When: 2012-03-20

Collection location: Gainesville, Florida, USA [Click for map]

Who: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)

Specimen available


Proposed Names

29% (1)
Recognized by sight
55% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Yes, they both are in sect. Amanita
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-04-17 05:44:44 CEST (+0200)

with inamyloid spores, a bulb at the base of the stem, striate margins on the cap, etc. This North American species is “gemmatoid,” that is to say that it is like the European species A. gemmata in having a flap of membranous volval tissue at the top of the bulb while having whitish warts of volva on the cap. In this it differs from A. xanthocephala which has a powdery, crumbly yellow volva at the stem base…from what I know about it. It happens I’ve collected sp. S1 quite a bit; and only know xanthocephala from the literature and from photos, data, and dried material generously sent to me from Oz.


Just a thought
By: Kari (Kari)
2012-04-17 03:57:47 CEST (+0200)

It reminds me of A. xanthocephala, which also occur down here in Oz.

We are having a very wierd spring with very little rain.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-04-13 20:24:25 CEST (+0200)

I have an artificial wetland, shaded garden with over thirty species of native plants after three years work. And more to be added in early May this year. The Wood Poppies and Virginia Blue Bells are looking better each year, but I do have to irrigate frequently for other plants. My son (who is the architect of the WAO site) says he has seen very low rainfall predictions for the coming farm season. This is going to be very rough on the local farmers here if the prediction comes true. Last year was the inverse in central New Jersey…too much rain caused crop losses.


By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-04-13 19:46:47 CEST (+0200)

it does resemble a species of section Vaginatae.
i’ve looked all over for the specimens and am kicking myself for misplacing them.
like i said, hopefully i can collect at a later date.
the Amanitas are starting to pop here in FL and can’t wait to get some more material to you.
all we need now is rain…

I think that Nathan might be able to remove the problem of having a zero in a name…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-04-13 19:31:57 CEST (+0200)

since he clearly allows other numbers. Maybe I shouldn’t say “name.” Since an “sp.” gets inserted, maybe numbers other than zero are permitted in author names; and what’s happening is that we’re fudging names like “Amanita sp. S1” by having “sp.” in the epithet field and “S1” in the author field…unbeknownst to us….


Well, your first comment hit the sore point…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-04-13 19:27:36 CEST (+0200)

We sort of know what russuloides should look like, but there were no illustrations in the original description. Frankly, I think that sp-S01 looks more like a species of section Vaginatae than a species of Russula. I really avoid using the name “russuloides” at the present time.


thanks ret…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-04-13 19:14:38 CEST (+0200)

i did not take that into account.

should i change the current id…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-04-13 19:08:48 CEST (+0200)

to something else?
does this look like Amanita russuloides to you?
it looks a little off compared to other observations i have seen, but it does indeed match your description of Amanita sp-S01.
unfortunately, i misplaced this collection and all that remains are the pictures.
i remember where i found them and can hopefully collect at a later date.

Someone may have misunderstood my numbering scheme. …edited…
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2012-04-13 19:00:30 CEST (+0200)

The species “S1” meant “South Carolinia 1.” The mushroom has not been given a name because it is one of two or three candidates to be the old Amanita russuloides.

There’s no point in giving a provisional name until we know how to apply the name russuloides. Difficult problem. Not on the top of the pile at present. The type collection of russuloides is quite old.

Apparently, the zero in “S01” is a problem for MO. Also, you can’t specify the “sp.” MO adds the “sp.” in front of the “S1.” At least that’s what my experimentation appears to show.


By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-04-13 15:57:56 CEST (+0200)

well, how should i go about proposing the name in that case?

Its because of the numbers
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2012-04-13 15:55:33 CEST (+0200)
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-04-13 15:54:48 CEST (+0200)

trying to create name Amanita sp-s01.
MO won’t let me.
any ideas why?

cannot create name Amanita sp-s01.
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-03-27 03:43:50 CEST (+0200)


Amanita sp-S01??
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-03-21 03:04:26 CET (+0100)

Tulloss RE. 2012. Amanita sp-S01. in Tulloss RE, Yang ZL, eds. Amanitaceae studies. [ http://www.amanitaceae.org?Amanita+sp-S01 ]. accessed March 20, 2012.