Observation 29729: Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita

Proposed Names

65% (5)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: same amanita sp. as recent sighting in Canyon.
-55% (3)
Recognized by sight
-28% (1)
Recognized by sight
56% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2014-05-11 17:24:54 CEST (+0200)

But that doesn’t answer my question. ;)

multi-observational links…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-05-11 17:23:09 CEST (+0200)

Canyon and Huckleberry Preserve are contiguous areas, with some unique myco-flora. We frequently see the same species in both places. This particular amanita has stood out for a long time by we Huck and Cyn. collectors for its unusual color, and similarity to an aprica (altho the warts on this one are easily removed). “Aprica group” was just a placeholder name. One sequence was run for all of these sightings, but it is still the same, very recognizable, species in hand, IMO.

Hi Debbie
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2014-05-11 17:22:08 CEST (+0200)

Was it a 100% match for the compared genes? The way you wrote it it seemed like it was.

this oddball amanita
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-05-11 17:17:03 CEST (+0200)

was compared to other section amanitas and placed in a tree by Rob. I did nothing other than collect and document! What did your Channel Isle specimens look like, Rod?

DNA shows relatedness, and this one came out closest to Rod’s SPLG1045; in other words, not close to aprica. But I am unwilling to put Rod’s sp. name on it at this time. section Amanita works for me, for now.

this sp. is collected here in the BA with some frequency. Let’s get a real name for it.

I changed my vote, Erlon.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-05-09 01:53:14 CEST (+0200)

I’m prepared to go with a rating that is “higher” still when I get a chance to see the sequence obtained from the present observation’s material. I’d love to see it.

There is no sequence such as the one for which you ask.

All phylogenetic trees are hypotheses concerning phylogeny. There can’t be a perfect one. But that is something like saying Plato’s heaven of the “real” things is nonsense or unknowable. It doesn’t help you.

Several sections of the genus Amanita have almost no reliably identified sequences in databases. Very few sequences have been put in databases intending to be representative of a given taxon; or, if that were the intent, no information is available that justifies the intended match up of sequence and name/organism.

Ben Wolfe created a tree (2012) that is dominated by section Lepidella (the most thoroughly studied section in Amanita). No other section is covered to that degree by a multigene tree. Very soon, section Caesareae will be covered by a multigene tree from a paper with Santiago Sanchez as first author.

Other parts of the genus Amanita have been or will be covered by trees from the group including M. Weiss in Tuebingen, Germany (going back to the mid-1990s) and the lab directed by Zhu L. Yang in Kunming, Yunnan, China. Amanita will have about 20-25% of its present taxa covered in the two gene tree planned for the Agaricales Diversification Project.

You can get a set of sequences based on known collections identified by Dr. Yang and/or myself from a page on the WAO website that provides a list of all such collections of which I know, with the constraint that the collection is publicly available through GenBank.

With regard to the present observation, you would want to use the filter on the sequence collection page so that only the sequences from setion Amanita are listed for you. This will include ALL the sequences derived by Dr. Jozsef Geml for the study in which “sp-LG1045” was first found by means of its genetics. The sequences for that taxon will be found in the section Amanita sequence list. They can also be found on the techtab of this page:


By clicking a GenBank accession number you will be transferred to the corresponding sequence page in GenBank and be able to see all information deposited about a given sequence.

You will note that the sequences are not all sequences of the nrITS gene. I suspect that the nrITS is the gene that a person working with mass sequencing of environmental samples is likely to have. It can be produced rapidly and relatively inexpensively. It has some success in being used to define species.

You will probably want to make your own gene comparisions (e.g., what are called alignments) and, eventually try to make a tree. If you constrain the size of the group of taxa you are dealing with, you will find that the single nrITS gene can provide you some interesting information; however, if the breadth of your set of taxa gets to big you will have some trouble with the commonly available tools (everybody does and various means of trying to get a useful output are used with varying degrees of success).

To do what you want to do, you’ll need to have some software for analyzing and working with the raw output of chromatography…the chromatograph files that have the file extension “.ab1”. You will need to understand how these files are edited and trimmed to remove garbage. Ideally, you will combine two “reads” (two chromatograph files that record the “reading” of a sequence in opposite directions) per sequence…this improves the likelihood that you will be able to recognize clean data, ambiguous data, and junk.

When you have produced what seem to be clean sequences, then you need an alignment program to try to match the sequences as best as possible. In the long run, accuracy is better than speed. But a fast alignment tool will be what you want for comparisons within a relatively contained group like “the muscaroid taxa.”

Tree building is another step; however, a good alignment tool will generate a table that will tell you the percentage of difference (distance) between every pair of sequences that you have aligned. This is extremely useful. Indeed it is data used by tree building algorithms. If you persist in your exploration of sequences, you will find that the picture is extremely complex. For example, it would be lovely if there was a standard maximum distance between sequences that define “species.” In Amanita that is not true.

If you begin with sequences that are already edited and in GenBank, you cut out a lot of difficulties and can still get to see how the sequences group together via alignments.

This is an incredibly brief overview.

You really need to get your hands on data and play with it.

There are over 750 sequences in the WAO sequence collection all backed up by dried material and careful determination that is documented.

Good luck to you and Debbie and others trying your hands with Amanita sequences.



Hi again
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2014-05-08 23:39:21 CEST (+0200)

I was just following Debbie’s lead; and suggesting that name for other observations from this general area that I had labeled ‘A. aprica group’. No more DNA that I know of.? but it sure would be nice to have! I am basing my suggestions for the other observations on purely morphological information. Of course we can’t know for sure without dna work, however, it does get us closer as now we have a gemmata look-alike on the mainland. Do you have any pictures of the holotype for A. “sp-LG1045” or the other two species from Santa Cruz Island? That would be very helpful if we want to start to establish more concrete criteria for naming them through morphological means.
I certainly have not ruled out that there may be some cryptic morphological information yet to be discovered that helps to further clarify and delineate this taxon from others that may look very similar. Phylogenetically speaking, how far away is the gemmatoid group from the muscaroid? I think they must be pretty close because they are part of the same chemotaxonomic group (including pantheroid) of Amanita. Where can I access a good phylogenetic tree for Amanita? Thank you for your time Dr. Tulloss. Erlon

p.s. Please consider changing your vote from doubtful. It’s confusing me. thank you.

Very interesting.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-05-08 21:35:41 CEST (+0200)

Is the sequence available at present?

If so, I’d like to see it. Since a number of collections were identified as “sp-LG1045” on MO today, does that mean that sequences from all the observations were obtained and that they all match? Or that some other information links all the collections together?

Very best,


By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2014-05-08 18:27:27 CEST (+0200)

“the DNA (thanks to Rob Powers for running it!) sez this is a muscaroid taxa, and a DNA match to Tulloss’ Amanita sp-LG1045!” D. Viess

Cautionary note.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-05-08 18:14:33 CEST (+0200)

I caution that sp-LG1045 is only known from Sta. Cruz Isl. of Sta. Barbara in the Channel Islands. It can only be accurately recognized at present by DNA sequences.



fuhgeddabout gemmata or aprica here …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-05-07 19:11:33 CEST (+0200)

the DNA (thanks to Rob Powers for running it!) sez this is a muscaroid taxa, and a DNA match to Tulloss’ Amanita sp-LG1045!

It certainly has the bulb and the muscarioid cap color, but unlike muscaria, this bulb has no rings of volvar material at any time.

fungal fake-out!

By: BakerSt10
2009-12-07 23:10:39 CET (+0100)

It looks the same as the Canyon ones.

Created: 2009-12-07 22:56:04 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2015-05-12 19:01:22 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 300 times, last viewed: 2016-10-26 10:50:48 CEST (+0200)
Show Log