name | Amanita sp-MN03 | ||||||||||||||||
author | Tulloss | ||||||||||||||||
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 |
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 by R. E. Tulloss and Linas Kudzma. | ||||||||||||||||
pileus | up to 80± mm wide, white, unchanging, campanulate at first, later convex with slight umbo, shiny, tacky; context white, not changing when cut or bruised, 8± mm thick above stipe, thinning to membrane for last 10± before margin; margin nonappendiculate, striate (0.4 - 0.45R); universal veil absent or as large yellowish buff membranous patch. | ||||||||||||||||
lamellae | free without decurrent line on uppermost stipe, crowded, pinkish in mass, cream in side view, unchanging when cut or bruised, up to 6± mm broad; lamellulae truncate, scattered, with 3 - 5+ lamellae between closest pairs of lamellulae. | ||||||||||||||||
stipe | 195 - 200 × 20± mm, probably whitish (obscured by mud in single collection), narrowing upward, flaring slightly at apex; context whitish, watersoaked, with yellow-brown staining, dominantly hollow, otherwise stuffed with material suggesting very wet cotton, with central cylinder 14 mm wide; exannulate; universal veil as saccate volva, whitish, thick, fragile, submembranous, breaking up in substrate, up to 35+ × 25 mm. | ||||||||||||||||
odor/taste | neither recorded. | ||||||||||||||||
macrochemical tests |
none recorded. | ||||||||||||||||
lamella trama | bilateral, convergent; wcs = 35 - 40 μm; central stratum including subfusiform inflated elements; subhymenial base including clavate cells (e.g., 27 - 35 × 12.5 - 14 μm), t.b.d. | ||||||||||||||||
subhymenium | wst-near = 35 - 40 μm (moderately to relatively well rehydrated); wst-far = 50 - 55 μm (moderately to relatively well rehydrated); mostly composed of uninflated short hyphal segments, t.b.d.. | ||||||||||||||||
partial veil | absent. | ||||||||||||||||
lamella edge tissue | sterile. | ||||||||||||||||
basidiospores | [20/1/1] (8.0-) 8.5 - 11.0 (-11.2) × (6.8-) 7.0 - 9.8 μm, (L = 10.0 μm; W = 8.0 μm; Q = (1.05-) 1.06 - 1.24 (-1.25); Q = 1.13), hyaline, colorless, smooth, thin-walled, inamyloid, sublgobose to broadly ellipsoid, adaxially flattened; apiculus sublateral, cylindric to narrowly truncate-conic; contents multiguttulate; color in deposit not recorded. | ||||||||||||||||
ecology | Minnesota: In dark soil of old lake bottom, in sparsely wooded region of Populus ("Aspen") and Juniperus on west-facing slope with much Rhamnus cathartica (invasive alien). | ||||||||||||||||
material examined | U.S.A.: MINNESOTA—Washington Co. - Afton, 11.vii.1993 Anna Gerenday 9307 (nonconformant paratype of A. populiphila, RET 096-5, nrITS & nrLSU seq'd.). | ||||||||||||||||
discussion |
Gerenday 9307 was a paratype of A. populiphila;
however, it proved non-conformant when it was
evaluated genetically. Its spores were among the
smallest attributed to any paratype collection of
A. populiphila; hence, spore size may prove to
be a differentiating morphological character: It may also be separated from populiphila by its reportedly unstaining pileus. Further discussion of the populiphila cluster can be found in the discussion on the techtab of the Amanita sp-AZ28 page. | ||||||||||||||||
citations | —R. E. Tulloss, Linas Kudzma. and Anna Gerenday | ||||||||||||||||
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.