name | Amanita griseoconia |
name status | nomen acceptum |
author | D. A. Reid |
english name | "Australian Gray Dust Lepidella" |
intro |
Description based on Reid (1980). |
cap | The cap of Amanita griseoconia is up to 95 mm wide, at first strongly convex, fawn, with a conspicuously appendiculate margin. The cap bears prominent, steel-gray, conical warts, becoming flattened, the warts collapse or disappear, leaving small, innate, darker pulverulent (lens) scales. The flesh is white. |
gills | The gills are white. |
stem | The stem is up to 11.5 - 22 mm, cylindric, somewhat swollen, white, covered with dense rings of tiny, flocculent scales and a 32 - 35 mm wide, fusiform bulb. The ring is farinaceous and quickly disappearing. The volva may be present as indistinct rings around the top of the bulb. The flesh is white. |
odor/taste | The odor and taste of this species were not recorded. |
spores | The spores measure 7.8 - 11.0 × 6.8 - 9.0 µm and are globose to subglobose to ellipsoid and amyloid. Clamps are present at bases of basidia. |
discussion |
This species was originally described from Victoria, Australia, and is known only from the type. No ecological information was provided. According to the key of Bas (1969) the most likely placement for Amanita griseoconia is in stirps Daucipes.—R. E. Tulloss |
brief editors | RET |
name | Amanita griseoconia | ||||||||
author | ("griseo-conia") D. A. Reid. 1978. Victorian Naturalist 95: 48. | ||||||||
name status | nomen acceptum | ||||||||
english name | "Australian Gray Dust Lepidella" | ||||||||
MycoBank nos. | 308555 | ||||||||
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 | K | ||||||||
selected illustrations | Reid. 1980. Austral. J. Bot., Suppl. Ser. 8: 31, fig. 18(a-c), 66, 95. | ||||||||
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 derived from the protolog and from Reid (1980). | ||||||||
pileus | from Reid (1980): up to 95 mm wide, fawn, strongly convex at first, at length becoming flattened; context white; margin conspicuously appendiculate with farinaceous material; universal veil at first as prominent, evenly distributed, steel-gray, conical warts, later as dark, very thin, pulverulent patches (lens required). | ||||||||
lamellae | from Reid (1980): white. | ||||||||
stipe | from Reid (1980): up to 115 × 22 mm, white, cylindric, "covered with dense rings of tiny flocculent scales"; bulb 32 - 35 mm [wide?], somewhat swollen, fusoid, immarginate; context white; partial veil lacking; universal veil lacking or present as "indistinct ring of scales" around top of bulb. | ||||||||
odor/taste | not recorded. | ||||||||
macrochemical tests |
none recorded. | ||||||||
pileipellis | not described in protolog. | ||||||||
pileus context | not described in protolog. | ||||||||
lamella trama | not described in protolog. | ||||||||
subhymenium | not described in protolog. | ||||||||
basidia | from Reid (1980): 35 - 50 × 9.0 - 12.5 μm, 4-sterigmate; clamps present. | ||||||||
universal veil | from Reid (1980): On pileus: hyphae 2.5 - 5.0 μm wide, thin-walled, hyaline, scanty, nearly absent in bases of warts; inflated cells predominating, globose (up to 60 μm wide) to subglobose to ovate or clavate [up to 70 (-100) × 45 μm], having anticlinal orientation in upper part of conical warts of young basidiomes, disordered in basal part of warts. | ||||||||
stipe context | not described in protolog. | ||||||||
lamella edge tissue | from Reid (1980): inflated cells clavate to spheropedunculate, up to 20 μm wide; clamps often present. [Note: This tissue misdescribed by Reid as cheilocystidia.—ed.] | ||||||||
basidiospores | from protolog: [-/-/1] 7.8 - 11.0 × 6.8 - 9.0 μm, (est. Q = 1.10 - 1.20), amyloid, subglobose to broadly ellipsoid; apiculus not recorded; contents not recorded; color in deposit not recorded. | ||||||||
ecology | not recorded. | ||||||||
material examined | from protolog: AUSTRALIA: VICTORIA—Shire of South Gippsland - Wilson's Promontory Nat. Pk., Tidal River, Lilly Pilly Gully, 2.v.1976 D. A. & D. G. Reid s.n. (holotype, K). | ||||||||
discussion |
Reid compares this species only to others of sect. Lepidella, and we concur with its assignment to that section. Moreover, according to the keys of Bas (1969), the species can be placed with confidence in subsect. Solitariae. Because of the vertical orientation of the cells in the volval warts on the pileus and the minimal hyphae present in these warts, placement in Bas' stirps Daucipes seems probable. The species described under the present name by Wood (1997) differs in having a bulb that strikingly broader than the stipe and inverse turbinate as depicted and spores that are notably smaller than those reported by Reid. | ||||||||
citations | —R. E. Tulloss | ||||||||
editors | RET | ||||||||
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs can be found here.
name | Amanita griseoconia |
bottom links |
[ Section Lepidella page. ]
[ Amanita Studies home. ]
[ Keys & Checklists ] |
name | Amanita griseoconia |
bottom links |
[ Section Lepidella page. ]
[ Amanita Studies home. ]
[ Keys & Checklists ] |
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.