Amanita hayalyuy is known only from its original description. It is a comestible species eaten at least in regions of of the state of Chiapas, México.
The name is derived from a Mayan name for the species.
The following information is based on the original description of this species unless otherwise noted.
The golden brown to bright yellowish-brown cap is 80 - 180 mm wide, darkest at the center, brighter colored at the midpoint of the cap's radius, and is palest at the edge. The cap is convex at first and becomes broadly convex to planar with a slightly uplifted and often splitting edge with age. The cap has a low broad knob in its center at maturity and is slightly tacky when moist. The white to pale yellow flesh is very thin at the cap's grooved edge. Volval remnants are usually absent, but may be occasionally seen as a thin white central patch.
The white to pale yellow gills are close, free, or rounded narrowly toward the stem. The short gills are squarely cut off.
The cylindric stem is 150 - 300 × 10 - 15 mm and narrows upward slightly. The yellowish white stem is covered with darker orangish-brown thread-like fibers that frequently separate into scaly, chevron-like regions. The hollow stem's flesh is whitish to pale yellow and stuffed with cottony material. The thin skirt-like ring is present near the top of the stem, is grooved on its top surface, and is easily detached from the stem by handling. The white sac-like volva is attached at the very base of the stem and is typically 20 - 50 mm tall.
The odor A. hayalyuy is reported to be mild, and not distinctive; the taste was not recorded.
Spores of this species measure (8.2-) 8.5 - 12.5 (-16.0) × (6.0-) 6.5 - 8.5 (-9.1) μm and are inamyloid and predominantly ellipsoid. Clamps are found at bases of basidia.
Amanita hayalyuy is known only from its original description. It is a comestible species eaten at least in regions of of the state of Chiapas, México. The name is derived from a Mayan name for the species.
The present species was collected at 2000 m elevation growing singly or in small groups in association with Oak (Quercus).—R. E. Tulloss and N. Goldman
Arora & G. H. Shepard. in G. H. Shepard et al.2008. Econ. Bot. 62(3): 437-470.
"Mayan Slender Caesar"
hayal, "slender" + yuy, "Amanita" (particularly of the Caesareae). The epithet is a compound derived from the phrase "hayal yuy"—a name for this species in "one Tzotzil Maya dialect" per the protolog.
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.
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 not directly from the protolog of the present taxon and not cited as the work of another researcher is based on original research of R. E. Tulloss.
protolog: 80 – 180 (-250) mm wide, typically golden-brown or bright yellow-brown as
seen from distance, actually darker brown
(or at times olive or reddish) over disc, much "brighter" in area of mid-radius and "paler still" (yellow) at margin, convex becoming broadly convex to plane or with slightly uplifted and often splitting margin, with low, broad umbo [rather pronounced in illustrations] at maturity, slightly viscid or tacky when moist; context whitish to pale yellow, very thin at margin, not staining appreciably when cut; margin sulcate-striate, nonappendiculate, with striations typically 10–30 mm long; universal veil usually absent, occasionally as thin, white, approximately central patch.
protolog: adnexed or free to narrowly adnate, close, off-white to cream-colored or pale yellow (not bright yellow); lamellulae truncate.
protolog: 150 – 300 × 10 - 15 (-20) mm, subcylindric or narrowing upward slightly; with yellowish or cream-colored ground when fresh, frequently decorated below annulus with darker orangish-brown to slightly reddish felty-fibrillose layer (remnants of limbus internus) frequently breaking into scaly zigzagging zones and often discoloring with age or handling (becoming duller and browner); context whitish to pale yellowish or cream-colored,
hollow throughout or stuffed with cottony white material; partial veil thin,
superior, skirt-like, yellowish, striate above, easily obliterated by handling; universal veil as membranous saccate volva, white, ample, sheathing, lobed, attached at very base of stipe, typically 20 – 50 mm tall, with basal part of limbus internus placed near stipe base, but not always clearly distinguishable.
protolog: Odor mild, not distinctive. Taste not recorded.
protolog: as trichodermium, gelatinized to unspecified depth at surface.
protolog: as thin layer of inflated cells, 1-2 cells thick.
protolog: mostly 4-sterigmate; clamps present.
protolog: mainly comprising filamentous
hyphae moderately branched, interwoven. Limbus internus remnants on stipe surface: with large, swollen cells.
The photograph of the type collection included in the protolog shows a rather battered specimen that was probably collected more than a day before it was purchased in the market—or else it was an old specimen when it was collected.
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.