Observation 22638: Amanita vaginata group

When: 2009-06-29

Collection location: Fayette Co., West Virginia, USA [Click for map]

Who: Eddee (eddeeee)

Specimen available

These guys where down the hill side I would like to place them under Amanita pachycolea because they are humongous. Several of them stood a good foot in half tall with caps about 15 cm. From what i read though Amanita pachycolea is an Western species. Most of the Amanita Vaginate are somewhat smaller around here. Found growing in mixed woods of hickory Oak with Eastern Hemlock around.

[admin – Sat Aug 14 02:00:37 +0000 2010]: Changed location name from ‘Gatewood Rd off of Wolf Creek RD Fayette Co. West Virginia’ to ‘near Gatewood Rd. and County Route 9/1, Fayette Co., West Virginia, USA



Proposed Names

10% (2)
Recognized by sight: found grwoing under mixed woods of Hemlock mixed with Oak Hickory.
Used references: Mushroomexpert.com David Arora Mushroom Dymystifyed
Based on microscopic features: spores 8 microns round smooth inamyloid spore print is white
54% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Original descriptions
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-07-16 22:12:06 CEST (+0200)


What publication defines the current concept of A. battarrae that you feel is the currently accepted one? Likewise, what publication defines the concept of A. umbrinolutea that you believe is currently accepted?

I would like to come to a better understanding of the literature that is relied upon for these definitions.

Since umbrinolutea is considered to have been validated by Gillet based on the “__Amanita umbrinolutea” of Secretan, the current view of that species should not contradict Secretan’s original description.

In the case of A. battarrae, here is the original description in full. It originally appeared in the middle of a discussion of A. vaginata in a 1902 publication. The material before and after the herein cited text refers to the “vaginata group” known to Boudier in general and NOT to the new species he proposes herein (please excuse missing diacritical marks):

“…et enfin une belle espèce que j’ai trouvée autrefois dans le Jura et les Vosges, en compagnie de Quélet, qui l’a passée sous silence dans sa Flore, la regardant alors comme une forme montagnarde d’_Am[anitopsis] vaginata_. Elle a été décrite et figurée par Battara [sic], Pl. V, fig. C [black & white etching depicting a species of sect. Vaginatae with a zonate pileus]. Je désignerai pour cette raison cette variété sous le nom d’Am[anitopsis] Battarae [sic].

Elle se distingue de ses voisines par les deux zones plus foncées bien apparentes [N.B. Apparently, Boudier knows of no other species of sect. Vaginatae with a zonate pileus] que l’on remarque sur le chapeaux, qui est d’un fauve un peu grisâtre. Je l’ai cherchée vainement lors de notre dernière session dans le Jura."

{Trans. …and finally a beautiful species that I have found at times in the Jura and the Vosges in the company of Quélet, who passed over it in silence in his Flore, regarding it then as a montane form of Am[anitopsis] vaginata. It is described and illustrated by Battarra, Pl V, fig. C. For this reason, I will designate this variety [not used in the technical sense of the word] under the name A. battarrae. It is separated from similar taxa by the two very dark zones that are apparent to an observer on the cap, which is tawny [or “fawn-colored”] with a slight gray tint. I searched for it in vain on our last foray in the Jura.}

It is important to note that Boudier DID NOT include A. umbrinolutea in his discusion of the “principal species of the amanitas”—which the article in question is describing; and he appears not to know of it, because he says that the zonate cap of his species distinguishes it from other taxa of the vaginata group. The article in question and the description of Amanitopsis battarrae Boud. are found here: 1902. Bull. Soc. Mycol. France 18: 272.

In 1985, Bon transferred Boudier’s species to the genus Amanita. Since the species is said to have two colored zones, describing only one of the colors hinders any reader’s understanding of the species concept. Apparently Boudier is describing the color of the dark zones. If that is the case, I don’t see a very strong differentiation between a “very dark” grayish fauve and umber.

Since the 1755 description of Battarra is mentioned, we should include it in the discussion here. (Battarra’s naming is not binomial and those of his names that appear binomial are NOT Linnaean…that is, the first word isNOT the name of a genus; and the second word is NOT the epithet of a species. Hence, Battarra did not generate a valid name for the species that he illustrated.) The untranslated Latin follows:

“Substantia cum Superiori congruit. Pedunculus elaboratum cylindrum aemulatur, cuticola villosa obducitur. Pileolus planus & rotundus, superne cinereus, duas zonas concentricas [N.B. the two dark zones are illustrated as the second and fourth of five zone] in gyrum habens intensioris cinerei, quae Iridis, seu Halonis speciem praeseferunt, laevis, sublucidus, & viscidus, superne est. Reliquum autem fungi candidum est. Hic quoque interdum pulvere quodam veluti farina pileolum habet respersum. Fungus qui ad D. prostat idem cum praecedenti; est enim varietas, eo quod arido loco natus, ut saepe observavi. Autumno cum superiori invenitur.” [The last two sentences apparently apply to the fungus on plate V in figure D. The first sentence refers apparently to the fungi of figures A & B on the same plate. All fungi are apparently taxa of Amanita sect. Vaginatae.] I am not as fluent in Latin as I would like and invite a translation of the above.

I have not found a copy of Bon’s 1985 article recombining the name battarrae in Amanita (1985. Doc. Mycol. 16(61): 16). In his recombinations, Bon did not usually amend the original description. I would be interested to see if he amended the original description in the case of battarrae.

If the original description of umbrinolutea by Secretan is not available to those interested in the present discussion, I can supply it later.

Very best,


what is A. umbrinolutea?
By: Andreas Gminder (mollisia)
2009-06-30 01:30:44 CEST (+0200)

@Rod: you seem to prefer the name A. umbrinolutea for A. battarrae. What we in Europe call battarrae is a usually quite small species with distinctly two coloured cap, a rusty volve without sphaerocystes and with usually blackish gill edges. It grows on acid soil, mainly with conifers, but also with Quercus rubra e.g. – BUT: I have a similar species, with less distinct twocoloured cap, yellowbrownish as in that foto, a white volve and growing in decidous forest on basic soil. I think that this species could be the “real” umbrinolutea. If not, I think it deserves a new name.
The foto shown here might be the same species.

I think I know this species from the Pine Barrens in NJ and the Great Smoky Mtns. Nat. Pk.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-06-29 22:20:01 CEST (+0200)


This species is somewhat similar to the Eurasian species Amanita umbrinolutea in general appearance of the cap (especially). You can find my pix of it (250 pixel high sizing) in my checklist/picturebooks for the Smokies (“GSM7”) and for the New Jersey Pine Barrens and vicinity. It would be nice to see your specimen(s) from WV.

Very best,


Created: 2009-06-29 16:51:25 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2011-03-14 03:04:02 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 161 times, last viewed: 2018-07-22 05:14:48 CEST (+0200)
Show Log