name | Amanita sp-60 | ||||||||||||
author | Tulloss & Kudzma | ||||||||||||
name status | cryptonomen temporarium | ||||||||||||
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.
| ||||||||||||
lamellae | ??; lamellulae truncate, rounded-truncate, subtruncate, of diverse lengths, plentiful, unevenly distributed. | ||||||||||||
odor/taste | neither recorded. | ||||||||||||
macrochemical tests |
none recorded. | ||||||||||||
partial veil | not present. | ||||||||||||
lamella edge tissue | sterile | ||||||||||||
anatomical figures | |||||||||||||
basidiospores | [30/1/1] (10.0-) 11.2 - 14.0 (-15.0) × (8.5-) 9.1 - 11.2 (-12.5) μm, (L = 12.8 μm; W = 10.4 μm; Q = (1.08-) 1.12 - 1.35 (-1.39); Q = 1.23), hyaline, colorless, smooth, thin-walled, inamyloid, subglobose to broadly ellipsoid to (infrequently) ellilpsoid, adaxially flattend or (sometimes) indented; apiculus sublateral, cylindric; contents ??; ?? in deposit. | ||||||||||||
ecology | Solitary. At 29 m elev. In sand of Quercus-Pinus rigida barrens. | ||||||||||||
material examined | U.S.A.: NEW JERSEY—Burlington Co. - ca. Chatsworth, Franklin Parker Preserve, at roadside near north gate [39.8138° N/ 74.5476° W, 29 m], 18.viii.2012 Nina Burghardt & Igor Safonov s.n. [mushroomobserver #108462] (RET 611-1, nrLSU seq'd.). | ||||||||||||
discussion |
This species is known from a single collection in a
survey area that has been visited multiple times
per year for several years. Its prominent, robust umbo is quite similar to that of such species as A. penetratrix and A. penetrans. With these taxa and others, the present taxon shares an uncommon 5'-motif for the nrLSU gene. A list of taxa of sect. Vaginatae from which sequences with this motif have been derived appears on the technical tab of the A. penetratrix page. Because GenBank is presently not permitting meaningful annotation of sequences, an annotation is provided here: Another more complex annotation sample could be proved in a new data field immediately following the "GenBank nos." data field near the top of the techtab. It would be specific to a sequence listed in the table of the "GenBank nos." data field. It might look something like this: This data field provides sample annotations of sequences of the present species. Each DNA nucleotide is represented by a single character. The standard characters are defined here. An annotation divides a gene into subsequences. This is particularly important in describing the proposed fungal "barcode" gene (nrITS). In the sequences below, important motifs (terminal strings that are relatively constant (conserved) or, at least, have a computable position) are shown with gray background. A little more about these motifs can be found here. A detailed tutorial on annotation of the "barcode" gene can be found ??.>MH037299 | ||||||||||||
citations | —R. E. Tulloss and L. V. Kudzma | ||||||||||||
editors | RET | ||||||||||||
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs can be found here.
name | Amanita sp-60 |
name status | cryptonomen temporarium |
author | Tulloss & Kudzma |
images |
1. Amanita sp-60, Franklin Parker Preserve, ca. Chatsworth, Burlington Co., New Jersey, U.S.A. (RET 611-1) 2. Amanita sp-60, Franklin Parker Preserve, ca. Chatsworth, Burlington Co., New Jersey, U.S.A. (RET 611-1) 3. Amanita sp-60, Franklin Parker Preserve, ca. Chatsworth, Burlington Co., New Jersey, U.S.A. (RET 611-1) 4. Amanita sp-60, Franklin Parker Preserve, ca. Chatsworth, Burlington Co., New Jersey, U.S.A. (RET 611-1) 5. Amanita sp-60, Franklin Parker Preserve, ca. Chatsworth, Burlington Co., New Jersey, U.S.A. (RET 611-1) |
anatomical figures | |
photo | Nina Burghardt - (1-5) Franklin Parker Preserve, ca. Chatsworth, Burlington County, New Jersey, U.S.A. (RET 611-1). [Note: original, unedited images are available here.—ed.] |
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.