Observation 70659: Amanita Pers.

When: 2011-04-03

Collection location: Little Hartley, New South Wales, Australia [Click for map]

Who: Lucy (lucya)

Specimen available


Proposed Names

55% (1)
Recognized by sight
-55% (1)
Recognized by sight: See comment
Based on microscopic features: See comment
27% (1)
Based on chemical features: nrITS & nrLSU sequences derived by Stephen Russell et al. (Purdue).

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Separating the nrITS and nrLSU sequences suggests they are separately …
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2019-06-26 08:40:46 CDT (-0400)

… identifiable as Amanita; but there is little if any overlap indicating a common diagnosis is not currently possible. This could be due to the absence of related species’ sequences in GenBank. It could be possibly due a mix-up in samples or in the records relating to the samples. It could be due to contamination. Etc. I’m going to have to move on to other data.


I will go back and check the derivation of the sequence. Perhaps, I have made a mistake.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2019-06-26 06:52:54 CDT (-0400)


The sequence that we have, includes a complete nrITS and a large piece of adjacent nrLSU.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2019-06-26 06:48:44 CDT (-0400)

There is a significant gap in the nrLSU and so we have a separate frgament of nrLSU in addition to the part that can be joined with the nrITS sequence. There is nothing very similar in GenBank according to BLAST run this morning. The least genetic distance between the voucher for this collection and a sequence in GenBank is 5.8%. Certainly not the same species. However, the species with highest similarity have low grade values. If we look at the comparison for sequences with highest grade valued in comparison to this material, the picture is incoherent. That is to say, the sequences with high grade are either unidentified (“mycorrhizal species”) or from diverse sections of Amanita.


In the large set of DNA data received 13 May 2019 from Stephen Russell, we …
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2019-06-26 06:14:40 CDT (-0400)

…received data for this specimen. The sequences derived from the data show that this material is a species of Amanita sect. __Lepidella__sensu Bas, but not a sequence of A. luteolovelata. So we have to back up again with regard to the ID. I hope we will have further information coming.

Very best,


Thanks too, Britney and Rod
By: Andreas (AK_CCM)
2011-12-03 19:50:42 CST (-0500)

At last the penny’s dropped!
Thank you for your patience to explain it to me.
Regards, Andreas

Thank you, Britney.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-12-03 19:39:50 CST (-0500)

Andreas, By removing my old comments, I had eliminated the context for you posting. In the U.S., abandoning something/someone without any support is to leave them “high and dry” (like a beached ship).

Very best,


By: Britney Ramsey (Riverdweller)
2011-12-03 15:42:26 CST (-0500)

I see his comment to mean that having erased his first comments left your comments confusing and out of place. He was trying to preserve your thoughts while correcting his own.

By: Andreas (AK_CCM)
2011-12-03 15:33:27 CST (-0500)

my English is more broken so I don’t really understand what you mean with “little desert island” and “my post is very a propos”. Perhaps you could choose a simplier wording? Thanks, Andreas

Strange method…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2011-12-03 15:05:01 CST (-0500)

I am backing up on this one.

Rewind. Restart.

At top magnification, I can find very small, pale yellow volval fragments in the photograph just above the line marking the top of the soil on the bulb. I then put the second picture in Photoshop and went over the cap very slowly at high magnification and found that many of the ridges of the universal veil (places where it was thickest) seemed pale yellow. I increased the saturation of yellow slightly and many of the thicker areas of universal veil on the cap betrayed themselves as being pale yellow originally.

Last night I made a drawing of the stipe of the exsiccatum to make myself look at it very carefully, and I noticed that the part of the stipe buried in the ground had shriveled the way a stem shrivels EXCEPT FOR a small rounded-turnip-shape at the base of what I had thought was a long bulb. I noted on the drawing that it seemed as though there was a bulb on the bottom of the “bulb.”

On the very day that this specimen was collected at her Little Hartley site, Lucy also collected typical material of A. luteolovelata…which has a bulb shaped like a turnip with the bottom a bit rounded and which has pale yellow volval material…AND which has a curious volva that has a lower layer that is fibrillose or cortina-like and gets spread out over the pileus as in the pictures of this observation.

I am now inclined to think that this specimen could be one of A. luteolovelata in the case of which the primordium was abnormally deeply buried in the ground. The spores are in the range of width we have seen previously for spores of the species in question and just a little bit larger than we have seen before…on the other hand, Cristina found only three spores (after a long search) from a juvenile specimen…and we have a limited sample of spores from two previous collections for purposes of comparison.

It seems to me a conservative hypothesis to say that this could be another specimen of A. luteolovelata.

I erased my previous thoughts and left Andreas’ comments high and dry on a little desert island. I should explain that he was responding to my thoughts that this specimen might be in section Lepidella…possibly in subsect. Solitariae Bas. In that context, his post is very a propos.

I apologize, Andreas.

Very best,



I’m not sure
By: Andreas (AK_CCM)
2011-12-03 14:19:00 CST (-0500)

but the fungus reminds me to Amanita strobiliformis.

Regards, Andreas

Created: 2011-07-01 06:06:08 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2019-06-26 08:40:47 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 163 times, last viewed: 2020-06-10 23:25:21 CDT (-0400)
Show Log