Observation 96720: Amanita “sp-54” Tulloss & Rodrig. Cayc.
When: 2012-06-08
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Spores 6.4-8.4 × 4.3-5.5

Proposed Names

37% (2)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
-57% (2)
Recognized by sight
ret
90% (2)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight
Based on chemical features: A good genetic match to the original collections of “sp-54” from NJ.
ret
-18% (2)
Based on microscopic features: Spore measurements and shape.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
hey Steve!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-07-20 12:25:19 CDT (-0400)

you might want to change your personal webpage to reflect the fact that this amanita is sp-54 rather than 10. Your page was one of the first hits on sp-10, and I didn’t think that it looked right! But again, this is armchair amanita mycology for me … my real hunting grounds are on the west coast.

Still, those cap colors (10 vs 54) look very different.

What was the size of this thing? A. solaniolens is so tiny …

That would be cool, Steve.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2016-04-06 08:37:31 CDT (-0400)

The species seems to present some good hints for visual ID: brownish-gray to gray virgate cap, distinct striations on the cap edge even in youth, and yellow universal veil.

Very best,

Rod

I probably have another sample of this species from another location
By: Stephen Russell (Mycota)
2016-04-05 23:57:31 CDT (-0400)

that I found last year. Ill see about digging it up.

Further good news.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2016-04-04 16:10:32 CDT (-0400)

We got our first good nrLSU sequence for “sp-54” from your material.

Thank you for your generosity, Steve.

Very best,

Rod

We have been able to get nrITS (“proposed fungal barcode”) sequences…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2016-04-04 15:35:29 CDT (-0400)

from this material and from the original NJ collection of “sp-54.” The sequences are identical except for one character that seems to be ambiguous. So this makes for a much bigger range for this species.

Very best,

Rod

Because the specimen was drying in situ,…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-07-26 21:00:11 CDT (-0400)

I cannot be sure of the original cap color, which would help distinguish between the two provisional taxa that I’ve listed as possible identifications for the mushroom in this observation. Unfortunately, the spores were probably a bit abnormal due to the same factor (drying in situ), they tend to be a better match to Amanita sp-10, especially since they are probably a bit undersized due to the drying.

On the other hand, the spore data for sp-54 is derived from a single, small collection. More information is needed on the Indiana material as well as on the two provisional taxa based on New Jersey collections. Friends are helping keep a watch on the only known sp-54 site.

We have to wait to see what the future brings.

Steve, I’ll email you a sporograph comparison if you’d like to post it. It illustrates the above-described situation.

Very best,

Rod

Your material has been received.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-07-24 17:10:18 CDT (-0400)

Thank you.

R

Thank you.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-06-08 22:53:02 CDT (-0400)

For being willing to send the material.

Very best,

Rod

I think that is why your Q values are little higher than I saw in sp-54.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-06-08 22:48:36 CDT (-0400)

R

Ill dry it and send it your way.
By: Stephen Russell (Mycota)
2012-06-08 22:46:19 CDT (-0400)

And probably not as randomly as I should. I tend to move through things quickly and then off to the next one…

I’d like to look at it.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-06-08 22:39:03 CDT (-0400)

Do you force yourself to sample spores randomly?

Rod

It is still fresh…..
By: Stephen Russell (Mycota)
2012-06-08 22:37:21 CDT (-0400)

next to my keyboard. Ive been saving and drying everything I find lately, so this will be as well.

Well, you’re spore data is eliminating “solaniolens”.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-06-08 22:35:34 CDT (-0400)

I only know sp-54 from one collection of multiple fruiting bodies. Did you dry the material photographed for this observation?

Rod

Just ran a few more
By: Stephen Russell (Mycota)
2012-06-08 22:33:48 CDT (-0400)

and the length to width was 1.42-1.79 with an average of 1.58.

This was under hardwoods…

Whoa….
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-06-08 22:26:01 CDT (-0400)

I think this could be A. sp-54, which I found for the first time last year under a conifer.

Check here:

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita+sp-54

Rod

Thanks…
By: Stephen Russell (Mycota)
2012-06-08 22:24:34 CDT (-0400)

That is exactly what I was looking for. There is no volva, just a bulb.

I was looking for something in Validae similar to A. brunnescens, and had yet to find what I was looking for. Not a species Ive encountered before.

I think this species belongs in sect. Validae [edit]
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-06-08 22:18:32 CDT (-0400)

The small spore size, the yellow in the volva and on the partial veil, the stipe base without a pantherina-type collar, and the short marginal striations on the cap (probably induced by drying) argue against A. multisquamosa.

I think that this collection is probably close to A. solaniolens, if not that species.

One problem is with the spore measurements. It looks like the length/width ratio is too high for solaniolens. How many spores did you sample?

R

Created: 2012-06-08 21:58:16 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2016-07-20 12:21:23 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 244 times, last viewed: 2016-11-26 05:39:00 CST (-0500)
Show Log