Observation 73731: Amanita Pers.

Hemlock woods. A few flattened white patches on the cap. Stipe base buried; no bulb, sparse friable volva which was virtually impossible to dig up intact.

No obvious signs of red or brown staining.

Hoping for a few spores to drop.

Proposed Names

58% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
29% (1)
Used references: Amanita studies, ret’s recommendation.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Correction to my last comment.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2018-01-03 07:31:37 PST (-0800)

Also found in the same area, two weeks prior to this observation, was this obs 72832. It did not occur to me until seeing 72832 again (just came back up to the top on MO this morning) that 72832 may (also?) represent maryaliceae.

If 72832 is indeed maryaliceae, then I think this lends credibility to the canescens proposal proposal for 73731 (the presently viewed obs).

Okay, Dave
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2018-01-02 18:17:10 PST (-0800)

How white were the caps – Destroying Angel white? :-)
The pix show the cap surface uniformly tinged with pale olivaceus-gray (unless this is an artifact of digital photography due to the lighting conditions), which I thought was consistent with canescens, and, more importantly, the caps are broadly bumpy-dimpled, which is also in line with that taxon in my experience. The UV of canescens is often crumbly and may fall of on its own or get washed away by rain… Well, I guess it doesn’t hurt to propose this name just in case.
Maybe this discussion will stimulate Rod to get this conundrum settled by molecular means. :-)

This is the only example…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2018-01-02 17:18:28 PST (-0800)

of a potential A. maryaliceae that I have found. So, everything I believe to know about this species is what I’ve learned as a result of comparing this mushroom to the available records, of which there are not many. I know that canescens can be pale, however this mushroom is very white. Like you suggest, Igor, I think the lack of UV material on the cap (except on the disc) is perhaps the best argument against canescens.

Good analysis, Dave
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2018-01-01 23:36:33 PST (-0800)

I am not familiar with maryaliceae at all, unless I’ve been mistaking them for canescens. I am sure that once I come across a bona fide maryaliaceae, I will get a good feel of its gestalt. Canescens is a big and clunky mushroom with a plentiful volva on the cap that takes all sorts of shapes, more typical of what a lepidella should be, that comes from a variety of habitats. Caps at times can be almost white rather than the usual pale grayish-brown over the disk.
I agree that your mushrooms look very much like the young fb from obs 280555. Still, take a look at some of the young canescens obsies, e.g., Geoff’s obs 287761.

Canescens vs. maryaliceae.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2018-01-01 18:51:41 PST (-0800)

I just spent some time reviewing canescens and maryaliceae, and carefully examining those photographed spores that provide a fairly clear profile.

I think there are several traits that favor maryaliceae.
1. Cap appears to lack gray/tan/brown pigment.
2. Although there are a few UV warts concentrated near the disc of this young specimen, cap does not show plentiful warts.
3. Volval deposits seen in the photo as detached patches in the soil.
4. Spore lengths are all well short of 10 microns. Longest spore observed was slightly under 9 microns.
5. Stipe surface with abundant flocculent material.
6. Neither oak nor pine present in the habitat. This area was dominated by hemlock. (There may have been some spruce in the vicinity.)

Traits that seem to favor canescens.
1. There appears to be some UV material clinging to the cap margin. (However, the cap is unexpanded, so one is left to wonder if this material was destined to fall away.)
2. Spore quotient…

For the spores I examined, 1.5 < Q < 1.75, with Q’~1.6. This is significantly larger than what Amanita Studies reports for maryaliceae. However, reported mean spore quotient for canescens exceeds 1.6. Note the spores seen pictured in the following maryaliceae observation obs 280555. Mean quotient appears to be close to 1.6.

By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2018-01-01 13:54:08 PST (-0800)

I am wondering if this could be an example of A. canescens based on its looks. The spores’ Qav estimated by Dave seems to support this theory.

I just looked at the spore pic…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-04-12 09:56:20 PDT (-0700)

and I agree. Being a bit more careful and measuring to the nearest 1/16 inch (the zoomed in version) it appears most of these spores have q around or just under 1.7.

I’ll look for it again. It’s one of my favorite hunting sites in the Poconos. Hopefully we have the right kind of weather for NEMF in August. This location is on my way to the foray site.

I think I know this one…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-04-12 09:44:23 PDT (-0700)

We have this dried specimen now, David, and cataloged it for the herbarium this morning. This seems very much like Amanita maryaliceae nom. prov. for which I have an old photo on WAO here:


The spores in the image seem mostly to have a Q probably below 1.7, which is the case with what I know of maryaliceae. It’s neat to know that you found with Hemlock. I think Mary and I first found it in New England Hemlock-Hardwood forest in western Massachusetts many years back.

Very best,


Got the print.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2011-08-10 23:59:45 PDT (-0700)

And it seems prety interesting. Amyloid spores are ellipsoid fairly elongate… Average length about 8 mu or so, q>1.7. Posting a photo.

Drying the material and will bring along to NEMF.

By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-08-10 07:51:50 PDT (-0700)

I hope you get a spore print.

Very best,


Created: 2011-08-09 22:16:46 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2018-01-03 07:32:40 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 129 times, last viewed: 2018-01-05 19:15:00 PST (-0800)
Show Log