Observation 297498: Amanita Pers.

Notes:
Original Herbarium Label: Amanita sponsus Tulloss et al. nom. prov.
Growing under Qercus garryana
Spores 9-10.5(-12.5) x 6.5-7.5(-8) µm
Collected by Kevin Trim
Identified by Oluna Ceska

Images

PA291570.JPG
PA291572.JPG
PA291574.JPG
DSCN0669.JPG
Spores 9-10.5(-12.5) x 6.5-7.5(-8) µm
DSCN0671.JPG
Spores 9-10.5(-12.5) x 6.5-7.5(-8) µm
DSCN0673.JPG
Spores 9-10.5(-12.5) x 6.5-7.5(-8) µm
DSCN0675.JPG
Spores 9-10.5(-12.5) x 6.5-7.5(-8) µm
DSCN0677.JPG
Spores 9-10.5(-12.5) x 6.5-7.5(-8) µm

Proposed Names

15% (3)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Let’s not get back to the Blobus discussion
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-11-08 03:45:06 CST (-0500)

You can be “effectively” sure with the name only in the type specimen.

No
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-11-08 00:16:22 CST (-0500)

Proposed names are effectively identifications on MO. Conversely, when you ID something, you give it a name at the appropriate taxonomic rank. Labels, such as Amanita “kt2171028”, don’t count as names. :-)
And, by the way, you are welcome for me answering your question re sponsus sequence.

Re: Hesitation in ID
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-11-08 00:07:44 CST (-0500)

Mushroom Observation does not accept any hesitation in ID. The options you suggested refer to the hesitation in Naming, not ID.

Hesitation in ID on MO
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-11-07 23:45:43 CST (-0500)

Yes, MO allows it — it’s called the confidence level. After all, there is a difference between “could be” and “I would call it that”!
The holotype (?) of sponsus, Ron Pastorino’s obs 5264, was sequenced by Dr. Hughes for Rod Tulloss (ITS). I don’t know if that sequence was uploaded to GenBank, but Rod would know.

Identified by Oluna
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-11-07 23:27:54 CST (-0500)

as you could see in the Notes. MO does not allow any hesitation or doubt in ID. It this were the herbarium specimen, I would have labeled it "Amanita cf. sponsus.
BTW, do you know if any Californian material of the Amanita sponsus was sequenced? If not, can we get some material of it that we would sequence it together with all our Ripon Rd. collections?

Okay, admittedly Mr. Trim didn’t ID this as sponsus
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-11-07 23:11:20 CST (-0500)

It was your and/or Oluna’s call. So, why didn’t you then go with Mr. Trim’s ID, if he ever offered one?

Re: The collector of this material is known to mistake other amanitas for sponsus.
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-11-07 22:55:02 CST (-0500)

The collector of this material is Kevin Trim and in our best knowledge he never mistook any other amanita for sponsus!

Problems with ID
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-11-07 22:01:45 CST (-0500)

The thumbnail pic shows fruitbodies sporting morphology inconsistent with sponsus or sect. Validae. The fb on extreme left has a broken sheath enveloping its stem. The fb in the middle clearly shows membranous flaps of what appears to be either a saccate or limbate volva. None of the fb show a well developed annulus. Also the attached gills have a thick edge and show some forking. Maybe we should be asking ourselves if this even an amanita!
The collector of this material is known to mistake other amanitas for sponsus. For example, IMO obs 297500 and obs 297501 have been misidentified, for their gestalt morphology places them into sect. Amanita.

Geographic location and colour
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-11-07 20:49:11 CST (-0500)

It is difficult to take geographic location as a diagnostic character when the geographic distribution of a newly recognized taxon is not known.
What about the colour? Check our photo taken near-by this population few days later:
http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/809059?obs=297501
Both those characters can be disputed, however, crossing out MO observation names and replacing them with your own suggestions is a sign of scientific illiteracy. Make your suggestions of “naming” as Comments and I will take them seriously. Otherwise, I am happy to ignore them.

In-hand mycology considers geographic location and basidiome color.
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-11-07 20:21:47 CST (-0500)

Please don’t be like this, Adolf.

Re: Geographic location and basidiome color
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-11-07 20:09:10 CST (-0500)

I agree, the geographic location and basidiome colour are useful features for identifying mushrooms, but only in the so-called Citizen Mycology. On the other hand, it does not really matter, how you call it, because for any responsible ID one should have the specimen in hand. Never mind, thank you for your suggestions, regardless how you present them. Adolf

Geographic location and basidiome color
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-11-07 18:51:37 CST (-0500)

are useful features for identifying mushrooms.

What a discovery!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-11-07 11:06:07 CST (-0500)

Pulk, I have to agree with you that this is Amanita. (Pers. if you insist.)
Yes, we are not in California. Why not to treat the name “Amanita sponsus” provisional, also for this particular posting.

Amanita “sponsus” grows in California and has a pale cap.
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-11-07 10:38:23 CST (-0500)

Created: 2017-11-06 23:49:31 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2018-11-07 15:59:41 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 245 times, last viewed: 2019-09-03 23:28:29 CDT (-0400)
Show Log