Observation 27383: Amanita amerimuscaria Tulloss & Geml nom. prov.
When: 2009-10-24
Collection location: Hudson, Ohio, USA [Click for map]
Who: tkokkinos
No herbarium specimen

Notes: The person who picked it located the mushroom in a pine grove; color, shape and markings seemed accurate.

[admin – Sat Aug 14 02:01:17 +0000 2010]: Changed location name from ‘Hudson, Ohio’ to ‘Hudson, Ohio, USA

Proposed Names

11% (6)
Eye3
Used references: Checked wild mushroom references for Ohio on the internet and after several searches and photo comparisons, this seemed to be the most logical choice for Northeastern Ohio.
2% (9)
Recognized by sight: Pink tones and lack of annulus.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
ooooo, an amanita dust-up!!!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-07-11 18:15:35 CEST (+0200)

I’m in!

Seriously, this peachy amanita does bear a resemblence to the lovely and striking persicina. What strikes me about this sighting is more the location in Ohio…outside of its known range. But that could well be a function of its resemblence to muscaria and the general lack of amanitologists. MO has really helped us to look harder at some of these collections from here and there. And mushrooms do move around.

But without a specimen, this one will have to remain at a fairly low confidence level.

BTW, there is certainly a partial veil, which “grows up” to be an annulus, in the photo. I believe that persicina has a friable annulus, so it often gets left behind as the mushroom matures, but it is indeed present when the mushroom is young. If the bulb had a bit more peachy color I would be better convinced of persicina. Cap color in the muscaria group is so darned variable…

They are close
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2010-07-11 17:31:05 CEST (+0200)

See my comments under 48391. I might not know persicina when I see it. You probably are much more familiar with it as it is common in the SE.

My mistake but…
By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2010-07-11 17:18:06 CEST (+0200)

My mistake by not expanding the second pic, but it sure looks like the partial veil is around the base in the first pic, maybe part of it?

What are you trying to say Walt by posting Rods description? Please do not think I am being rude by asking you that, I had some trouble it seemed like the other day for asking why to someone, guess they though I was some kinda hardcore ID’er no sorry I have lots to learn.

A good bit of Rods description from his page fits this specimen, also not all specimens are how they are described in a field guide.

From Rod’s website:
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2010-07-11 16:54:51 CEST (+0200)
I think…
By: Hamilton (ham)
2010-07-11 16:53:13 CEST (+0200)

…there is some confusion running rampant.

partial veil
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2010-07-11 16:50:36 CEST (+0200)

Is obvious in Pic. 2

Eat A Peach
By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2010-07-11 16:39:04 CEST (+0200)

Peach colored pileus, peachy hues on the stipe, annulus hanging around its ankles, weak to no concentric rings, peach colored fly agaric?

No Annulus
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2010-07-11 16:12:27 CEST (+0200)

How can you call it A. amerimuscaria with no annulus?
I could understand if it was an aged specimen and the annulus had fallin off, but this one clearly never developed.

Created: 2009-10-26 18:08:06 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2013-11-17 20:56:45 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 183 times, last viewed: 2016-11-27 21:09:14 CET (+0100)
Show Log