Collection location: Big Thicket National Preserve, Polk Co., Texas, USA [Click for map]
Found in the Big Sandy Creek Unit of the Big Thicket National Preserve.
Growing singly in mixed woods.
Caps up to 5.5 cm across, somewhat zonate with striations ~ 35-40% of the cap radius.
Spore print was white and spores not amyloid.
Spores ~ 9.2-13.3 X 9.0-13.3 microns, globose to subglobose and smooth.
Q(range = 1.00-1.12. Q(ave) = 1.04.
These look similar to MO#168179 and perhaps Amanita sp-T06.
I’m getting some larger spores but the coloring, cap and stipe features look very similar.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
We do have a couple of LSU sequences now including the sequence from the 2000 collection just mentioned: GB MK277581.
D. P. Lewis collection of June, 2000. It us supportive of the interpretation of “sp-T06” of my recent posts on MO. Going through various sources, is helping to pull the data together for me (again).
The most common of the probable taxa so far is Amanita justiceil The second most common is the species that is the focus of this observation. I believe that we have two or three collections of “sp-T06” in the Roosevelt herbarium. The earliest collection was made in Texas at the NAMA 2000 foray. David and I discussed it at the time. Part of the collection is deposited at the field museum. My part was dried separately, I think. I definitely has some problems in giving up its DNA and shows the typical problems associated with unhomogenized nrDNA. A relatively good sequence fragment begins late in the nrSSU gene and continues in good order until it gets near the end of ITS1. The signal quality then collapses. A reverse read beginning more than 100 characters into nrLSU provides clear view of more than 100 characters of ITS2 before its quality degenerates. These two fragments can be aligned with your sequence except for the ragged end on the fragments. I feel that this make it appropriate for the ITS-plus we got for the voucher of the present observation. To also be considered “sp-T06.” My hope is to keep overlapping sequences to extend our understanding of the “sp-T06” nrDNA loci…to the extent we can.
Very best, Ron.
from the old “A-Team” TV series; “I love it when a plan comes together”.
One of these is Amanita justicei. There are two others represented in the Roosevelt herbarium by single collections (so far as we know at present). The one collection that I collected with David, has yielded sequence fragments that match the sequence obtained from the voucher for MO 168912. This is gratifying to me personally and is a major source of confirmation that we are applying this temporary code to a distinctive species that is within the broader concept of David’s “#217”—-which was our intent when the code was created about 20 years ago (or more).
It will be in the next batch to go out to GenBank and can serve to help define “sp-T06.” Very best,
I have a hope for coherence. :)
Thank you very much for your continuing support. It means a lot to me.
With time and more sequences…., etc.
although the spores seem a little more elliptical per your measurements, Rod. However, I have had occasional problems matching your #’s with mine historically.
At least it looks like there are a couple more collections that might qualify…MO#168179 and http://mushroomobserver.org/279538.
The puzzle may eventually become a coherent picture.
recorded after the “mystery” was recorded.
The DNA of this sequence is remarkably similar to that of Amanita “sp-F10”. I wonder if the material of sp-F10 was a faded version of the present species???
The two possible species differ in one character position in ITS1 and There is longish “CA” repeat in both that has one more in “CA” in “sp-F10”…usually something discounted as copying error (either in nature or the PRC process) and, hence, not a distinguishing feature. So one difference in over 770 characters.
We only have the one sequence at present.
The puzzle goes one.
Hence, it is belongs to one of the two genetically defined groups of specimens that remain for the moment in sp-T06. Why leave them both there? Because we don’t have enough supporting evidence from other material called “sp-T06”. A list of all such material is already in the queue of material to be sequenced. With any luck, we will learn more about how sp-T06 should probably be subdivided. With all the other taxa contesting for sequencing time, this will take a while. We are looking for more sequencing capacity to address the problem.
This material has been accessioned and scheduled for DNA sequencing.
The dried material has arrived in Roosevelt.
Thank you very much.
These are now in the competent hands of the USPS.
I would like to have look at the material.
Sorry for the short note. I’m rushed today.