When: 2015-07-08

Collection location: Mary King Park and near Boat Ramp, Franklin Co, Texas, USA [Click for map]

Who: L G Price (LG_Price)

No specimen available

This specimen was found today to augment that found July 4, 2015. This appears to be the same species as found on July 4 as the gill color is similar. However, there is inconsistency in the cap surfaces and shape.

I am consolidating the two observations into today’s record as the original material was in a mixed collection with Amanita subsolitaria in Observation 208868 .

The location, mixed pine, oak, cedar had been mowed since I visited on the fourth. The specimen today is the only one I found and it was hidden at the base of a large oak in brush.

The specimen was small but fully opened. Conditions have become much dryer in the last 3 days and this may have forced it to mature quickly.

The spore print from today’s specimen was off white.

I smelled it but I have hay fever and didn’t detect much smell.

Spore Measurements for 18 spores result in the following:

[18/1/1] L (10.5-) 11.4 –14.4 (-14.7) μm x W (-4.1) 3.8 – 5.6 (-) μm, (L = 12.6 μm, W = 4.8 μm), Q (2.23-) 2.32 – 2.98 (-3.11), Q = 2.64 cylindric

The gills were white just slightly more ivory than the flesh or cap. Visually, it seemed to me that there was a slight pink cast when I looked into the gills, but I could not be sure. There are short gills of several lengths but no forked gills. Gills are close.

The cap was soft and had some fine white dust and appendulate material at the edge.

Cap Diameter – 4 cm

Speciment total height – 5 cm

Bulb height – 3 cm, buried depth – 2.2 cm

Stipe 1 cm long, 1 cm wide below cap.

Cap thickness – 1 cm


July 8 specimen
July 8 specimen
July 8 specimen
July 4 Specimen
July 4 Specimen
July 4 Specimen

Proposed Names

-28% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
I think a third species has to be considered.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-07-08 23:22:06 CDT (-0500)

Thanks in advance for sending the material. We will see what we can learn from it.

Very best,


An undescribed species is always a possibility…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-07-08 23:04:10 CDT (-0500)

especially in the SE “quarter” of the U.S.

Very best,


The list of potential determinations that I came up with follows:
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-07-08 23:01:20 CDT (-0500)

Amanita longipes, A. rhoadsii, A. “scarlaris,” A. subsolitaria, and A. “sp-F09.” Little is known about the latter…just a few notes on one collection from Florida (so forget it).

I utilized the following information: Average Q between 2.0 and 3.0, member of sect. Lepidella, lacking a marginate bulb, lacking a limbate volva. The above imply that the species is probably in subsect. Solitariae. The volval remnants on the cap are very variable in form in species “close” to subsolitaria.

Very best,


Sorting this out
By: L G Price (LG_Price)
2015-07-08 22:39:17 CDT (-0500)

I am convinced that I can’t figure it out!

I’d like to send you the 4 samples and see if you can find species to put them in.

Now I am wondering if there are 3 species.

In narrow-spored species of section Lepidella, the spore width usually has…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2015-07-08 22:30:49 CDT (-0500)

a very constrained range. The narrower the spore, the more constrained the range. Since the spores of rhoadsii are just about the narrowest in Amanita, there range is considerably constrained. I think you are seeing widths that are possibly too high for rhoadsii. Your average Q is below the range of average Q for rhoadsii; and your average W is outside the range of average W for rhoadsii. Of course my sample size for rhoadsii spores is not very large.

I have some old documents that are not on-line; I’ll check these to see if I can shed any light on the subject.

If you’d like, I’d be glad to look at dried material representing this observation.

Very best,