name | Amanita sp-C05 | ||||||||||||||||
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.
| ||||||||||||||||
intro |
The following text may make multiple use of each data field. A field may 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 on original research of R. E. Tulloss and field notes of Greg Wright. | ||||||||||||||||
pileus | 35± - 95 mm wide, white, sometimes with orangish, yellowish or brownish tints, subviscid; context white (susceptible to yellowing syndrome), 3± - 7 mm thick above stipe, thinning evenly to margin; margin nonstriate, appendiculate; universal veil as one or more patches or flattened warts, usually thin (if thickened, then with thickening restricted to center of wart or patch), membranous, white to pale tan. | ||||||||||||||||
lamellae | adnate to narrowly adnate, close to subdistant, white to off-white with a pale pink or orange tint in mass, pinkish tints less notable in side view, becoming buff to dull salmon or dull pinkish brown or tannish orange as dried, 3± - 4± mm broad, occasionally anastomosing, occasionally or infrequently forking, with edge fimbriate and white; lamellulae ??attenuate to ??subattenuate to rounded truncate to truncate, common, of diverse lengths. | ||||||||||||||||
stipe | 41 - 65 × 10.5 -22 mm, white, sometimes with wine-red discoloration above bulb, with flattened squamules (sometimes in zig-zag pattern) below partial veil; bulb napiform-subradicating to narrowly obconic, 20 - 95 × 15 - 40 mm long; context white (susceptible to yellowing syndrome), sometimes bruising wine-red, stuffed with white to pallid yellow-brown to yellow-brown material, with 5 mm wide central cylinder; partial veil apical to subapical, white, becoming yellowish with age, skirt-like, membranous, medium-sized, becoming torn, upper surface striate, underside cottony, with even edge; universal veil present as limbate volva (with limb of roughly even height) or as circumcissile short rim with attached patch, usually white to sordid white or browning with age, infrequently “rosy vinaceous,” 25 - 93± mm from bottom tip of bulb to highest point on limb. | ||||||||||||||||
odor/taste |
Odor mild (Viess) to chlorine-like and
sometimes slightly nauseating (Wright).
Taste raw, mild (Viess) to chlorine-like
or sometimes leaving an acrid aftertaste in the
throat (Wright); cooked, variable from pleasant
to chlorine-like to fish-like (Wright). POISONOUS. Wright experienced nausea (1 hr 45 min after ingestion) and repeated vomiting (beginning 4 hr 45 min after ingestion and continuing for 1 hr 40 min) from eating one third of a pileus of one collection, but had no effect from eating a larger portion of a second specimen. [Note: The editors of this site do not encourage or support anyone's experimenting with taxa prossibly belonging in those sections of Amanita which include known poisonous taxa.—ed.] | ||||||||||||||||
macrochemical tests |
KOH soln. - sometimes weakly yellow on pileus, negative on pileus context and lamellae. Phenol - negative on stipe context. FeSO4 - negative on stipe context. H2SO4 - negative on lamellae. Wieland test - negative. | ||||||||||||||||
basidiospores | [81/4/3] (8.0-) 9.4 - 13.3 (-14.3) × (5.6-) 6.5 - 8.0 (-8.5) µm, (L = 11.1 - 12.2 µm; L’ = 11.5 µm; W = 7.2 - 7.5 µm; W’ = 7.3 µm; Q = (1.17-) 1.42 - 1.80 (-1.96); Q = 1.48 - 1.65; Q’ = 1.57), hyaline, colorless, thin-walled, smooth, amyloid, adaxially flattened, ellipsoid to elongate, rarely broadly ellipsoid, occasionally subreniform, occasionally expanded at one end; apiculus sublateral to subapical; contents guttulate; ?? in deposit. | ||||||||||||||||
ecology | Solitary. In dark brown sandy soil under Quercus agrifolia in a well-spaced grove or under Arctostaphylos. | ||||||||||||||||
material examined | U.S.A.: CALIFORNIA—Alameda Co. - Huckleberry Bot. Pres. (E. Bay Reg. Pk. Distr.), 17.v.2005 Debbie Viess s.n. (RET 383-6, exhibited yellowing syndrome). Contra Costa Co. - Oakland, Huckleberry Bot. Pres. (E. Bay Reg. Pk. Distr.), 3.iv.2005 Debbie Viess s.n. (in herb. D. Viess; RET 382-10). Riverside Co. - Santa Ana Mtns., El Cariso Campgr., 27.iv.1983 Dave Goodward s.n. [G. Wright 3007] (in herb G. Wright; RET 023-5, nrLSU seq'd.). San Diego Co. - ca. De Luz, De Luz Rd., 20.iii.1983 Wes Dinoff s.n. [G. Wright 2957] (RET 080-7, nrLSU seq'd.). | ||||||||||||||||
discussion |
In his notes, Wright mentions other collections
that he thought might be close to this entity, but
which differed in one way or another. He
reports Q = 2.12 for Wright 3297, which he
felt was similar to the material cited above.
Other collections cited are Wright 3385
(lacking a bulb, spores 8.8 - 11 × 6.2 - 7.7 µm),
and Wright 3630. Hence, there may be other
radicating amanitas in southern California that are
not yet well known. The Alameda County collection (17.v.2005 D. Viess s.n.) demonstrates that the present species is susceptible to the “yellowing syndrome" that Tulloss described occurring in A. subsolitaria and other taxa. The present taxon is a proportionately deeply radicating species assignable to Bas' Amanita stirps Preisii. | ||||||||||||||||
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.