name | Amanita conicoverrucosa |
name status | nomen acceptum |
author | A. E. Wood |
english name | "Saucerful Of Pyramids Lepidella" |
intro |
The following is largely based on the original description (Wood 1997). |
cap |
The cap of Amanita conicoverrucosa is usually under 70 mm wide but may be up to 100 mm wide, cream-buff to buff, occasionally with slightly gray shades, convex then plano-convex to plane, smooth, dry, with a nonstriate and appendiculate margin. The cap is decorated with large, erect, conical warts, particularly toward the center; these are persistent, smaller towards the margin and then less robust; they are more or less concolorous with the cap surface. |
gills |
The gills are free, crowded, thin, white to slightly cream, with a concolorous edge. The short gills are present in at least one or two series. |
stem |
The stem is up to 100 × 10 mm, equal, solid, and white to slightly cream. The ring is membranous, skirt-like, pale cream, not striate, sometimes fragile and sometimes breaking apart, but always leaving a distinct remnant. The stipe's basal bulb is usually top-shaped, strongly swollen, subabrupt, white, without a free volva limb, but with distinct volval remains as rings or zones of volval fragments. Such fragments may also be scattered on the stem above the bulb. |
spores |
The spores measure (8.7-) 9.0 - 10.5 × 7.5 - 9.9 (-10.5) µm and are subglobose to broadly ellipsoid, occasionally globose, and amyloid. Clamps are [apparently] very rare at bases of basidia. |
discussion |
Wood describes the mushroom as occurring in sclerophyll forests and "tall open forests" 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). Based on Wood's original description, this species contains so few clamps that, for proper placement in Bas' system, the clampless stirpes need to be examined as possibilities. There are only two choices among the stirpes described by Bas, and these are stirps Longipes and stirps Polypyramis. Their difference is in the relative orderliness of the volva in stirps Polypyramis as opposed to irregularly disposed elements of the volva in stirps Longipes. Unfortunately, Wood does not explicitly provide the characters necessary to form an opinion. The fact that the warts are described as firmly conical suggests a more orderly microscopic structure. This species fits rather well in stirps Polypyramis with the exception that the spores are a little short and a bit too round for the stirps as Bas originally described it. Bas (1969) notes that stirps Polypyramis "bears resemblances... to the clamp bearing stirpes Virgineoides and Microlepis." Bas' definition of stirps Virgineoides permits spores of shorter length than does the definition of stirps Polypyramis and includes taxa that have spores that are broadly ellipsoid. In particular, Wood's drawing of the volva tissue in the present species bears some resemblance to Bas' illustration of the volva for Amanita virgineoides Bas. One might argue that since Wood's description of clamps in A. conicoverrucosa is somewhat confusing that we should consider the stirpes including taxa that are clamped. It seems worthwhile for someone to review the present species with particular attention to clamps on the basidia in younger material particularly near the gill edge and near the margin of the cap. Also, it is important to be aware that a clamp may become a cell in the subhymenium but even in this case their former presence can be detected by the v-shaped base of some basidia. For the moment, we are inclined to place the present species in Amanita stirps Virgineoides. We emphasize this decision is provisional.—R. E. Tulloss and L. Possiel |
brief editors | RET |
name | Amanita conicoverrucosa | ||||||||
author | A. E. Wood. 1997. Austral. Syst. Bot. 10: 775, fig. 27(a-e). | ||||||||
name status | nomen acceptum | ||||||||
english name | "Saucerful Of Pyramids Lepidella" | ||||||||
MycoBank nos. | 443193 | ||||||||
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.
| ||||||||
holotypes | UNSW | ||||||||
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 is based entirely on the protolog of this species, which does not meet contemporary standards for Amanita taxonomy. | ||||||||
basidiospores | from protolog: [-/-/-] (8.7-) 9.0 - 10.5 × 7.5 - 9.9 (-10.5) μm, (Q = 1.05 - 1.22), amyloid, subglobose to broadly ellipsoid. [Note: Data provided is not sufficient to permit generation of a sporograph.—ed.] | ||||||||
ecology | from protolog: In open, tall forest. | ||||||||
material examined | from protolog: AUSTRALIA: NEW SOUTH WALES—Batemans Bay, Kioloa St. For., 19.v.1983 A. E. Wood & J. J. Bruhl s.n. (holotype, UNSW 83/776). | ||||||||
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.