Observation 72577: Limacella pitereka Grgur.
When: 2011-07-25
Who: TimmiT
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Same as observation 65108

Proposed Names

38% (3)
Recognized by sight
ret
60% (2)
Eye3
Recognized by sight: Because the stem has a sheath of gluten from the annular zone downward according to the base according to Tim’s notes on fresh material.
70% (2)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
The sequences should be public in about a week or less.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2016-11-14 16:19:29 PST (-0800)

nrITS sequences (two haplotypes) and on nrLSU sequence from the material sent by Tim have been OK’d for posting by GenBank. The unfamiliar words mean that, in the many repeats of the nrITS gene in the genome of the L. pitereka of this collection, there are at least two different versions of nrITS differing at one character. GB accession numbers are KX443409-KX443411.

Very best,

Rod Tulloss

We have good DNA sequences and some microscopy from your material.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-11-19 18:09:18 PST (-0800)

Thanks again, Tim for sending us the very interesting material.

We can say with confidence, that my inclination to compare some North American material in your species was not a productive line of inquiry. A mistake.

I’m inclined to think that L. pitereka is a possibility as has been suggested by funkeytom some time back.

Hello, FT. Do you have more information on pitereka that has become available since the species was published? What I have is the information from the protolog. I am not sure how to interpret some of the original description.

Very best,

Rod

Your material arrived
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-12-09 12:31:22 PST (-0800)

Thank you, Tim. Your material arrived quite awhile ago, and I can’t remember if I let you know or if I thanked you.

Very best,

Rod

That is interesting
By: TimmiT
2011-11-15 06:36:59 PST (-0800)

I would never have considered the possibility of these being related to the Mexican species given the climatic differences between the two locations. It’s always possible that they hitch-hiked with an import as you mentioned. Ornamental plants have been imported from all over the world, though more commonly from Europe.

I can’t wait to hear what further study reveals.

A slight surprise…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-11-13 11:46:55 PST (-0800)

I only had a short time to look at spores this p.m….

Take a look at the comparison of sporographs on the techtab for

< http://www.amanitaceae.org?Limacella+sp-Cannon-25-vii-2011 >.

It looks like your material is more similar to the Mexican material than I would have thought. Of course, there are a lot more characters to check…and we now could try checking the DNA as well. Interesting. Maybe this species has been transported with soil from North America…possibly with one of the importations of Pine? Or….?

R.

I think that the use of the idea of tiers…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-11-13 09:10:54 PST (-0800)

is peculiar to some mycologists. I’m used to Amanita in which all of the statements such as “in two tiers” that I read in older descriptions just don’t seem to match the variation that I see. Maybe it’s like the tendency of workers in the times before about the mid-20th Cent. to call every pallid color (and some not so pallid colors) “white.” I figure they didn’t have modern detergents, and their “white” shirts must have been rather dingy. :-)

R

Ok,
By: TimmiT
2011-11-13 07:38:52 PST (-0800)

the other photos show lamellulae that are of roughly three lengths, but not uniform enough to call them teirs.

They do
By: TimmiT
2011-11-13 07:29:38 PST (-0800)

look quite diverse in that photo. I’ll have a look through my computer and see if I have any other pics of the lamellae.

check the lamellulae on the last image…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-11-13 07:22:56 PST (-0800)

on this page — 160071. Looks like very diverse lengths…

R

From memory
By: TimmiT
2011-11-13 07:18:00 PST (-0800)

the lamellulae were in three tiers but I didn’t make a note of it in the older observation. It’s quite hard to tell from the angle the photos were taken.

Bendigo has more or less the same habitat as this observation. I don’t have any photos from the pine plantation.

Thanks for the notes on pronunciation.

Citing the older observation… [edited]
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-11-13 06:27:48 PST (-0800)

Is the 65108 material the material you collected in a plantation of alien Pinus radiata? I see Eucalyptus leaves on the ground and not pine needles. If I cite the older observations (and link to it), how would you describe the habitat in Bendigo Regional Park, Lockwood, Victoria, Australia?

Is the soil as acid in Bromley as you mention in your comment on 65108?

R

Got it.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-11-13 06:24:24 PST (-0800)

I noticed that, in your photo of the older observation of what appears to be the same species, the lamellulae are very common and of many more than three lengths. There seems to be a lamellula between every pair of (otherwise) adjacent lamellae. You’ll see that I’m experimenting with rearranging data from your notes. I’m trying to figure out how to describe a limacella without saying that the “cap” is the color that is below the slime (which I think is best considered to be the color of the cap’s flesh and to emphasize the color (at least in your material) as belonging to the slime. I don’t imagine that I’ve reached an “optimal” solution yet…

Your pictures are up.

After lots of exposure to the way people in various countries say Latin names, I find that I can’t produce a consistent pronunciation for “Amanita” because I was taught the “American” pronunciation which involves the use of long English vowels. However, I was not taught the “American” pronunciation of “Limacella” and can be more consistent with that name. Generally (outside of the US), mycologists say Latin names using their mother tongue’s consonant sounds and Romance language vowel sounds. Following that observation, “Limacella” would have a pronunctiation something like “lee-ma-CELL-a” or “lee-ma-SAY-la”…the first being a sort of compromise with the dull English vowel sound for the “e” and the latter being (say) a sinewhat more “Spanish” version.

R

LGA
By: TimmiT
2011-11-13 05:46:27 PST (-0800)

Central Goldfields Shire

Out of curiosity how is Limacella pronounced?

Starting to go up on WAO [edited]
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-11-13 05:26:53 PST (-0800)

The URL for the new page will be

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Limacella+sp-Cannon-25-vii-2011

No photos yet…

I need the name of Bromley’s LGA.

R.

Hi Rod
By: TimmiT
2011-11-13 02:53:53 PST (-0800)

I’m glad they made it safe and sound, and hope my notes were of some use. I tried to add as many details I could think of.

It would be great to see a page for this taxon on WAO and of course you have my permission. It is nice to be asked though, even if it’s not necessary. Every now and then I come across an image of mine on the web and didn’t even know it was being used.

It seems that Limacella is not very well understood in Australasia. Some of the references I come across are a bit vague. Bruce Fuhrer shows a mushroom that superficially resembles this taxon in ‘A field guide to Australian Fungi’ (2005) but the description is simply “An undescribed species similar to L. pitereka, but caps are light brown with a deeper brown centre. Spores not examined.”

From the virtual herbarium website it appears that there are 28 Limacella collections in Australian herbaria. Ten of those have no species designation but when mapped it seems they represent 3 different taxa. Fourteen are labelled L. pitereka and the others are L. illinita (X2), L. guttata and L. candidus (maybe Hygrophorus?).

Oh, and thanks for the link to the L. pitereka tab.

Regards,
Tim

sect. Lubricae
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-11-12 17:44:26 PST (-0800)

I suggest that this is probably a species of Limacella sect. Lubricae. It might take a little while to get any more specific (no pun intended) than that.

R.

Limacella pitereka now has a technical tab on WAO [slightly edited twice]
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-11-12 11:32:23 PST (-0800)

I did this some time back and forgot to mention it in the discussion of this observation.

See

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Limacella+pitereka

There are several open issues discussed on that page. One of these is the problem of the scales on the spore drawings in Dr. Grgurinovic’s protolog of L. pitereka (and the amanitas that she treats in the same book). I did a little study comparing her spore measurements to those of other mycologists who reviewed the same collections. A 20% error is near to the average for width measurements. The length measurement error is less. I hypothesized reasons for the differences in measurements and these are provided in a note in the “basidiospores” data field on the techtab for L. pitereka (page address given above).

Very best,

R.

Material received.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-11-12 09:58:16 PST (-0800)

This is a very nice little collection that you sent, Tim. I also appreciate the effort that you put into the notes. Thank you.

With your permission, I will create a page for this taxon on WAO using both your macroscopic observations and some of your images. I realize CC gives me the right to use the images under appropriate conditions; but, since we are humans, it seems that we could exchange some words on the specific subject.

For a long time, there have been few reports of Limacella from the Southern Hemisphere. Until very recently, many of the reports were doubtful for one reason or another (e.g., reported presence of cystidia or of a lamella trama that was not bilateral/divergent). Now, MO has been the source of one species that really appear to be limacellas from New Zealand and Australia. Are these taxa that originated outside Gondwana? Or not? This is a very interesting. I have a feeling that there are more limacellas in the world than is presently evident.

It seems like it would be a good time to put together some thoughts on methods for annotating fresh material of limacellas in particular. This might help in getting a standard description format together as has been done to some degree for the genus Amanita.

Very best,

Rod

Slime colour
By: TimmiT
2011-07-27 09:34:53 PDT (-0700)

Sorry it took so long to reply… busy day.

The slime colour was observed from fresh material by scraping a small amount off the pileus and viewing against white wax paper.

The complete colouration of the immature cap seems to be a consistent feature. I uploaded another photo showing the same thing. The colouration of the mature caps are much more variable, with some having the brown colour covering half the cap and others being pigmented only over the umbo.

I was wondering about Grgurinovic’s description of an inverse lamella trama. Perhaps it’s an error, but I guess the only way to know would be to study the material she used.

I tried the scale in the illustrations and also found a discrepancy. If the illustrations represent averages the scale value seems off by at least 20% (don’t hold me to that maths.. it’s well past my bed time).

Cheers,
Tim.

The stipe decoration is typical of sect. Lubricae. [minor edits]
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-07-26 21:18:46 PDT (-0700)

Yes, the colored slime is very worthy of note. Did you see the color in fresh material or dried?

The decoration of the stipe is, indeed, similar to that on the cap…at least in Limacella sect. Lubricae. The type of that section is L. illinita.

The [single] species I know from the Chiricahua Mtns. (Arizona, USA) and from a site the state of Tlaxcala, Mexico has the unexpanded cap (when small) completely colored as in your material.

Sorry that I haven’t gotten to L. pitereka yet. I just remembered why I haven’t put L. pitereka on WAO. Grgurinovic states that the gill trama is “inverse.” This should not be so in the Amanitaceae.

Also, May I ask that you try using the scale in the illustrations to measure the spores? (This applies to all the Amanitaceae in the book that I have tried.) There’s something wrong with the translation value given for the scale. I worked up some details for this, but I’d rather you try it and let me know what you find.

Very best,

Rod

Thanks
By: TimmiT
2011-07-26 20:54:26 PDT (-0700)

for your comments Rod. That Mexican species in quite similar.

Pileipellis was the wrong word to use. I’m still fairly new to the microscopy side of things. They appeared just as you described them with long, thin (hair-like) hyphae extending from the pileus surface to support the gel layer. This was also seen on the stipe surface but were a little more intertwined.

A couple of macroscopic characteristics that may (or may not) be taxonomically significant were that the the slime was not colourless but had a brown tint and that the stipe, although cylindrical much of the time, has a tendency to flatten significantly toward the top.

Oh, and thank you for the explanation of the gel development. It’s great to have you (and others) on here to share this wealth of knowledge.

Tim

Also…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-07-26 13:48:43 PDT (-0700)

Tim,

You might want to compare this species from the SW U.S. and central Mexico. I’m not sure if it has been described yet or not:

http://www.amanitaceae.org/?Limacella+sp-Tulloss-8-31-94-E

Very best,

R.

Because of the development of the slime layer…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-07-26 13:42:25 PDT (-0700)

on the cap of a Limacella, I’m inclined to think that there is no pileipellis in Limacella Two generations of hyphae are generated from special cells that develop at the top of the pileus context. The first set of hyphae gelatinizes relatively quickly, and the second set seem to hold the slime in place. Sort of a “reverse hair gel” situation. The hairs hold the gel in place. At any rate, the development is highly specialized. The terminal cells on the “hairs” are inflated in the section of Limacella that has a membranous annulus. To my eye, this suggests the start of the development of the universal veil that typically arises from the upper stipe context with no intervening pileipellis in the basal amanitas (Amanita subsect. Vittadiniae).

More later.

Very best,

R.

microscopy
By: TimmiT
2011-07-26 11:49:29 PDT (-0700)

I had a quick look at them under the scope. The lamella trama was divergent, stipe tissue longitudinally acrophysalidic, pileipellis a trichoderm, and spores almost globose (looked finely ornamented and had a prominent apiculus).

Sounds like you’ve been busy. That must have been quite a task.

Very interested in dried material.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-07-26 11:10:49 PDT (-0700)

Will come back to you on this as soon as I finish today’s first item… You should have divergent (bilateral) lamella trama and longitudinally acrophysalidic stipe tissue. I just went over all the Amanitaceae published since 1969 (post-Bas) with Cristina Rodriguez to creata a talk on trends in methods of description in the family …304 valid names in the batch, and went through Grgurinovic again for the purpose. Need to look at my notes…

R.

Rod
By: TimmiT
2011-07-26 08:49:43 PDT (-0700)

If you see this observation…

Do you have any insight on differentiating Limacella illinita from L. pitereka? I have Grgurinovic’s description of L. pitereka but none for L. illinita so I’m not sure how they compare. To my untrained eye these match L. pitereka fairly well, though I have only had a quick glance under the scope (no measurements yet).

I have some dried material if you still want them.

Cheers,
Tim

Created: 2011-07-25 08:29:47 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2016-11-14 16:38:45 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 446 times, last viewed: 2016-11-22 22:20:12 PST (-0800)
Show Log