Observation 52175: Amanita Pers.

When: 2010-09-06

Collection location: Germantown, Maryland, USA [Click for map]

Who: hríb

No specimen available

This was growing amongst many American beech trees, one large tulip poplar, and an oak.



Proposed Names

83% (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
Mixed collection?
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2010-09-10 15:54:06 BST (+0100)

Photo 102968 appears to have volval patches on cap, consistent with Amanita.
Photo 102971 appears to have warts on cap: not consistent with photo 102968 IMO.

If both photos Amanita, different species?

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2010-09-07 21:24:30 BST (+0100)

If you deprecate Lepidella in favor of Amanita sect. Lepidella, you’d have to start doing that with all the deprecated Genus names. That would create a huge mess.

Of course, I will follow Rod’s recommendation, whatever it is.

Just to be absolutely clear…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-09-07 05:57:20 BST (+0100)

I use “Lepidella” in the sense of Corner and Bas (1962), Bas’ great thesis (1969), Yang (1997), and my papers going back to the early 1980s.

There is an argument that the name should be changed (but not that the classification it names should be eliminated). The name that is proposed to be the correct name is Amanita sect. Roanokenses Singer ex Singer (Neville and Poumarat 2004).

I think that there is so much effort invested in the name Amanita sect. Lepidella that I don’t expect to be changing my usage in my lifetime. I prefer to honor Bas’ great contribution by using the name he used. It was perfectly correct when he created it, by the way. It is an annoying case of an ICBN rule change (for what reason, I admit that I do not know) that makes Lepidella be called into question. The two names do not have the same types, which may be asking for additional future problems.

As I said, at the present time I intend not to change my usage.


By: Dan Molter (shroomydan)
2010-09-07 03:51:35 BST (+0100)

Someone, in their infinite wisdom, has depricated Lepidella in favor of Amanita sp pers? Really. Like there is no distinction between the extensions of the two names.

Whether Lepidella is a section of Amanita or a taxon distinct from Amanita, the name Lepidela certainly does not refer to the entire group of mushrooms that Persoon classified as Amanita.

This attempt at synonymy is misguided, moreover, it demonstrates not a little bit of hubris on the part of whoever is monkeying with the names. Stop it already! People are trying to communicate here, and some wise guy it taking away our words.

By: hríb
2010-09-07 03:16:13 BST (+0100)

I was surprised to see this growing because of how dry it has been. There was a creek about 30 meters away, which might give a slight boost to the humidity in the area.

Strange phenotype
By: Dan Molter (shroomydan)
2010-09-07 02:34:21 BST (+0100)

I suspect this one looks weird because it developed in dry weather. No idea what name to throw at it.

I dunno
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2010-09-07 02:22:09 BST (+0100)

Cap pale yellowish, nonstriate margin, brown staining on edges of insect or slug damage. Thick edged partial veil with many fibrils connecting its underside to the stem surface. The staining makes one think of brunnescens, but the bulb doesn’t seem to be a classic brunnescens bulb. And the partial veil with all the connections to the stem is more like a species of sect. Lepidella. I dunno.


Created: 2010-09-06 22:19:19 BST (+0100)
Last modified: 2010-09-08 00:07:27 BST (+0100)
Viewed: 125 times, last viewed: 2017-07-27 20:45:27 BST (+0100)
Show Log