gemmata exudes a resinous substance? I am not aware of any amanita exuding such a substance.
I don’t think that A. gemmata occurs in N. Amer. We have at least one available name for a gemmata-like Amanita — A. russuloides, although there are undescribed taxa that might be confused with it in a photograph. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any work that resolves the problems for the “gemmata group.”
Created: 2009-09-04 19:27:11 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2011-03-29 18:57:57 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 215 times, last viewed: 2016-03-22 09:48:22 PDT (-0700)