name | Amanita coprinopsoides | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
author | Tulloss | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
name status | nomen provisorum | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
english name | Coprinopsis-like Ringless Amanita | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
etymology | coprinopsis + -oides, like | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
intro |
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 is based on ?? and original research of R. E. Tulloss. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
pileus | gray, finely virgate, with low umbo in central depression at maturity; context ??; margin nonappendiculate, tuberculate striate (0.35-0.45R); universal veil absent. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
lamellae | white; lamellulae ??probably truncate. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
stipe | white, somewhat sinuate, covered in lower two-thirds with small white fibrils; context ??; exannulate: universal veil as saccate volva, membranous, white, firm. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
odor/taste | neither recorded. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
macrochemical tests |
none recorded. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
basidia | ? × ? μm, 4-sterigmate; clamps probably rare or absent. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
universal veil | On pileus: absent. On stipe base: ??. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
partial veil | absent. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
lamella edge tissue | sterile. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
basidiospores | [40/2/2] (8.0-) 8.6 - 11.0 (-11.1) × (5.1-) 6.1 -8.0 (-9.5) μm, (L = 9.6 - 10.3 μm; L' = 10.0 μm; W = 6.9 -7.4 μm; W' = 7.2 μm; Q = (1.25-) 1.27 - 1.54 (-1.80); Q = 1.40; Q' = 1.40), colorless, hyaline, smooth, thin-walled, inamyloid, adaxially flattened; apiculus sublateral, cylindric; contents granular to multiguttulate to monoguttulate with additional small granules; white in deposit. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ecology | Solitary or in small groups. Alabama: Near small lake. Texas: In mixed forest. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
material examined | U.S.A.: ALABAMA—Unkn. Co. - ca. border of Shelby and Jackson Cos., 22.viii.1984 Cornelis Bas 9086 [Tulloss 8-22-84-P] (L; RET 236-10, nrLSU, seq'd.). NORTH CAROLINA—Wake Co. - Raleigh, Umstead St. Pk. - 9.viii.2018 Geoff Balme s.n. (RET 874-4, nrITS-LSU seq'd.), (RET 874-8, nrITS-LSU seq'd.). TEXAS—Polk Co. - Big Thicket National Preserve, Big Sandy Creek Tr. [30.6112° N/ 94.6727° W, 80 m], 7.vi.2013 Ronald Pastorino 6-7-13U [mushroomobserver #136393] (RET 538-4, nrLSU, seq'd.). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
discussion |
The Alabama collection
was made by Dr. Cornelis Bas on a foray with RET
and Dr. David T. Jenkins in 1984. When Dr. Bas called our
attention to the fungus, he immediately said that it
should obviously be named "coprinoides."
That genus has since been divided into a number of
genera since that time; and we have picked the new
species epithet accordingly. The Texas collection was made by Ronald Pastorino and posted on mushroomobserver.org. The two collections yielded nrLSU sequnces with a 1411 character overlap that provides a 100% match. The Alabama sequence has a single ambiguity. The Texas sequence aligns as a subsequence of the Alabama one and has no ambiguities. Possibly due to nonhomogenized nrITS, we have not been able to sequence more than a few characters of the 3' end of ITS and a few dozen character including the nrLSU 5' motif. The latter motif is of the dominant form seen in section Vaginatae—"TTTGACCTCAAATCA". RET has contacted the herbarium at Leiden (L) to see if any notes were made by Dr. Bas on the Alabama collection. None were found. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
citations | —R. E. Tulloss | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
editors | RET | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs can be found here.
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.