Observation 28985: Amanita Pers.
When: 2009-11-28
Collection location: Lebanon [Click for map]
No herbarium specimen


[admin – Sat Aug 14 02:02:16 +0000 2010]: Changed location name from ‘Lebanon, Middle East’ to ‘Lebanon’

Proposed Names

69% (4)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
-63% (8)
Recognized by sight: Atypical striations.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
If the spores are ellipsoid or narrower,…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-12-02 11:30:23 PST (-0800)

then it might be one of the mediterranean “narrow”-spored species of the Vaginatae such as A. huijsmannii or A. mairei.

Very best,


sorry, not a phalloides.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-12-01 07:29:11 PST (-0800)

this looks like one of the amanitas in section Vaginata. Which one though, I wouldn’t hazard a guess. I can barely name the grisettes in California let alone Lebanon!

Amanita mairei is an interesting choice…and one that I am wholly unfamiliar with. It is a grisette from your neck of the woods, though. We’ll have to wait for Rod’s comments on this one.

Suggested species
By: Nadine (nadine modad)
2009-12-01 07:06:10 PST (-0800)

I would like to suggest that this Amanita could be A. mairei or A. vaginata
Anyone agrees with these 2 possibilities?

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2009-11-29 13:29:12 PST (-0800)

I should note that A. phalloides can have a greyish cap and a patch of volval material on it, also there are atypical specimens that have a slightly striate margin, like in the link i provided below.

As far as the annulus, its possible we cant see it at this stage.

I can see Herbert’s point
By: Richard Sullivan (enchplant)
2009-11-29 12:28:17 PST (-0800)

If somebody had suggested that this observation was say, A. calyptoderma, that would be dangerous. We allow for the possibility ( however small) that it is A. phalloides in Identifying it as Amanita sp.

By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2009-11-29 12:22:15 PST (-0800)

In an earlier post you said: “sure it is if your giving misinformation and someone believes you.”

But this is getting pointless. You suggested we agree to disagree and I think that’s wise.

I dont
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2009-11-29 12:17:26 PST (-0800)

think anyone was intentionally giving out misinformation , nor did i say that.
I’m sorry you took me the wrong way.

By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2009-11-29 12:15:31 PST (-0800)

A few posts ago is one by Herbert Baker, apparently referring to irenea, saying something about giving misinformation.

I don’t think that sort of accusatory tone is appropriate in a debate over a mushroom ID, which tends to be mostly a matter of opinion at this point as we don’t have the DNA science to be definitively testing most specimens yet.

Certainly I don’t think anyone was arguing that the unknown Amanita in this observation was safe to eat. If someone had been advising that, I could see it being a big enough deal to use strong or harsh words in response, but that did not seem to be occurring.

Your right Cristian
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2009-11-29 12:14:06 PST (-0800)

It doesn’t show any of the typical features, but i still think it could be.
I guess we can all agree to disagree, im fine with that.

Not A. phalloides
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2009-11-29 12:06:35 PST (-0800)

Of all the characters that set A. phalloides apart from other Amanita, which are present in this observation?
The cap color is not like A. phalloides, the cap margin is sulcate (unlike A. p.), the stipe doesn’t appear to have an annulus (unlike A.p.), the pileus has a large UV patch (unlike A.p.).
No need to argue, simply definitively state why this is NOT Amanita phalloides.

who was this “someone” i accused
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2009-11-29 11:57:59 PST (-0800)

I’m not following you..

Excuse me?
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2009-11-29 11:55:01 PST (-0800)

Two posts ago you accused someone of “giving misinformation”. That is not a friendly act.

I dont
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2009-11-29 11:52:29 PST (-0800)

think anyone called anyone a liar.

Now, now
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2009-11-29 11:46:55 PST (-0800)

I don’t think there’s any call here to be calling anyone a liar.

Nobody smart eats any Amanita there’s any smidgen of doubt about, and it seems there’s plenty of doubt about this one.

sure it is
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2009-11-29 11:39:56 PST (-0800)

if your giving misinformation and someone believes you.

To deny an ID
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-11-29 11:37:05 PST (-0800)

as phalloides shouldn’t be dangerous.
Eating a mushroom without knowing exactly what it IS – that’s dangerous.

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2009-11-29 11:28:21 PST (-0800)

why i said atypical. To deny the possibility is dangerous.


A. phalloides looks very different here.
By: Richard Sullivan (enchplant)
2009-11-29 07:23:37 PST (-0800)

Amanita phalloides characteristically does not have striations on the edge of the cap. and seldom has a big patch of universal veil on top of the cap. You have to dig it up to see if it has a bulbous base to the stem. Phalloides is usually (in Northern California) pale metallic yellow.

Created: 2009-11-28 15:37:08 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2011-04-28 09:47:53 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 219 times, last viewed: 2016-10-24 15:57:14 PDT (-0700)
Show Log