There are some problems with A. muscaria neotypification (see below) and I did not check A. gemmata. I don’t have time. In fact, I don’t have time to fix all the mess in MO.

Linnaean Name: Agaricus muscarius Linnaeus
Reference: Species Plantarum 2 : 1172 (1753)
Provenance: “Habitat in Pratis.”
Type: Type not designated.
Current Name: Amanita muscaria (L.: Fr.) Hook.
Current Family: Pluteaceae
Comments: Taking the view that “taxonomists are under no obligation to reach into pre-Linnaean literature for selection of type material, type locality etc.”, Jenkins & Petersen (in Mycologia 68: 463-469. 1976) designated a neotype from Sweden (Ångermanland: Nordingrå Parish, Summer 1974, R.H. Petersen, TENN 39847) for this name. As a name sanctioned by Fries (Art. 13.1(d)), typification “may be effected in the light of anything associated with the name in that work” (Art. 7.8). However, as in this case that includes the Clusius plate cited in the protologue of A. muscarius L. (1753), which is therefore original material for the name, their neotypification appears to be contrary to Art. 9.11.
Record last updated: 04/09/2006

“That being the case A. gemmata is best regarded as a synonym of A. muscaria and there-fore we need to look again for a person whose description agrees with the fungus in question and that is Quélet (1877).”

https://www.researchgate.net/...