When: 2014-08-08

Collection location: Reid State Park, Maine, USA [Click for map]

Who: Dave W (Dave W)

No specimen available

Mixed coniferous forest with birch.


Proposed Names

87% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Sounds good to me, David.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-08-20 08:39:56 EDT (-0400)


I think the large one mentioned in the previous comment…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-08-20 01:08:04 EDT (-0400)

is the same as this one. The cap broke off not long before I handed it to you. Glad to hear you got some useful photos. The pics seen here are a bit lacking in color, and the stipe is a bit washed-out.

I remember this.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-08-19 23:04:44 EDT (-0400)

The cap was about 110 mm wide and the stem about 200 mm long. The cap broke off just before you got it to me. Mary and I got a picture. we show richer brown on the cap and brown fibrils on the stipe.

Does that seem about right to you?

Very best,


Both the collections are from Reid St. Pk.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-08-19 21:52:26 EDT (-0400)


I have two collections made by you at NEMF 2014.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-08-19 21:51:42 EDT (-0400)

One of them has the annotation “zonate cap,” which might be this one. I have a photograph which (I think) includes a ruler; so I should be able to compare the size of the specimen with the size in your photos…. I hope.

The material is accessioned in the herbarium here and scheduled to be sampled for sequencing.

Very best,


For the time being…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-08-19 21:15:30 EDT (-0400)

I should probably adopt the practice of posting these as “rhacopus group.”

Rod, this large specimen had fallen apart by the time I handed it to you at NEMF. But the material seemed to be in generally good condition.

Certainly in the “rhacopus group.”
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2014-08-19 08:55:49 EDT (-0400)

At NEMF I obtained three relevant parts of collections of the “rhacopus group.” One was more like Amanitaxanthomitra”; however, the other two were “cf. rhacopus.” Hopefully, the present taxon is represented by one or both of the latter collections.

Very best,