Name: Amanita muscaria var. guessowii
Citation: [as ‘güssowii’], Annls mycol. 31(4): 254 (1933)
Synonym(s):Amanita chrysoblema G.F. Atk.
Deprecated Synonyms: Amanita muscaria var. alba Peck, Amanita muscaria f. guessowii (Veselý) Neville & Poumarat, Amanita muscaria subsp. americana (J.E. Lange) Singer nom. inval., Amanita muscaria var. americana J.E. Lange nom. inval., Amanita muscaria var. guessowii group, Amanita muscaria var. formosa sensu Dav. T. Jenkins, Amanita muscaria sensu Güssow & O’dell, Venenarius muscarius sensu Murrill
Misspellings: Amanita guessowii
Typification: type not indicated
The cap is 4.5–16 (18) cm wide, convex, and becomes broadly convex to flat in age. It is bright yellow or yellow-orange, usually more orange or reddish orange towards the disc, and fading to pale yellow. The volva is distributed over the cap as cream to pale tan warts; it is otherwise smooth and sticky when wet. The margin becomes slightly striate in age. The flesh is white and it does not stain when cut or injured.
The gills are free to narrowly adnate, subcrowded to crowded, cream to pale cream, truncate, unevenly distributed, of diverse lengths, and plentiful.
Amanita muscaria var. guessowii spores are white in deposit, broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid (infrequently subglobose or elongate) and inamyloid. The spores are (7.0–) 8.7-12.2 (-14.8) x (5.9) 6.5–8.2 (9.5) µm.
The stipe is (4)6 –15 x 1–3 cm, more or less equal or narrowing upwards and slightly flaring at the apex. It is white to yellowish cream, densely stuffed with a pith, the skirtlike ring is membranous, persistent, the lower stipe and upper bulb are decorated with partial or complete concentric rings of volval material that are bright pale yellow to cream or sordid cream.
Thanks, Django. I also ordered a copy.
Bas treated ‘var. major’ as a member of section Lepidella.
Persoonia 5 (4) [sect. Lepidella] , Bas (1969) page 562
I was right about var. coccinea, in 1914 Coker treated it as a synonym of A. parcivolvata. I checked Tulloss’ website, and he has A. muscaria var. coccinea (type not indicated) as the holotype for A. parcivolvata (technical page). http://www.amanitaceae.org/?Amanita+parcivolvata
It turns out the illustrations mentioned are a watercolor painting and a black and white photo. Both clearly illustrate the variety we’re familiar with, but there’s no indication that the collection photographed was preserved.
should be addressed in a modern context. The most obvious reason for this is to ensure that we’re using the correct (generally, oldest) name for the taxon.
“Conserving” a name is a particular nomenclatural action that is irrelevant to using var. guessowii (which is fine, unless there’s an earlier synonym) or designating a type for it (which is also fine).
I can cite hundreds of modern uses of the name guessowii, and give many reasons for this name to take precedence. Major and minor and coccinea, not so much.
Why must we deal with these will-o-the wisp names at all?
Jacob’s point, of course, is that there is a way to conserve guessowii as the correct name for this variety.
Thanks. How do we deal with these other var. names from the eastern U.S.?
Amanita muscaria var. coccinea Beardslee, Notes on the amanitas of the southern Appalachians. Part I. Sub-genus Amanitopsis: 8 (1902) [MB#560202]
Amanita muscaria var. major Peck, Ann.Rep.NY.St.Mus.Nat.Hist.23 (1869 (72)) page 69
Amanita muscaria var. minor Peck, Ann.Rep.NY.St.Mus.Nat.Hist.23 (1869 (72)) page 69
does not make names published before 1958 invalid. See Art. 40.1. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_40.html
It looks like Veselý doesn’t specifically name a holotype but mentions one specific illustration in Güssow’s book. I don’t currently have access to it but it’s pretty cheap on Amazon and I’m ordering a copy. I can’t access this illustration yet, but a review of the book mentions that the illustrations are photographs. If that particular illustration is of a preserved collection, there would be a pretty good case for designating that collection as the holotype. This name does possibly refer to a real clade of northeastern North American collections, but probably not a species.
What formats of other similar names on MO are you referring to? Are you referring to names ending in “nom. prov”, “crypt. temp” and the like?
Yes. Here it is: http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/...
The proposal of nom. inval. follows the format of other similar names on MO. It may not be ideal, but it would be stranger still to treat specific names differently and ignore the rules of nomenclature because it’s merely inconvenient. I’m not against selecting a neotype, but it is probably unneeded since the rank of var. has no standing against that of species and it probably won’t be used as a specific epithet in the future.
Has anyone here read the Vesely paper? I just requested a copy myself to look into this. Regardless, a neotype could certainly be designated for this. This is a taxon familiar to most mushroom hunters in eastern North America and also one that is often used by Amanita researchers since cultures of it are available and its genome has been sequenced. Whether it’s really a distinct variety or a separate species is a different question but I don’t think we have enough here to just dismiss this taxon. Either way, including “nom. inval.” in the name itself here seems unnecessary.
You already backed off of MO, and pulled valuable content. Sure it’s your right to do with your own content as you will, but it’s not very community focused.
Don’t blame me for your own actions. Own up to what you do.
Rest assured, however, that you are not a topic of interest to me outside of direct remarks on obsies here on MO of which I might have an interest. Your recent remark here arrived in my inbox, as one of the name authors. I responded appropriately.
Disagreeing with what you say or write is not an “attack,” but a debate. And attitude is everywhere, enit?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to bolster any possible argument you may have and are precisely one of the reasons I won’t be taking part as much on MO anymore.
that’s a whole lotta paranoia packed into a short paragraph.
Let me point out a couple of things that will hopefully help you:
There is no point in selecting a new type for the rank of var.
Species, always set by the type; more important than what we call it is to know what we are referring. It would make no difference if the correct name based on a white form, as long as it is valid; the description can be revised no problem — pretty standard stuff.
If pointing out issues with a name is creating problems for you, then you are missing the point, and do more harm than good trying to feed your constant and persistent personal agenda. I wish you wouldn’t spend so much time pontificating; I feel any possibility of constructive conversation becomes minimized when you talk down to people.
As you probably know, I have been calling for more gene region sequencing for some time. It’s not a novel idea by any stretch of the imagination.
In the future, you do not speak for me, and please keep that in mind when talking about me to others when I’m not around.
from Tulloss’ chrysoblema website:
from Jenkins’ (1978a) type study of Agaricus muscarius var. albus: “Peck cited no specimens in the original description, thus requiring the designation of a neotype. The specimen above was chosen because of its proximity to Peck primary collecting area, its acceptable condition, and the exhibition of morphological characters associated with the A. muscaria complex.”
from Jenkins’ type study of (1982) of chrysoblema: “No type was designated in the original description, but one specimen was cited. A packet from CUP shows a collection date matching that found in the original description. Since collections of this taxon are rare, I feel that this collection from CUP is probably the one cited. Therefore, this specimen is recognized as the holotype (Lanjouw, 1966; Guide for the Determination of Types).”
And more than that … it makes no sense to name a group of muscaroid amanita formas after the least common variant among them: the white form.
Not to mention we’ll probably have to throw the whole muscaria plus names out once we formally decide just what to call our American muscaria. Ameri-muscaria has not been published. And I would sure like to see those far deeper analyses of multiple gene segments for each and every amanita examined.
You know, the Beker method.
Tulloss still uses A. muscaria var. guessowii, and that is good enough for me.
A new type can be easily enough designated. There are SO MANY ancient type specimens in herbaria. Nothing lasts forever, neither names nor dessicata.
Why complicate things unnecessarily?
The type collection should be indicated and retrievable. In this case, the designation of a type is missing.
is this nom. inval.? Can anyone explain, please?
Created: 2008-07-30 17:50:31 CDT (-0500) by Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
Last modified: 2019-07-17 19:27:13 CDT (-0500) by Django Grootmyers (heelsplitter)
Viewed: 3400 times, last viewed: 2020-03-31 15:53:13 CDT (-0500)