| name | Amanita gloeocystidiosa | ||||||||||||||||||||
| author | Boonprat. & Parnmen in Li et al. 2016. Fungal Div. 78(1): 136, sp. 322. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| name status | nomen acceptum | ||||||||||||||||||||
| etymology |
gloeocystidium, versiform cystidia that have
granular or guttulate content + -osus,
abundant. Such are not presesnt in any
known Amanita. [Note: The name is based on a misinterpretation of the tissue of the hymenium and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the lamella edge tissue in Amanita. A name is not invalidated because its protolog provides an incorrect description.—ed.] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| MycoBank nos. | 551614, 635924 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. Search:
Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 on the protolog of the present taxon. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| pileus | protolog: 22 – 45 mm wide at first, convex to parabolic when young, expanding to applanate with age, sometimes depressed, sticky, moist, from dark brown 8F5–8 at disc to grayish yellow 1A3–5 at margin when young; olive yellow 2–3C–E6–8 at disc to yellowish white 2–3A2 at margin with age, sometimes dark brown 8F5–8 at disc to grayish yellow 1A3–5 at margin; context off-white, 2–3 mm thick, soft and moist; margin sulcate-striate and even; universal veil not described. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| lamellae |
protolog: free,
broad?,
average?,
sub-distant, yellowish white 2–3A2; lamelluae
of two lengths. [Note: Because of the species' being assignable to section Amanita based on inamyloid spores and stipes that are not totally elongating, it is probable that the lamellulae are truncate. The figures showing vertically sectioned fruiting bodies seem to show lamellae cut at an angle during sectioning (or are stylized drawings) and apparently do not show lamellulae. It is unclear what is meant by the words "broad" and "average" in this context.—ed.] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| stipe |
protolog: 75 – 100 × 6 – 9
mm, pale orange to orange-white 5A2-3 with grayish
orange striae [?fibrils ?stains]
5B3–6
after bruising, longtitudinal striate, central,
narrowing upward, with clavate-bulbous
base; context hollow; partial veil
single-layered, pale yellow to brown,often
disappearing with age, infrequently present at
mid-stipe [at what stage(s) of
development?];
universal veil constricted[?],
white, persistent, with flaring limb margin, with
ragged limb edge [per image]. [Note: Areas marked where clarification of terminology seems needed.—ed.] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| odor/taste | neither recorded. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| macrochemical tests |
none reported. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| pileipellis |
Inadequately described. [Note: The pileipellis of an Amanita may range from absent to poorly differentiated to comprising one or two well-defined layers of interwoven, subradial hyphae, with or without intimate connections to the interior of the universal veil and (when there are two layers of the pileipellis proper) with the uppermost layer more or less strongly gelatinized. Significant variation exists within sections. The microscopic anatomy of the pileipellis is associated with sufficient character states to be of importance to taxonomy.—ed.] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| pileus context | not described. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| lamella trama |
protolog: divergent.
[Note: This tissue is inadequately described. It is claimed to be dextrinoid. If this is correct, it is a very unusual character. We do not know of dextrinoid tissue associated with the lamellae in section Amanita. This observation should be checked. We do know of at least one taxon which occasionally exhibits dextrinoid contents of basidia; however, this species (A. mutabilis) is currently placed in section Roanokenses.—ed.] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| subhymenium |
protolog: not adequately described. [Note: Figures in the protolog show what is probably an immature subhymenium as a rather frequently branching structure of uninflated to slightly inflated and occasionally branched hyphal segments. Further comments are found below—ed.] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| basidia |
protolog: 27 – 41 × 9.5 –
12.5 μm, bisterigmate, clavate, smooth, hyaline,
thin-walled; basidioles 18 – 21 × 6.5 – 7.5 μm,
clavate, smooth, hyaline, inamyloid, thin-walled; clamps absent. [Notes: Bisterigmate basidia are unusual on a mature hymenium in Amanita. Apparently, the hymenial tissues depicted are immature. The subhymenium is very likely to be immature as well because its individual elements are not yet inflated. In species of section Amanita the subhymenium is most frequently pseudoparenchymatous. The original text reports the basidia are "inamyloid." This is always true of Amanita basidia; consequently, there is little use in reporting it. One of the ways that amyloid spores can be detected in difficult cases is to view them against a background of basidia.—ed.] [Notes on supposed cystidia: On every technical tab of this site, there is a teaching topic addressing the issue of cheilocystida in Amanita—there are none. The figures in the protolog of the present species that purport to illustrate configurations of cheilocystida and pleurocystida show identical anatomy—basidioles with or without guttulate content that is the future content of spores. This is regularly seen in Amanita. All of the the supposed cystidia are shown arising from a more or less immature subhymenium; hence, none of the depicted groups of cells is part of the sterile lamella edge tissue of an Amanita.—ed.] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| universal veil | protolog: On pileus: not described. On stipe base: filamentous hyphae not described; inflated cells smooth, hyaline, inamyloid, thin-walled, clavate (22 – 31 × 3.5 – 7 μm) and broadly clavate to broadly ellipsoid (14 – 28 × 6.3 – 11.5 μm). | ||||||||||||||||||||
| stipe context |
protolog: repent hyphae
[present]; inflated
[cells] broadly
clavate to broadly ellipsoid 73 – 105 ×
31 – 34 μm, smooth, hyaline,
inamyloid, thin-walled. [Note: By failing to provide orientation and terminal position of the inflated cells [acrophysalides] as well as failing to indicate that the lamella margin tissue was sterile and comprised of cells with structure and purpose unique to the schizohymenial development of amanitas, the authors failed to demonstrate on morphological grounds that the present species is an Amanita.—ed.] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| partial veil | not described. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| lamella edge tissue | not described. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| basidiospores |
protolog: 7 – 10 (–11) × 7 –
10 μm, (L' = 8.8±0.9 μm;
W' = 8.1±0.1 μm; ;
Q' = 1.07±0.10), globose [to]
subglobose, smooth, hyaline,
inamyloid, thin-walled. [Note: Since no range of Q is provided, a sporograph cannot be generated. In the protolog's illustration of spores, two distinctly different spore shapes are shown. In each case two spores are drawn in apparent side view permitting measurements to be made. The narrower spores measure 7.5 - 8.8 × 6.8 - 6.9 μm with Q = 1.11 - 1.27 (subglobose to broadly ellipsoid). The broader spores measure 8.8 - 9.1 × 8.5 - 9.1 μm with Q = 1.0 - 1.03 (globose). Since the measurements came from two specimens and the drawings represent observations on the holotype, it appears that the holotype itself may be a mixed collection. The holotype should be re-evaluated taking into consideration the nrLSU sequence which is attributed to the holotype. That sequence may be the only data available for the purpose of correcting the protolog, which seems to be a mixture of descriptions of two distinct species. See "discussion" data field, below.—ed.] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ecology | protolog: In mixed forest. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| material examined |
protolog:
THAILAND:
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| discussion |
This species was based on four collections made as
part of the investigation into an amatoxin
poisoning (Parnmen et al.
2016).
The original report identified the
poisonous taxa involved in a series of poisonings
due to mushroom ingestion in Thailand. These
taxa were all species of section Phalloideae
as identified through sequences derived from the
material collected in each poisoning case. One case yielded additional material not belonging in section Phalloideae was involved. These collections became the original material of the present species (Parnmen et al. 2016; M. Gorczak et al. 2016). Comparison of the four nrITS sequences derived from the four collections of original material indicates that the holotype is 5±% distant from the other three collections of original material. Pairwise comparisons of the latter show that their genetic distance from each other varies from 0 to 0.3%. This data suggests that they represent a distinct species (possibly A. sychnopyramis f. subannulata; and we have excluded them from the collections in this treatment and consider them to be non-conforming paratypes. The excluded collections have the herbarium accession numbers BBH 31901, BBH 31902, and BBH 31908; they were all collected by the same team and at the same place and date. GenBank accession numbers apparently corresponding to these collections are KT213717, KT213718, and KT213720. Based on the line-drawings of A. gloeocystidiosa anatomy in the protolog, other observations are possible. If the authors are following normal conventions in titling the relevant figure (op. cit. fig. 103), then all of the images depict basidiomes and microanatomy of holotype material. If this is true, then it appears that the holotype could be a mixed collection and should be re-evaluated thoroughly. Two sets of spores are depicted (see above). They are distinguished by differences of size and shape. There are two different forms of basidiomes. The basidiome without a depressed pileus has an apparent limbate universal veil remnant attached to the bulb of the stipe. The differences among the basidiomes (including cap pigmentation) may distinguish taxa rather than differences in maturity of a single taxon. Note that none of the caps depicted in the cited figure are completely opened. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| citations | —R. E. Tulloss | ||||||||||||||||||||
| editors | RET | ||||||||||||||||||||
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs can be found here.
Spore data sets and their composite
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.
Text and User-Generated Sporographs are published under the Creative Commons License.
In the case of a taxon page, image credits are on the 'image' tab.