name | Amanita ovoidea |
name status | nomen acceptum |
author | (Bull. : Fr.) Link |
english name | "European Egg Amidella" |
images | |
cap |
The cap of Amanita ovoidea is 90 - 350 mm wide, white, moist, hemispheric then convex, with a nonstriate, appendiculate margin. The flesh is white. The volval remnants are floccose. |
gills |
The gills are chalk white, narrow, densely serrate, free, ventricose, and with a "subtly" floccose margin. |
stem |
The stem is 100 - 150 × 25 - 50 mm, white, completely floccose, and thickening toward the base. In the area where one might expect an annulus in another species, the flocculence is so thick that it has been described as capable of being spread with a knife like a soft cheese. The saccate volva is white or reddening. |
spores |
The spores measure (6.3-) 7.5 - 10.5 (-15.0) × (4.9-) 5.2 - 7.0 (-8.4) µm and are broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid to elongate and amyloid. |
discussion |
The species was originally described from France. This species has commonly been placed in section Amidella, but it differs from most of the species in the section that are known to me. The type species of the section is A. volvata (Peck) Lloyd, a species notable for having a cap margin that is at least somewhat striate (the character is more pronounced in other taxa closely related to A. volvata). Short gills in the type species are truncate. Bruised flesh or exposed from the inner side of the volva may turn pink at first and then (usually strongly) red-brown in A. volvata. The other taxa placed in section Amidella that are most closely related to A. ovoidea are A. proxima Dumée of Mediterranean Europe and A. neoovoidea Hongo of eastern Asia. This species is widely eaten in the Mediterranean region. In Turkey, at a restaurant supposedly catering to "German" tourists, my eldest son was served a steak on top of which was a whole, grilled specimen of A. ovoidea.—R. E. Tulloss |
brief editors | RET |
name | Amanita ovoidea | ||||||||
author | (Bull. : Fr.) Link. 1833. Handb. Erkenn. nutzb. hänfigst. Gewächse: 273. [Also in Willdenow. 1833. Grundriss Kräuterk., 7th ed., 4: 273??. Link’s complete work was republished in Willdenow’s seventh edition.] | ||||||||
name status | nomen acceptum | ||||||||
english name | "European Egg Amidella" | ||||||||
synonyms |
≡Agaricus ovoideus ["ovoides"] albus Bull. 1788. Herb. France: 668, pl. 364.
≡Agaricus ovoideus Bull : Fr. 1821. Syst. Mycol. 1: 15.
≡Amanita ovoidea (Bull. : Fr.) Gillet. 1884 (February). Tabl. Anal. Hyménomyc.: 6. [Superfluous combination.]
≡Amidella ovoidea (Bull. : Fr.) E.-J. Gilbert. 1940. Iconogr. Mycol. (Milan) 27, suppl. (1): 77, tab. 29 (figs. 4-6).
≡Amanita alba Pers. 1818. Trait. Champ. Comest.: 177.
=Leucomyces pectinatus Battarra nom. inval. 1755. Fungi Agri Arimin. Hist.: pl. 4 (fig. D). [Non-binomial name. ICBN §23.1]
[Note: For additional synonymy, see Amanita Nomenclator (t.b.d.).] 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. | ||||||||
MycoBank nos. | 156329, 480029, 362255, 284137 | ||||||||
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.
| ||||||||
lectotypes | Bull. 1788. Herb. France: pl. 364. | ||||||||
lectotypifications | Agaricus ovoideus—Neville & Poumarat. 2004. Fungi Europaei 9: 632 | ||||||||
revisions | Neville and Poumarat. 2001. Micologo 33(100): 12. | ||||||||
selected illustrations | Floriani. 2000. Boll. Gruppo Micol. G. Bresadola 43(2): 28. | ||||||||
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 author is from original research of R. E. Tulloss. | ||||||||
stipe context | RET: longitudinally acrophysalidic; branching, filamentous, undifferentiated hyphae 3.8 - 7.7 µm wide, dominating; branching refractive hyphae 2.8 - 22 µm wide, plentiful; acrophysalides up to 100 × 28 µm, some with cell wall thickened to about 0.5 µm. | ||||||||
basidiospores | RET: [55/3/3] (6.3-) 7.5 - 10.5 (-15.0) × (4.9-) 5.2 - 7.0 (-8.4) µm, (L = 8.9 - 9.2 µm; L’ = 9.1 µm; W = 6.0 - 6.2 µm; W’ = 6.1 µm; Q = (1.27-) 1.29 - 1.67 (-1.81); Q = 1.48 - 1.52; Q’ = 1.50), amyloid, hyaline, thin walled or with 0.5 µm thick walls, broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid to elongate; apiculus sublateral, cylindric; contents granular to mono- to multiguttulate, sometimes with thin refractive deposit on interior of spore wall; white in deposit. | ||||||||
material examined |
RET: AUSTRIA: —ca.
Wiener Neustadt, Bad Fischau, | ||||||||
citations | —R. E. Tulloss | ||||||||
editors | RET | ||||||||
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs can be found here.
name | Amanita ovoidea |
bottom links |
[ Section Amidella page. ] [ Amanita Studies home. ] [ Keys & Checklists ] |
name | Amanita ovoidea |
bottom links |
[ Section Amidella page. ] [ Amanita Studies home. ] [ Keys & Checklists ] |
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.