Observation 59582: Limacella “sp-L-WA02” Tulloss cryptonom. temp.
When: 2010-11-20
(45.8039° -121.4696° )
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: In a mixed forest. Odor and taste distinctly farinaceous. Skin peels off completely. Remnants of partial veil visible on stem; stem covered with fibrils from the ring zone all the way down. The pictures taken inside are a little too yellow; the reddish component does not show well.

[admin – Tue Feb 08 12:34:52 +0000 2011]: Changed location name from ‘Husum, Klickitat Co, Washington, USA’ to ‘Husum, Klickitat Co., Washington, USA


This picture was taken in the same area (probably 10-20m from) where the Limacellas werre found. It shows a Doug fir cone. The mushrooms in this picture are not Limacellas. (I don’t know what they are.)

Proposed Names

77% (6)
Recognized by sight: Looks like it has free gills, viscid cap and veil. Farinaceous taste and smell fits well in the genus
-61% (6)
Recognized by sight
81% (1)
Based on chemical features: This collection is defining material for the partial species concept, Limacella sp-L-WA01.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Thank you for the additional information, Sava.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2016-09-16 11:47:10 CEST (+0200)

Very best,


By: Sava Krstic (sava)
2016-09-16 07:15:27 CEST (+0200)


Thanks for the update. Saying that these mushrooms “grew in litter on the forest floor” would be accurate indeed. The first photo was taken within a step from the place where the mushrooms were found and picked. As for the trees, it’s mostly Douglas fir and Gary oak. It is possible that there are additional trees there, but I don’t remember. I believe we could get some enthusiastic OMS members visit the place again at the end of the coming season to record the trees and try to recollect the mushrooms.


Do you remember anything about the trees in the mixed forest…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2016-09-15 16:45:17 CEST (+0200)

where this material was found? Is it accurate to say the material grew in litter on the forest floor?

Very best,


The nrITS sequence from this collection has been submitted to GenBank.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2016-09-15 16:11:38 CEST (+0200)

To date, a second collection of this species has been collected (also in Washington) by Noah Siegel. This species is genetically separable from all other sequenced limacellas; hence, it was time to get the one locus we have into GenBank. We have created a new code name for this taxon:


Thanks again, Sava.

Very best,


And thanks for the new data.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2013-12-04 12:23:30 CET (+0100)


Hello, Sava.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2013-12-04 12:23:00 CET (+0100)

Your collections are much appreciated. The collections of friendly and helpful people allow one to touch spots all over the world and to see and to learn about the mushrooms that grow in those places.

Thank you.

Very best,


By: Sava Krstic (sava)
2013-12-04 05:49:02 CET (+0100)

Thanks again for the work on this collection.

I added the coordinates of the location. Every year since 2010, I visited this place at least once in November, but haven’t seen this Limacella again.


Some news on this collection. …EDIT
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2013-11-30 16:12:30 CET (+0100)

Dr. Jozsef Geml has sent me a bunch of DNA sequence data on this collection; and from the data, it looks as though we have got a good ITS (proposed barcode) sequence from this collection.

The next steps are to obtain two other sequences that will be used for the Agaricales Diversification (aka “aDiv” aka “3000 agarics”) project. If we can get the data, I have proposed this collection as part of the sampling of Limacella for the worldwide study of the genetic history of the evolution of the gilled fungi.

Thanks again for the sample.

Very best,


Well then…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-11 18:09:16 CET (+0100)

I’ll pursue perfection just this far. :-) I’ll return to a sectional name.


The persuit of “perfection”…
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2010-12-11 14:41:56 CET (+0100)

Hi Rod- As you implied about your own site, it really comes down to a question of prioritization. If someone else feels passionate about adding sections for Limacella, then that would be great. Personally, I’ve taken the view for a while now that it’s better for me to work on the stuff that I’m uniquely positioned to work on such as admin activities like fixing authors, adding the new donation functionality (and setting up the non-profit organization behind it), revising the handling of locations, enabling different ways of voting, or working on tools for transferring information between MO and other websites including your excellent site on the Amanitaceae. Stuff that can be done by others on the site, I leave to the community.

Response to Sava’s posting that came while I was writing mine….
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-10 23:13:56 CET (+0100)

Think I just answered part of the question about the spores in the spore print. Given the condition of the spores, I can’t be sure whether they were mature or immature. The one I measured was pretty much the same size as the few mature ones that I was able to find and measure on the gills. Some of the broken ones could have been less mature (smaller, less contents), but I’d be guessing at that.

I should give some thought to whether it would be a GOOD THING to prepare a note taking outline based on what I’ve learned about Limacella. Certainly, I should (at least) try to make a digest of the French paper on development of a Limacella fruiting body from a primordium and get that on-line. Some of it will be quite surprising and other parts really should be taken into account in making a field note form.

Sava, keep after me off-line. I really want to get more information for potential Limacella collectors (including myself) written out so the ideas can be tested.

Very best,


Spore print
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-10 23:05:40 CET (+0100)

Since I started a “blow by blow” description of my experiences with this collection. I will go on a bit longer. An attempt to remove spores from the spore print to view on a separate slide did not go well. I found exactly one measurable spore. Most of the spores were broken and without contents. Among the possible reasons for this are the following

(1) I broke the spores mechanically in the process of moving them (on the edge of a slide) from the spore print to a water drop on a fresh slide.

(2) The spores may have been subject to gelatinization because of exposure to the gluten that got onto the slide around or in the spore print (coming off the stem or of the cap margin area). I did see bits of dried gelatinized material and a fragment of one of the supporting hyphae in the material from the spore print.

Hence, to be as safe as possible in taking spore prints from Limacella in the future I would suggest not removing the stem from the cap and collecting the spores on a 3 × 5 card with a U-shape cut out of it so the stem can pass through the card without dripping gluten onto it. Gluten from the cap edge might be avoided by simply starting with a specimen on which the gluten is drying on the cap edge and not letting the cap edge touch the 3 × 5 card.

I think this is going to be the end of reports on microscopy. If Sava has more input on the macroscopic characters, I’ll get them into the draft description. Otherwise, I have to get to other items.

Very best,


Spores & The Limacella place
By: Sava Krstic (sava)
2010-12-10 22:40:21 CET (+0100)

Rod, are the spores from the slide that I mailed you (spore print) not mature?
Are there any features exhibited by this mushroom that do not fit the description of L. glioderma?

The spot where these Limacellas are found is easy to remember and had an almost fantastic variety in a small area. It’s a little far from home (~1.5 hours), but I’ll make sure we visit it regularly next Fall. Maybe Spring too? (The previous Limacella I found in June.) I hope that if I ever see one of these again, that I will recognize it and take all possible notes and pictures.

I used “nearly free”
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-10 22:14:10 CET (+0100)

The backing off refers to this: In the exsiccatum the gills are clearly attenuate very slowly over some distance so that they create very narrow points aimed at the stem. When I looked at the exsiccatum I thought they might be free, but had second thoughts. When I look at some of the pictures, I get a faint impression that the tip of the point might have been decurrent. Sava has now told us that they were not completely free. I had originally written “free” on the draft technical tab (URL below). I’ve backed off from “free” (based on a questionable impression from dry material) and will go with Sava’s “nearly free” at least until we can see fresh material again. Sava seems to have the touch for Limacella; so I have a hope that we WILL see fresh material again…or Sava will. :-)

Not everything is on this MO page. It’s worth going to the draft species page and see how things are going in more detail. Like, for example, this sucker has clamps all through the tissues that were checked to make sure it was a Limacella; and problems with finding mature spores to measure continue…


free-ish works for me!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-12-10 20:35:23 CET (+0100)

as Rod pointed out below, many of the “critical” characters for the amanitas and their kin are not set in stone, i.e. gills are NOT always free, NOT always white, etc., etc.

looks like all other characters point to a Limacella, though.

which “interpretation that you are backing off of” are you referring to, Rod?

Very cool to have found this Sava…I am jealous! ;)

Gill attachment
By: Sava Krstic (sava)
2010-12-10 20:08:17 CET (+0100)

The gills did not look free. I would say “almost free” if I were sure about what that means. :) Also, the stem did not break off very cleanly from the cap.

I added the three other pictures that I have of these mushrooms, just in case.

getting the most out of the photograph…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-10 19:47:40 CET (+0100)


You’ll see that I’ve deduced from the size of the penny in the second photograph information about the length and width of the stem(s). Thanks for that penny! You can take a look (well anybody can) at the developing macrodescription on the page cited below. Please tell me if you think I’m going wrong in my interpretation. I did the characters of the gills based on the dried material. The shapes of the short gills are really un-Amanita-like. It was hard for me to imagine how the very narrow points of the stipe-ends of the gills were related to the stipe itself. I think they were free. Do you remember from your look at the fresh material? It’s not worth guessing on this, and I’m ready to back off on my interpretation. Hopefully we will get good info in the future. I would like to make the most of the photos that we have.

Very best,


Something else that’s sort of fast…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-10 19:29:45 CET (+0100)

While there are species or suspected species of Limacella that are direct children of the the ?Genus+Limacella page on www.amanitaceae.org, most of the species and suspected species are children of one of the three sections. It is far from optimal, but a user can go to a given sectional list to see a rough definition (when it exists it is in the green bar to the right of the page) and samples of taxa that a certain guy (with as much support from others as he can find) thinks belong to the given section.

Nathan, I’m sure you can appreciate that perfection gets (um) delayed (shall we say) when one is trying to build a big website and all its supporting details and data ALL-AT-ONE-TIME. :-(


The fastest thing…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-10 19:18:25 CET (+0100)


The quickest thing that I can do is point you to the “about” pages on www.amanitaceae.org .

There you will find a set of brief descriptions of the defining characters of the Amanitaceae (http://www.amanitaceae.org/?About+Amanitaceae), the genus Amanita (http://www.amanitaceae.org/?About+Amanita), and the genus Limacella (http://www.amanitaceae.org/?About+Limacella). I have tried to keep it simple, and to eliminate all the half-truths and 96.5%-truths (e.g., gills are always white, gills are always free, the volva is a bag like thing, the gills don’t fork, all species have agaricoid fruiting bodies, etc., etc., etc.).

The current versions of these pages and their “child pages” were prepared to be the introduction to a workbook used by Cristina Rodriguez Caycedo and I to give a brief workshop on the Amanitaceae at the NEMF2010 foray at Kerhonkson, NY.

That doesn’t mean the cited pages are perfect, clean, brilliantly executed or anything else. They were what I did at that time, which was better (in my opinion at that time) than what I’d had for those subjects previously. You will note that the promised page on sections of Limacella doesn’t yet exist.

Since these pages are in flux…and probably will remain so for my life time, it would be best to arrange to stream them to appropriate pages on MO, which I would be happy to support. The idea being (for the general reader, not Nathan) that the pages will then be “self-updating.”

The pages as they are written (you can see that vocabulary is being “taught” in the process of the creation of the page) for a broad audience and all the careful words about hypotheses that need further proof (etc.) are not there. They are intended for a tolerant audience who is willing to understand that I am trying to teach while I am in the process of learning and not reporting on some ultimate and unchanging cement block of knowledge.


First about the spores and Sava’s collection…and the process of learning…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-10 18:57:24 CET (+0100)

Thank goodness that Sava got a spore print out of one of the specimens.

Measuring spores from the lamellae was extremely difficult because the spores remained clustered on the sterigmata for the most part and were very rarely in a position to be properly measured. This was true in both fruiting bodies.

I’m going to take this as a lesson to be passed on: It would appear that specimens of Limacella collected sufficiently early to reveal the original character of the “universal veil analog”—gluten and gluten-supporting hyphae—must have at least one specimen dedicated to producing a spore print after the material has been documented in its original condition—with photographs and detailed notes.

I’m going to go on with trying to measure spores from the spore print. I’d like to have a decent sample so that we can have a sporograph that can be compared with that of other taxa in Limacella. Yes, I know, the sample size is bound to be too small when based on a single collection; however, we’re talking about taxa that are not commonly seen (so far as we know…I hasten to add!). We’re going to be “making do.”

As far as North America goes, I think we’re all learning together. PLEASE, if I’m wrong about this, somebody speak up and point to the great store of knowledge about Limacella. (Yup. I have Dr. Helen Smith’s paper, Neville and Poumarat’s book, Andreas Gminder’s paper, and a library of field guides.)

Very best,


Section names
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2010-12-10 18:15:32 CET (+0100)

I have no problem with supporting the different sections within Limacella within MO and would be perfectly happy for you to add them into the system. It would be particular useful if there were descriptions written for the site so people can learn the distinctions between them. The only thing I was responding to with my action was that there was no name for the genus Limacella, just one for section Lubricae. I did not intend it to be any sort of decision against supporting sections in general.

The reasons I personally did pursue creating the sections is that we have very few observations of Limacella on the site, I consider the genus to be rare that we are lucky if people even know it exists, and I was not familiar with the distinctions between the sections.

By: Sava Krstic (sava)
2010-12-10 18:08:59 CET (+0100)

… should be from Doug firs. I added a photo taken nearby that shows Doug fir cones.

I’ll think if I can add something to the description when I’m at home.

I also believe that this Limacella is distinct from observation 47804. The odors, distinctive in both, were quite different.

Thanks, Rod. This is exciting.


By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-10 16:04:25 CET (+0100)


Do you know the tree(s) from which the needles in the first picture came?

Also, would you describe for me the color(s), distribution, and any other characters you wish to add of the fibrils on the stem?

Very best,


By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-10 03:45:01 CET (+0100)

I think I tried the hardest possible way to get spore measurements…from the less mature specimen. :-(

I was a bit surprised that spores were both plentiful and immature. Almost none were floating in the mounting liquid; they mostly remained rather firmly attached to their basidia. So the first data that I’ve posted on-line is probably not really representative of mature spores. I think that the two ellipsoid spores that I measured must not have been full mature because their “high” Q values were caused by small widths, not by higher than normal lengths. In most taxa I know, mature spore width varies less than mature spore length; the opposite was true in my sample…another reason to believe that most of the spores I saw were immature.

Only 9 spores were found in the appopriate position for measurement AND with contents. My length measurements are pretty much consistent with Sava’s. Mine were 4.5-5.5 microns and the shape ranged from subglobose to broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid (Q ranging from 1.09 to 1.36, with an average of 1.18). Details are on the “technical tab” of the web page I mentioned in an earlier post on this observation. I’ll get to the second fruiting body tomorrow.

Very best,


This is a Limacella.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-09 22:48:12 CET (+0100)

The gill trama is bilateral, divergent. The stem context is longitudinally acrophysalidic. The latter is enough to place the species in the Amanitaceae on its own. The “fibrils” of the stipe are “bundles” of “gluten supporting hyphae” (with dried remains of the gluten in place). These hyphae in their gluten matrix are quite possibly the analog of the chains of inflated (dry) cells that “hang” on the stems of species like A. thiersii among the “most primitive” and nonmycorrhizal species of Amanita sect. Lepidella.

It’s a reasonable hypothesis. :-)


Actually there may be as many as 50 species or so world wide….
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-09 22:43:33 CET (+0100)

Actually there may be as many as 50 species or so world wide. The three sections that are currently used make pretty good sense given what is known about the genus. The (momentary?) problem is how to apply existing names in North America. For selfish North American reasons, it’s nice to have the section names available. If we say “sect. Lubricae”, we know the stipe was gluten-covered below the point of contact between the stem and the developing cap. If we say “sect. Limacella,” then the stem was (relatively speaking) a dry one. If we say “sect. Amanitellae,” then the stem had a membranous partial veil and the analog of the volva (the gluten supporting hyphae on the pileus) include tip cells that begin to approximate the inflated cells in the basal species of Amanita sect. Lepidella. So we are really communicating both macroscopic and microscopic information about taxa if we can state their section. And I don’t think that this needs to be treated as a “black art” sort of thing for specialists. I hope you will reconsider the issue of having a temporary way of communicating about sections in Limacella as we have in the case of Amanita. It can all be easily blown away and converted to a sectional level scheme of real substance that I know is under design and/or development by the much appreciated MO team.

R. :-)

Fixed the author…
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2010-12-09 21:20:39 CET (+0100)

I removed the section name from the Limacella name since it’s such a small genus. Jason and I have talked about adding proper support for sections and I’m sure we’ll get there at some point.

I think this is distinct from the last Limacella that you sent.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-09 20:52:22 CET (+0100)

I have posted the new collection with a temporary code name as


I’m sure that I will not have time to work it up in detail quickly. But I hope to check that it is a Limacella and to get some spore measurements soon.

Herbarium accession number is 457-1.

Very best,


Thank you. Dried material has arrived.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-12-09 15:16:06 CET (+0100)

Thank you, Sava.

The promised dried material has arrived. Mary and I appreciate your card and send you, in return, our best holiday wishes and our hope that your New Year is a rewarding one.

Very best,


The spores
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-11-25 21:45:07 CET (+0100)

are significant for Limacella, small and subglobose. If we add the farinaceous smell, it comes close to L. glioderma – it would be very interesting to read about the final ID.

Spore print
By: Sava Krstic (sava)
2010-11-25 21:13:20 CET (+0100)

Thanks, Irene.

Spore print is white and the spores are (roughly) round with diameter between 4 and 5 microns.

If not glioderma
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-11-25 14:41:21 CET (+0100)

at least very close. Not in section Lubricae, then. I don’t know why it’s added as “author” – I had no other choice..

By: Sava Krstic (sava)
2010-11-25 10:34:30 CET (+0100)

…are almost perfectly round, probably light-colored. I expect to get a spore print tomorrow morning and will measure the spores then too. Limacella glioderma?

Thanks to all helping to ID this mushroom.

Rod, I’ll dry it tomorrow and will be happy to send it to you. It is strange that you never found a Limacella and I, who cannot ever recognize one when I find it, was lucky to collect it twice this year.

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-11-24 15:47:08 CET (+0100)

Spore colour, to start with..?

Very interesting….
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-11-24 15:09:53 CET (+0100)


I would very much like to see the dried specimens.

The folks in the Pacific Northwest of the contiguous 48 U.S. states are very lucky to find Limacella season after season. I know they exist in eastern North America, but I have never personally found one.


Created: 2010-11-24 09:59:52 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2016-09-15 19:42:19 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 483 times, last viewed: 2016-10-28 11:36:26 CEST (+0200)
Show Log