Collection location: Serra de Montejunto, Portugal [Click for map]
It was a large collection of Amanita growing in an area with a radius of about 10 m, in the transition zone between chestnuts and pine trees. Despite that the material was not in very good condition, especially by the action of caterpillars on hymenia. When choosing the material to present this observation I decide to present photographs of the specimen in a better state. However, this have some morphological differences compared to most, for example, has smooth stem while most of the other present some pattern (zig-zag). Therefore, also included some photos of other specimens (with emphasis on the caps and the bottom of the stems).
In my opinion this material has some similarities with that of observation 46090. However, there is at least one notable difference, the gill edge is not colored. Also seems to me that these specimens have a more robust appearance: are larger and the stem is thicker.
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I appreciate very much your efforts to bring some light into the Amanita spp. of which I sent you some specimens.
Kind regards from Portugal,
It has received an accession number from GenBank and should be available on-line in about 2 weeks or so.
Thank you again, zaca, for sharing your dried material with us. We hope to learn more about it with the passage of time. :)
I wll see where the more recent collection is in our queue.
It took time, but at the end a probable new species arise: Amanita “sp-PORT01.”
Lets see what will come in the future, I hope will see it again. Did you compare it with the species found the year after at the same place (observation 222884)?
Please continue to put “Amanitas in order”. Best regards,
We obtain a good quality nrITS sequence extending the full length of the “proposed fungal barcode” gene and beyond in both directions. The sequence is 651 characters long.
Preceding the nrITS are the final 46 characters of the Small Subunit gene (“nrSSU” or “18S”).
Immediately following the the nrITS sequence is a substantial fragment of the left hand (5’) end of the Large Subunit gene (28S or nrLSU);l this fragment is 107 characters long. The nrLSU sequence begins with the string “TTTGACCTCAAATCA” which indicates that the species is not in the Amanita penetratrix group within section Vaginatae. Hence, we have the not very satisfying result that the species falls within a group making up about 70% of section Vaginatae.
A BLAST run against GenBank found no match for the sequence with a genetic distance of less that 2.7%. This is not a close match to anything. 2.7% of 651 characters is 17 or 18 characters.
So the species may have a name, but not be previousy sequenced; or the sequence may not have a name and not be previously sequenced.
On the other hand it has now produced a clean high quality sequence. It can be recognized again. It is worthwhile to give it a temporary name and report it to GenBank along with the MO# of this observation. That is what I will do.
I will also create a page on the WAO website in case some one goes there before they go to GenBank or MO.
The code for this species on WAO will be Amanita sp-PORT01. On MO this translate to Amanita “sp-PORT01.”
Thank you very much, zaca. I’m sorry this took so long.
that made me laugh more than it should.
“Magic” is beyond me, I’m afraid. All the gear I brought back into the past from my encounter with Dr. Spock doesn’t work without the wireless transmission of electric power I was used to on the “Enterprise.” A useless tricorder is a sad little hunk of technology. :(
what is the answer of the “magic” dna?
This material has been received and accessioned to Rod’s herbarium. We have scheduled it for DNA sequencing.
-Naomi (working with RET)
Discussing the possibility of having more than one taxon in this collection, in a previous comment RET said that “The most distinctive cap is the one with a nearly white margin”.
This (labelled as Sp7) was one of the youngest observed and, since I have a sample of the cap, I decided to observe the spores. Generally speaking, these are very similar in form to the ones previously observed for the other sample (see the photo “Microscopy: Spores”) and their dimensions are comparable. However, it was noticeable the presence of some “non-normal” spores, bigger than the majority of the others. Probably, the term “giant spores” is not adequate in this case, because these bigger spores are only 30-40% bigger than the others, but I immediately recall it from the discussion on the subject of observation 181567. For the “regular” ones I got the following values:
(10.5) 10.8 – 12.9 (14.3) x (9.7) 10.2 – 11.9 (13.5) µm
Q = 1 – 1.1 (1.2) ; N = 32
Me = 11.7 × 11 µm ; Qe = 1.1
Including in the measurements five of these bigger spores one gets
(10.5) 10.9 – 15.4 (17) x (9.7) 10.2 – 14.2 (16.4) µm
Q = 1 – 1.1 (1.2) ; N = 37
Me = 12.3 × 11.6 µm ; Qe = 1.1
having the effect of increasing the averages of lenght and width of the spores by 0.6 µm, while the ratio Qe remains unchanged.
I uploaded two photos, one with the “regular” ones and other with a collection of “bigger” spores.
I gave a label to each different specimen by chronological order.
Anyone interested can see all the photos taken for this observation at:
which will be available for a short period (at least a week).
I have dried samples of the following specimens:
Sp1, Sp2, Sp3, Sp7 (only the cap), Sp18.
Anyone interested in a part of it, please let me know.
I understood correctly, but it is a possibility that we have to take into account.
I’m uncertain. The most distinctive cap is the one with a nearly white margin. As you said, the others could be seen as slight variations with aging or drying.
The material is very interesting and a bit challenging.
concerning the existence of more than one taxa; I noticed some “slightly” (?) differences mainly in coloration and form of the volvas, but I thought to be an aceptable variation within the species, which may be not the case. When I found a bit of time, for convenience, I will label the specimens that appear in more than one photo.
Thanks, Dr. Tulloss, for the comments.
No matter the condition of a particular fruiting body, this is interesting documentation. You might have seen two or more taxa or only one. I wish we could find out.
Created: 2014-10-04 15:26:56 MDT (-0600)
Last modified: 2019-02-26 20:49:23 MST (-0700)
Viewed: 200 times, last viewed: 2019-05-18 02:27:52 MDT (-0600)