Observation 68081: Amanita Pers.

From soil, under a Quercus sp., (Some Pinus taeda may have been close by, but I’ll have to go back and check to make sure.) in mixed woods

3-3.8cm broad, campanulate, pale yellow to yellow, moist, smooth with a few white wart-like patches, margin with striations (.8-1cm)

White, nearly free, to free, crowded

6.1-11cm long, (forgot to measure width) Bulbous (1 ring), white, some-what shaggy (how would I go about correctly describing this texture?), with membranous, white partial veil covering lamellae

Could not detect a smell


This was the closest tree
This was the closest tree
This one was found about 5-8 feet away, on the other side of the tree
This one was found about 5-8 feet away, on the other side of the tree
This one was found about 5-8 feet away, on the other side of the tree
This one was found about 5-8 feet away, on the other side of the tree
Spores, 1000x in Melzer’s Reagent, 1.15μm per division

Proposed Names

51% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Matt Sherman (Shermanii)
2011-06-01 12:15:51 PDT (-0700)

Update: I’m having a little trouble finding the mature basidia. I’ve now made two attempts with no success.
I will try again soon.

and yes, the spores are inamyloid.

By: Matt Sherman (Shermanii)
2011-05-30 16:29:47 PDT (-0700)

I have Cotton Blue stain,
I’ll try and get to those clamps tomorrow.

The sporograph is only slightly helpful
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-05-27 11:49:19 PDT (-0700)

The sporograph is only slightly helpful. When all the possible species are included, the result is cluttered. Also, some of the species involved are ones for which there are very limited amounts of spore data available on WAO. For some reason, for example, I have very rarely seen A. velatipes. I have only collected something that might be A. agglutinata once (in eastern Kentucky). Etc. I’m not saying the data is worthless, just that there’s not enough of it from any one source to make any of us jump with joy…especially me, the guy who collected the most recent sets of data. The best set of data corresponds to the best match with Matt’s data; and that is the data from the muscaria var. guessowii page on WAO. It seems we need to consider that this mushroom of Matt’s might be the northeastern N. American yellow muscarioid.

So… Matt…

We need you to tell us if there are clamps at the bases of some of the basidia in your collection. Do you have a cell wall stain like Congo Red? If so, it should help you see the clamps. Clamps are easiest to find on the most mature (longest) basidia (rather than on the basidioles that haven’t developed sterigmata). On the other hand, they are easiest to find on the parts of the gill that mature last. So if you have trouble finding clamps at about the middle of the gill’s length, go out to near the edge of the cap and have a look.

The last part of an amanita gill to mature is the part nearest to the cap margin (horizontally) and nearest to the gill’s free edge (vertically). Since you expanded your material from a rather young stage of life, you shouldn’t have to go to this extreme (pun intended) to find a few clamps.

Good luck with the clamps.

Very best,


The spores help us on this one…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-05-27 10:44:54 PDT (-0700)

The spores of A. praecox are globose to subglobose with an average Q of 1.08. So we can say that praecox as a possible determination can be eliminated.

So it begins to be important precisely what form the bulb and associated volval piece(s) were like. I’m going to assume that the spores were inamyloid. Is this correct? I’m basing this assumption on the general rule (not always true!) that a striate pileus margin is associated with inamyloid spores. (Nota: Section Amidella contains notable exceptions, and they can also be found in other sections.)

We need to decide whether we want to look at pantherina-like species or gemmata-like species. Or we could just look at both.

The range of Q should be 1.23 – 1.51 (-1.56). It is usually, a clue that an error has been made in working out a range when the average value falls outside
the part of the range that indicates the middle 90% of the values.

So if we take this range for Q and the ranges for length and width that Matt has presented below. We can go to this page:


and pick a bunch of yellow species that occur in North Carolian and vicinity and compare there sporographs with the sporograph that is dictated by Matt’s data.

I’ll do this and report back by sending the sporograph image to Matt. But anybody can do the same thing.

With regard to how to compute the four values (a-) b – c (-d) that are the parts of the description of a range, a method is described on the WAO site. You can find this information as follows: Go to any taxon page (e.g., the page for Amanita praecox) and look on the left hand side of the page. Just below the group of navigation links is a box entitled “Related Teaching Topics.” Within the last month or so the first topic in the box has been updated to include a simple method for writing a range for any variable (length, width, Q, hotdog_bun_length, etc.). You may want to check it out.

A favor is asked: If you DON’T see three items in the “Related Teaching Topics” box, email me via OM quick while it’s still in your mind and describe what you saw in the box. I have a feeling that some browswers are not showing the whole box. The point of the box is to teach. If somebody can’t see it, they can’t find out what they might learn.

Very best,


: )
By: Matt Sherman (Shermanii)
2011-05-27 00:07:32 PDT (-0700)


Your welcome,
By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2011-05-26 23:47:37 PDT (-0700)

I think you had it but confused range with average and made a typo by missing out the 1 when you typed .42

Nice photographs:)

oh, cool
By: Matt Sherman (Shermanii)
2011-05-26 23:41:36 PDT (-0700)

Thank you for correcting me Michael!

I suppose I’ll “get it” sooner or later.

By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2011-05-26 23:35:20 PDT (-0700)

I think your Quotient information should read as follows,
Range: (1.14-) 1.23-1.33 (-1.56)
And the average Q value would be 1.42

Spore Measurements, Q
By: Matt Sherman (Shermanii)
2011-05-26 23:15:23 PDT (-0700)

9.2 – 10.4 (-11.5) x (6.3-) 6.9 – 8.1 microns
I measured 20 spores
Length x Width, Q.
10.4 × 8.1, 1.28
10.4 × 6.9, 1.51
10.4 × 7.5, 1.39
10.4 × 6.9, 1.51
9.8 × 6.9, 1.42
9.2 × 6.9, 1.33
9.8 × 7.5, 1.31
10.4 × 8.1, 1.28
9.2 × 6.9, 1.33
10.4 × 6.9, 1.51
9.2 × 7.5, 1.23
11.5 × 8.1, 1.42
9.2 × 6.9, 1.33
9.2 × 8.1, 1.14
9.2 × 6.9, 1.33
9.2 × 7.5, 1.23
9.2 × 7.5, 1.23
9.8 × 6.3, 1.56
9.2 × 6.9, 1.33
10.4 × 6.9, 1.51
Average spore size:
9.8 × 7.3μm
Range of Q:
(if any of the math appears to be wrong, feel free to correct me.)

By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-05-26 11:11:31 PDT (-0700)

I’ll be looking for the new data.


annulus/spore print
By: Matt Sherman (Shermanii)
2011-05-26 08:50:30 PDT (-0700)

There are remnants of the partial veil on the inside margin of the dried specimens. It’s a small amount though, but still there.

I’m unsure whether the veil formed a funnel or not.

I definitely got a spore print with these guys. Which surprised me because I thought they may have been too immature.
I’ll measure the spores sometime this week. Possibly tonight.

Did the annulus persist?
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-05-25 19:40:51 PDT (-0700)

Did the annulus persist?

If it did, then was annulus pulled up by the expanding cap to form a funnel?

In NC, I have only found praecox with Canadian Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). There are other yellowish-capped taxa sect. Amanita that might be considered.

Did it mature enough to make spores?


Created: 2011-05-25 10:25:15 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2011-05-27 10:22:54 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 203 times, last viewed: 2018-07-15 23:00:19 PDT (-0700)
Show Log