The following is largely based on the original description (Wood 1997).
The cap of Amanita pallidogrisea is 40 mm wide, convex then plano-convex, smooth, dry, pale gray, with a nonstriate margin. Volval remains are present as flat, membranous scales, most dense near the center, white to slightly off-white.
The gills are free, crowded, thin, white, with a concolorous edge. The short gills are present in at least one series.
The stem is up to 30 - 6 mm, white, and smooth. The ring is white, very friable, and almost always absent in mature specimens. The base is very slightly swollen [Wood's illustration suggests the stem is totally elongating] and is encased in a membranous volva which has a distinct free limb and is white to slightly off-white.
The spores measure 9.3 - 11.4 (-12.0) × 7.2 - 8.7 (-9.6) µm and are broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid and amyloid. Clamps are absent from bases of basidia.
Wood describes the mushroom as occurring in sclerophyll forests and subalpine woodland from the state of New South Wales, Australia. A sclerophyll forest in the Australian bush is a forest of hard-leaved plants including Eucalyptus in the overstory (wikipedia). Subalpine woodland in New South Wales includes such tree genera as Acacia, Eucalyptus, Kunzea, Leptospermum, and possibly others (for example, see this sample report on subalpine vegetation in NSW).
Wood's placement of the present species in section Validae is in error. Wood's drawing of this species suggests that the volval remains at the stem base could be either a substantial limb directly attached to a bulb or a saccate volva on a totally elongating stem. His description of the volval material on the cap says that it is dominated by hyphae with occasional inflated cells. His drawing suggests that inflated cells are common. Although his terminology for the lamella trama and the subhymenium are difficult to interpret (see Amanita elongatispora A. E. Wood for discussion) from his description it would appear that the subhymenium is not cellular. Wood also emphasizes the friability of the ring in the present species. Given the above factors, we propose placement of the present species in section Amidella. The spores are a little broad for this section outside of Australia. On the other hand, Australian taxa of all sections have a good deal to teach us about Amanita taxonomy and systematics. As we have noted on our pages for A. murinaster A. E. Wood and Amanita peltigeraD. A. Reid, it would be of interest to further explore A. pallidogrisea morphologically and phylogenetically in hopes that such work on this particular species may shed further light on Amanita evolution.—R. E. Tulloss and L. Possiel
A. E. Wood. 1997. Austral. Syst. Bot. 10: 823, fig. 53(a-e).
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.
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
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 is based entirely on the protolog of this species, which does not meet contemporary standards for Amanita taxonomy.
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.