name | Amanita pseudobreckonii |
name status | nomen provisorum |
author | N. Siegel and C. F. Schwarz |
images | |
intro | At present, please see the techtab of this page for developing information on this proposed species. |
discussion |
The name for this taxon was introduced as a
provisional designation on
www.mushroomobserver.org by Noah Siegel. The reader may wish to compare this species with A. breckonii |
brief editors | RET |
name | Amanita pseudobreckonii | ||||||||
name status | nomen provisorum | ||||||||
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 derived from the field notes and photographs of collectors, and a Ms. description of Siegel and Schwarz (presented in quotation marks and supplied generously by the authors), molecular research from the laboratory of Dr. Jozsef Geml, Leiden, and other original research of R. E. Tulloss. | ||||||||
pileus | Siegel & Schwarz: 30 – 80 mm wide, pale straw-yellow with pinkish tan tone, sometimes more peachy or cool yellow when young, ovoid at first, becoming convex to planar, viscid to dry; context creamy white except for yellow region just below pileipellis; margin nonappendiculate, finely grooved (sometimes obscure); universal veil as relatively thick flocculent-membranous irregular covering of white patches, detersile in age. | ||||||||
lamellae | Siegel & Schwarz: narrowly attached to free, close to crowded, white, with edges often finely frosted when young. | ||||||||
stipe | 60 – 150 × 8 – 20 mm [width measured at apex], white to pale creamy white, narrowing upward, dry, smooth above partial veil, finely flocculent below; bulb relatively small; context stuffed, soft, fibrous, with pith like stuffing in central cylinder; partial veil membranous, often not attached to stipe and becoming upward-flaring ring very low on stipe; breaking up in age; universal veil as short collar-like limb encircling top of bulb in young material or as loose patches on substrate. | ||||||||
odor/taste | Siegel & Schwartz: Odor indistinct. Taste mild. "Probably toxic." | ||||||||
macrochemical tests |
none recorded. | ||||||||
basidia | Siegel & Schwartz: Clamps rare. | ||||||||
lamella edge tissue | RET: sterile. | ||||||||
basidiospores | Siegel & Schwarz: 9.5–12 x 8.5–10 µm, subglobose, inamyloid; white in deposit. | ||||||||
ecology |
Siegel & Schwartz: "Solitary or scattered in small
groups in
duff under conifers, especially Sitka Spruce
[Picea sitchensis]. Very
common on Far North Coast, uncommon elsewhere.
Often fruiting in large flushes in early fall and
spring, with scattered fruitings through winter." RET: Other associated trees cited with collections include Pinus and Abies grandis. | ||||||||
material examined | RET: U.S.A.: CALIFORNIA—Humboldt Co. - Trinidad Beach St. Pk., Elk Head Tr., 8.xi.2013 Noah Siegel 1039 (RET 599-4). Sonoma Co. - Salt Point St. Pk., 17.xii.2011 N. Siegel s.n. (RET 600-2, nrITS seq'd.; UCSC). | ||||||||
discussion | Siegel & Schwarz: "The [cap] color is a distinctive but difficult to describe mix of pale straw yellow with pinkish tan or peachy tones. The thick, flocculent-membranous universal veil remnants and the tall, slender stipe are helpful in identification. It has been mistakenly called A. breckonii (a supposedly similar species that differs in having long ellipsoid spores and clamped basidia)." | ||||||||
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.