Observation 25750: Amanita sect. Caesareae Singer
When: 2009-09-22
No herbarium specimen

Notes: There were a fair number of these mostly under pines. Some had rather prominent umbos.

Proposed Names

51% (6)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
ret
83% (3)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Because the species within stirps Hemibapha of sect. Caesareae (the “Slender Caesars”) are differentiated to such a great extent by colors, bruising, and spore size and shape, I still find the color combination in these images too different from that in A. jacksonii to go for the latter name as a definitive ID.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
specimens found farther south east
By: kristana (kristana)
2014-10-11 17:29:01 CDT (-0400)

I found these farther Southeast in a small manicured clearing surrounded by Piney Woods and a scattering of Oak at the entrance to Claiborne Park. This is about 45 minutes from The Big Thicket National Preserve.

On the east side of the entrance I found two Amanita Caesareae, emerging from the universal veil, mostly torn completely away from it but both having the secondary veil covering the gills completely.These were extremely yellow when I picked them but several minutes after I gathered them they started to resemble a ripe peach. Later I noticed that the veil had detached from the cap leaving a ring around the stipe.

We weren’t able to enter the park, as it was after hours, but we were able to gather several other species of mushrooms and, right before the sun went down for good, we found an fully opened Amanita Caesareae and 2 more just barely growing out of their universal veils. These were in a more wooded section, with much more oak. The fully opened mushroom had a nice, big, bite taken out of it. One of the unopened specimens was either growing around or on a large oak twig. The specimens still contained in their universal veils were a much darker red than the ones I gathered out in the little open area.

Because of Sartory and L. Maire…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-10-07 16:19:52 CDT (-0400)

Thank you for raising the question.

In some field guides you will see a species called Squamanita umbonata (Sumst.) Bas. At one point in the history of this strange fungus, it was assigned to Amanita [as A. umbonata (Sumst.) Sartory & L. Maire]. This was before Pomerleau thought of naming A. umbonata Pomerleau.

Hence, Pomerleau had unknowlingly created a posterior homonym. Such a name cannot be accepted as correct. Hence, when Pomerleau learned that there had been a previous use of the combination “Amanita umbonata,” he had to change his name to a new one and picked the epithet “jacksonii.”

This story falls into the (large) “stuff happens” category of mycological nomenclature.

Very best,

Rod

Rod
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2009-10-07 14:42:43 CDT (-0400)

Question.., Why doesn’t the earlier Amanita umbonata (Sumst.) Sartory & L. Maire (1923) take precedence over A. jacksonii? Thanks

Spore photo added..
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2009-10-06 23:38:55 CDT (-0400)
The spores were inamyloid. They were broadly ellipsoid and approx. 8.6 X 6.8 microns. That does at least put them in the range of Amanita jacksonii.
see 23799
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-09-28 23:26:09 CDT (-0400)

r.

Created: 2009-09-25 15:49:35 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2012-06-06 17:41:41 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 304 times, last viewed: 2016-11-21 12:50:09 CST (-0500)
Show Log