Notes:
Found in sand near beach under Coccolobae uvifera

Species Lists

Images

Proposed Names

30% (2)
Recognized by sight
ret
52% (3)
Recognized by sight: See comment. Also based on habitat.
28% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I can see the macro similarities, Kurt
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2018-06-30 15:16:52 CDT (-0400)

but the beauty of MO is that we get to vote those suggestions up or down, and it’s always OK to make a wrong guess! you WILL be corrected, if you are wrong!

in a section Amanita (like in Orson’s Amanita microspora; could there be tiny spores, too??! ), there will be a little bulb hiding under that basal volva.

but as you show here, once that volva is removed, the stipe is straight up and down.

That makes your little amanita a grisette or section Vaginatae, regardless of its eventual species diagnosis.

Amanita microspora is a species of section__Amanita__.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2018-06-30 14:49:59 CDT (-0400)

Amanita arenicola is a species of section Vaginatae.

So we have suggestions moving off in multiple directions.

Kurt has sent me material that is presently in the DNA sequencing queue. So that will eventually give us a view on that material. (MO 308084).

Very best,

Rod

odd veil remnants apparent on the stipe …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2018-06-17 21:54:35 CDT (-0400)

had me looking more closely at the original description of arenicola.
turns out that this sp. typically has bits of the upper basal volva either left in the ground or dragged up the stem.
with the rest of the macro as well as habitat a good fit, I feel confidant in calling this arenicola.

Kurt, I can add a little bit about A. cystidiosa.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2017-11-21 19:46:53 CST (-0500)

I have examined the type and found it was not an Amanita. It was a “lepiotacous” species. I returned the type collection to the New York Botanical Garden herbarium (NY) so that it could be loaned to Dr. Else Vellinga. She reported to me that she found supporting evidence that the species is lepiotaceous and not an Amanita. Unfortunately, I can’t find Dr. Vellinga’s email. My memory is that the species was in fact a Leucoagaricus.

A number of authors have claimed that cystidia were found in Amanita. In fact this is not possible. Among other characteristics, a cystidium must grow on an exterior surface (impossible because Amanita develops all tissues in place in a solid primordium) and must incur in a tissue of cells of another type (the edge cell tissue of an Amanita is uniform). The reasons are supplied in one of the teaching topics for which links appear on species pages on the www.amanitaceae.org site.

One of the weaknesses in the methodology of cases (like that of A. cystidiosa) when cystidia are really located, is that the authors have not demonstrated that the mushroom in question was an Amanita. There is a simple way to do that…namely to describe the stipe context and the lamella trama. The forms of the tissues decide the issue. No measurements required.

The most recent characterization of the Amanitaceae and the genus Amanita is in a paper against the splitting of the genus Amanita. It is in the “Files” folder of the facebook page Amanita of North America. It is also (at present) the most recently publised article downloadable (free) from

< www.amanitaceaethejournal.org >.

Very best,

Rod

Debbie and Rod
By: kurt miller (komille277)
2017-11-21 17:27:16 CST (-0500)

Thanks for your concern, the supply shortages have mostly disappeared from the metropolitan area (San Juan), but the rest of the island is still in a dire situation. Rod, I booked the website to browse later, I only have access to my phone data right now. I’m not familiar with the other genera mentioned, but I did talk to Jean Lodge and she says I have A. arenicola. She referred me to one of her publications from 2000 (Mycologia 92(3) pp 558-510) with O.K. Miller which mentions three other species of Amanita associated with Coccoloba in Puerto Rico, A. cystidiosa, A. microspora, and A. chrysoleuca. I am very interested to know more about the A. cf rubescens (A. amerirubescens) which grows in mountainous stands of Honduran pine in Puerto Rico. I understand amerirubescens is a placeholder name while that species awaits formal description. I appreciate your desire to justly treat the genus Amanita in Puerto Rico, I believe the region has much to discover! My specimens seemed to dry well today, if you would like material for sequencing email me at komille277(at)gmail.com

what a lovely little grisette
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2017-11-21 13:49:01 CST (-0500)

and what a distinctive volva!

I am amazed that you can still find time to look at and even think about vouchering mushrooms, with the current situation in PR. Good luck to you and yours.

You must know Jean Lodge, who first desccribed A. arenicola from PR, and lives there currently (or maybe she has had to go offisland for now). She is a font of fungal info for PR, at any rate.

Ironically, Coccolabae trees have been in the myco-news recently for a distinctive chanterelle species, which you are probably familiar with, called Cantharellus coccolabae, reasonably enough.

Thank you for your response.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2017-11-21 13:21:55 CST (-0500)

Can you get food and other necessities?

I am glad to hear that you can pursue mushrooms.

It is very kind of you to offer material to me. I am very interested in material of the Amanitaceae, that is to say, Amanita, Limacella, and Catatrama. Within Amanita I am presently concentrating on section Vaginatae (so my antennae went up when you posted something looking like arenicola in arenicola habitat).

I don’t mean to exclude anything you think is odd (I do watch MO fairly frequently). Otherwise, my greatest interests are in the Vaginatae and the genera Limacella and (the rare) Catatrama. I hope www.amanitaceae.org will help you a little. I would like to do better for Puerto Rico amanitas in the future. So I will take any suggestion that you might wish to make regarding adding something representing PR among the web site’s illustrated checklists.

Very best,

Rod

The date is mistaken
By: kurt miller (komille277)
2017-11-21 10:27:27 CST (-0500)

I found the specimen this morning (Nov 21) in Puerto Rico. I haven’t had power since hurricane Irma, but I recently bought a small solar panel to charge my phone so I can post observations! The specimen is drying in my improvised dehydrator right now (car dash). Thank you for the ID, I am currently trying to compile some information on fungi of Puerto Rico. If you would like any of my personal herbarium specimens I can provide them!

Very cool.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2017-11-21 09:58:24 CST (-0500)

One possibility is Amanita arenicola. Your species could be assignable to section Vaginatae, which is where arenicola belongs. Amanita arenicola grows in exactly the habitat that you describe. Is there a specimen of this?

http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita%20arenicola

I see the date on the observation is 21 September. Are you presently in Puerto Rico? If so how are you doing?

Sincerely,

Rod Tulloss

Created: 2017-11-21 08:26:40 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2018-12-03 20:18:02 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 142 times, last viewed: 2019-09-25 18:49:42 CDT (-0400)
Show Log