Observation 28985: Amanita Pers.

When: 2009-11-28

Collection location: Lebanon [Click for map]

Who: Nadine (nadine modad)

No specimen available


[admin – Sat Aug 14 02:02:16 +0000 2010]: Changed location name from ‘Lebanon, Middle East’ to ‘Lebanon’


Proposed Names

69% (4)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
If the spores are ellipsoid or narrower,…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2009-12-02 14:30:23 CST (-0500)

then it might be one of the mediterranean “narrow”-spored species of the Vaginatae such as A. huijsmannii or A. mairei.

Very best,


sorry, not a phalloides.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-12-01 10:29:11 CST (-0500)

this looks like one of the amanitas in section Vaginata. Which one though, I wouldn’t hazard a guess. I can barely name the grisettes in California let alone Lebanon!

Amanita mairei is an interesting choice…and one that I am wholly unfamiliar with. It is a grisette from your neck of the woods, though. We’ll have to wait for Rod’s comments on this one.

Suggested species
By: Nadine (nadine modad)
2009-12-01 10:06:10 CST (-0500)

I would like to suggest that this Amanita could be A. mairei or A. vaginata
Anyone agrees with these 2 possibilities?

I can see Herbert’s point
By: Richard Sullivan (enchplant)
2009-11-29 15:28:17 CST (-0500)

If somebody had suggested that this observation was say, A. calyptoderma, that would be dangerous. We allow for the possibility ( however small) that it is A. phalloides in Identifying it as Amanita sp.

By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2009-11-29 15:22:15 CST (-0500)

In an earlier post you said: “sure it is if your giving misinformation and someone believes you.”

But this is getting pointless. You suggested we agree to disagree and I think that’s wise.

By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2009-11-29 15:15:31 CST (-0500)

A few posts ago is one by Herbert Baker, apparently referring to irenea, saying something about giving misinformation.

I don’t think that sort of accusatory tone is appropriate in a debate over a mushroom ID, which tends to be mostly a matter of opinion at this point as we don’t have the DNA science to be definitively testing most specimens yet.

Certainly I don’t think anyone was arguing that the unknown Amanita in this observation was safe to eat. If someone had been advising that, I could see it being a big enough deal to use strong or harsh words in response, but that did not seem to be occurring.

Not A. phalloides
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2009-11-29 15:06:35 CST (-0500)

Of all the characters that set A. phalloides apart from other Amanita, which are present in this observation?
The cap color is not like A. phalloides, the cap margin is sulcate (unlike A. p.), the stipe doesn’t appear to have an annulus (unlike A.p.), the pileus has a large UV patch (unlike A.p.).
No need to argue, simply definitively state why this is NOT Amanita phalloides.

Excuse me?
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2009-11-29 14:55:01 CST (-0500)

Two posts ago you accused someone of “giving misinformation”. That is not a friendly act.

Now, now
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2009-11-29 14:46:55 CST (-0500)

I don’t think there’s any call here to be calling anyone a liar.

Nobody smart eats any Amanita there’s any smidgen of doubt about, and it seems there’s plenty of doubt about this one.

To deny an ID
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-11-29 14:37:05 CST (-0500)

as phalloides shouldn’t be dangerous.
Eating a mushroom without knowing exactly what it IS – that’s dangerous.

A. phalloides looks very different here.
By: Richard Sullivan (enchplant)
2009-11-29 10:23:37 CST (-0500)

Amanita phalloides characteristically does not have striations on the edge of the cap. and seldom has a big patch of universal veil on top of the cap. You have to dig it up to see if it has a bulbous base to the stem. Phalloides is usually (in Northern California) pale metallic yellow.