name | Amanita aestivalis |
name status | nomen acceptum |
author | Singer |
english name | "White American Star-Footed Amanita" |
images | |
intro |
The following is based in large part on the original description by Singer (1959b). The entire fruiting body of A. aestivalis, slowly stains some shade of red-brown to brown (because of bruising, cutting, age, etc.). |
cap |
The cap is 54 - 83 mm wide, entirely white with the occasional exception of pale tan or pale yellow over the center, and ranges from parabolic-obtuse at first to convex to planar as it matures. The margin is nonstriate or very short striate and not appendiculate; sometimes it flares upward in age. The volva is usually absent from the cap, but sometimes may be present at first in thin, submembranous patches. |
gills |
The gills are free, close, white, subventricose, moderately broad, and with slightly fimbriate edges. Form of short gills was not originally reported. |
stem |
The stipe 90 - 160 × 6 - 16 mm, white, cylindric or narrowing upward, usually without notable decoration, and stuffed. The stipe bears a white, superior, persistent annulus. There is a broad (up to 33 mm or more wide), rather abrupt, vertically cleft bulb at the stipe's base. This bulb is sometimes marginate (with a fragile, thin, raised rim 1- 10 mm high that is often obliterated during expansion of the fruiting body). |
spores |
The spores measure (5.8-) 7.0 - 9.5 (-10.9) × (5.0-) 6.8 - 8.8 (-10.5) µm and are globose to subglobose (occasionally broadly ellipsoid) and amyloid. Clamps are absent from bases of basidia. |
discussion |
Singer stated the species occurred in forests of broad-leaved trees or in forests of such trees mixed with conifers. Among the associated trees, he listed beech, birch, fir, hemlock (Tsuga), oak, pine, and spruce. In my experience, the species is most commonly found in the northern hardwood-hemlock forests of the New England states in the USA, the southeastern provinces of Canada, and in the Appalachian mountain chain at least far enough south to include the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The species was described from material collected in Massachusetts, Michigan, New York and Virginia, with the type taken from the Michigan material. Singer stated the species' range extended south to Florida. It is known from the eastern USA. Its segregation from A. asteropus Sabo ex Romagn. was demonstrated by Tulloss and Massart (1998). There is some question as to whether A. aestivalis is distinct from A. brunnescens G. F. Atk. Singer claimed that bruising/staining occurred more rapidly in A. brunnescens and that the radial lines of pigment often seen on the cap of the latter species are not ever to be found in A. aestivalis.—R. E. Tulloss |
brief editors | RET |
name | Amanita aestivalis | ||||||||
author | Singer ex Singer. 1959b. Mycologia 51: 390. | ||||||||
name status | nomen acceptum | ||||||||
english name | "White American Star-Footed Amanita" | ||||||||
synonyms |
≡Amanita aestivalis Singer nom. inval. 1951 ["1949"]. Lilloa 22: 387. [Lacking Latin diagnosis and specification of holotype. ICNB §36.1, §37.1]
=Amanita [or Amanitina?] brunnescens f. albida E.-J. Gilbert nom. nud. 1940. Iconogr. Mycol. (Milan) 27, suppl. (1): 32, 154, tab. 37 (fig. 3). [Lacking Latin diagnosis, specification of holotype, etc. ICBN §36.1, §37.1, etc.] ≡Amanita brunnescens f. pallida E.-J. Gilbert nom. nud. 1941. Iconogr. Mycol. (Milan) 27, suppl. (1): 317, 318.
??=Amanita brunnescens var. pallida L. Krieg. p.p. (=Amanita brunnescens G. F. Atk.) The editors of this site owe a great debt to Dr. Cornelis Bas whose famous cigar box files of Amanita nomenclatural information gathered over three or more decades were made available to RET for computerization and make up the lion's share of the nomenclatural information presented on this site. | ||||||||
etymology | aestivalis "summer" [as adjective] | ||||||||
MycoBank nos. | 292434 | ||||||||
GenBank nos. |
Due to delays in data processing at GenBank, some accession numbers may lead to unreleased (pending) pages.
These pages will eventually be made live, so try again later.
| ||||||||
holotypes | MICH | ||||||||
revisions | Tulloss and F. Massart. 1998. Doc. Mycol. 28(109-110): 73-76. [partial] | ||||||||
intro |
The following text may make multiple use of each data field. The field may contain magenta text presenting data from a type study and/or revision of other original material cited in the protolog of the present taxon. Macroscopic descriptions in magenta are a combination of data from the protolog and additional observations made on the exiccata during revision of the cited original material. The same field may also contain black text, which is data from a revision of the present taxon (including non-type material and/or material not cited in the protolog). Paragraphs of black text will be labeled if further subdivision of this text is appropriate. Olive text indicates a specimen that has not been thoroughly examined (for example, for microscopic details) and marks other places in the text where data is missing or uncertain. The following material not directly from the protolog of the present taxon and not cited as the work of another researcher is based on original research of R. E. Tulloss. | ||||||||
basidiospores |
from type study of RET: [100/4/3] (6.5-) 7.5 - 9.5 (-10.8) × (6.0-) 7.0 - 9.0 (-10.0) μm, (L = 8.3 - 8.6 μm; L' = 8.4 μm; W = 7.8 - 8.0 μm; W' = 7.9 μm; Q = (1.0-) 1.02 - 1.14 (-1.18); Q = 1.07; Q' = 1.07), hyaline, colorless, smooth, thin-walled, amyloid, globose to subglobose, infrequently broadly ellipsoid, rarely lachrimoid, usually at least somewhat adaxially flattened; apiculus ??; contents ??; ?? in deposit. composite data from all materail revised by RET: [200/9/6] (5.8-) 7.0 - 9.5 (-10.9) × (5.0-) 6.8 - 8.8 (-10.5) µm, (L = (7.6-) 7.9 - 8.6 µm; L’ = 8.4 µm; W = (7.2-) 7.5 - 8.0 µm; W’ = 7.8 µm; Q = (1.0-) 1.02 - 1.14 (-1.20); Q = 106 - 1.08 (-1.09); Q’ = 1.07), hyaline, colorless, smooth, thin-walled, amyloid, globose to subglobose, infrequently broadly ellipsoid, rarely lachrimoid, usually at least somewhat adaxially flattened; apiculus sublateral, truncate-conic; contents ??; ?? in deposit. | ||||||||
ecology | Solitary or in small groups. Michigan: Under Quercus or in hardwood forest. New Hampshire: In litter of deciduous forest. New Jersey: At 18 m elev. In sandy soil of typical Pinus rigida-Quercus barrens. Pennsylvania: At 417 m elev. In dark loam amid rocks with Acer, Pinus, Picea pungens (alien), Q. prinus and Q. sp. Tennessee: At 795 m elev. West Virginia: With Pinus, Tsuga canadensis, and Acer pensylvanicum. | ||||||||
material examined | U.S.A.: MAINE— Penobscot Co. - Orono, Univ. of Maine, campus, 10.viii.1991 anon. s.n. [Tulloss 8-10-91-A] (RET 105-1). MASSACHUSETTS—Worcester Co. - Upton, Upton St. For., 14.viii.1993 NEMF1993 participant s.n. [Tulloss 8-14-93-G] (RET 096-2). MICHIGAN—Cheboygan Co. - E shore of Burt Lk., 18.vii.1953 Rolf Singer N667 (paratype, F 1099362); Douglas Lk., 22.vii.1953 R. Singer N735 (paratype, F). NEW HAMPSHIRE—Hillsborough Co. - Fox St. For., 18.viii.1989 Diane Pruden s.n. [Tulloss 8-18-89-H] (RET 245-5). NEW JERSEY—Middlesex Co. - Jamesburg Twp., Jamesburg Twp. Pk., ca. Helmetta [40°23’07” N/ 74°25’48” W, 18 m], 24.vii.1996 Britt Carlson & R. E. Tulloss 7-24-96-A (RET 200-5). Monmouth Co. - Roosevelt, North Valley Rd. bicycle path [40°12’49” N/ 74°28’19” W], 7.ix.1999 M. A. & R. E. Tulloss 9-7-99-A (RET 295-7); Upper Freehold, Assunpink Wildlife Management Area [40°12’36” N/ 74°28’42” W], 8.ix.1999 M. A. & R. E. Tulloss 9-8-99-E (RET 296-5). NEW YORK—Otsego Co. - Oneonta, College Camp, 16.viii.1985 George Waitkins s.n. [Tulloss 8-16-85-D] (RET 101-1). PENNSYLVANIA: Pike Co. - Lord's Valley, 800 Peyton Place [41.3398° N/ 75.0646° W, 417 m], 15.vii.2014 R. E. Tulloss 7-15-14-A (RET 625-8). TENNESSEE—Sevier Co. - ca. Gatlinburg, GSMNP, Cherokee Orchard [35.6811° N/ 83.4625° W, 945 m], 12.vii.2004 R. E. Tulloss 7-12-04-B (RET 375-8). WEST VIRGINIA—Greenbrier Co. - ca. 1.6 km W of Charmco, U.S. Rte. 60 rest stop, 9.viii.1990 Dr. M. A. Vincent 4383 (MU; RET 146-9). | ||||||||
discussion |
Singer distinguished the present species from A. brunnescens by its reportedly slower staining reaction, by the pileus being pure white except for a yellowish disc, and by the lack of brown radial lines on the pileus. All these characteristics may be due to the weakness or absence of a single chemical reaction in the fruiting body—perhaps something akin the tyrosinase-triggered melanin cycle common in most pigmented agarics. The presence of tyrosinase in brunnescens (of all cap colors) and A. aestivalis is insufficient to produce a visible spot test response to (e.g.) paracresol, a reagent specific for the presence of tyrosinase among all known phenoloxidases in fungi (RET, unpub. data). Hence, the process for producing staining and pileus pigmentation are both (if they are two separate processes) unknown in the North American species of stirps Brunnescens. A sporograph comparison with A. brunnescens (note that the sample size for the latter species is presently rather small) follows: One of the distinguishing features of the European A. asteropus is that it produces an intense positive reaction for tyrosinase when paracresol is applied to the entire surface exposed by longitudinal section of a complete basidiome. The European species has a cream to butter yellow pileus and is never virgate. A sporograph comparison is shown in the following diagram: To date no difference has been found between nrITS sequences derived from mushrooms of the present species and those derived from material of A. brunnescens. further work is on-going. | ||||||||
citations | —R. E. Tulloss | ||||||||
editors | RET | ||||||||
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs can be found here.
name | Amanita aestivalis |
bottom links |
[ Keys & Checklists ] [ Great Smoky Mtns. N.P. & region list ] [ New Jersey & region list ] [ E. Texas & Gulf Coast list ] |
name | Amanita aestivalis |
bottom links |
[ Keys & Checklists ] [ Great Smoky Mtns. N.P. & region list ] [ New Jersey & region list ] [ E. Texas & Gulf Coast list ] |
Each spore data set is intended to comprise a set of measurements from a single specimen made by a single observer; and explanations prepared for this site talk about specimen-observer pairs associated with each data set. Combining more data into a single data set is non-optimal because it obscures observer differences (which may be valuable for instructional purposes, for example) and may obscure instances in which a single collection inadvertently contains a mixture of taxa.