| name | Amanita mappa var. tenuipes |
| name status | insufficiently known |
| author | (Murrill) Murrill |
| odor/taste | No odor or taste was recorded for this taxon. |
| discussion | This taxon is poorly known and is unlikely to be assignable to the true A. mappa of Europe. It is quite probable that the name applies to A. lavendula or one of its look-a-likes.—R. E. Tulloss |
| brief editors | RET |
| name | Amanita mappa var. tenuipes | ||||||||||||||||||||
| author | (Murrill) Murrill. 1948. Lloydia 11: 105. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| name status | insufficiently known | ||||||||||||||||||||
| synonyms |
≡Venenarius mappa var. tenuipes
Murrill.
1948:
Lloydia 11: 104. The editors of this site owe a great debt to Dr. Cornelis Bas whose famous cigar box files of Amanita nomenclatural information gathered over three or more decades were made available to RET for computerization and make up the lion's share of the nomenclatural information presented on this site. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 0 to 0 of 0 entries | ||||||||||||||||||||
| holotypes | FLAS | ||||||||||||||||||||
| type studies | Jenkins. 1979. Mycotaxon 10: 182. [status?] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 not directly from the protolog of the present taxon and not cited as the work of another researcher is based on original research by R. E. Tulloss. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| pileus |
protolog: 60 - 70 mm wide, pale
citrinous, convex to expanded; context not
described; margin even or
slightly striate; universal veil not
described. type study of Jenkins (1979): 55 cm wide, pale-citrinous, planar; context not described: margin nonstriate; universal veil as very thin, floccose crusts, randomly distributed. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| lamellae | type study of Jenkins (1979): just free, crowded. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| stipe |
protolog: 110 - 120 × 5 - 10
mm, white and smooth above, cylindric or
slightly narrowing upward,
with cream scales below; context not described;
bulb globose, 25 mm wide;
partial veil persistent, attached 40 mm below apex;
universal veil all on pileus. type study of Jenkins (1979): 90 × 3 mm, white with cream scales below, cylindric, slightly expanded at apex; context solid; bulb 26 × 26 mm; partial veil lost in exsiccatum; universal veil as shallow membranous patches on bulb apex. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| odor/taste | neither recorded. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| macrochemical tests |
none recorded. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| pileipellis | type study of Jenkins (1979): filamentous hyphae interwoven, up to 8 μm wide, gelatinized. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| pileus context | type study of Jenkins (1979): filamentous hyphae "considerable"; acrophysalides elongate. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| lamella trama | type study of Jenkins (1979): bilateral. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| subhymenium | type study of Jenkins (1979): inflated ramose to subcellular; clamps absent. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| basidia | type study of Jenkins (1979): up to 50 × 4 - 11 μm, 4-sterigmate, with sterigmata very distinctive (like horns); clamps absent. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| universal veil | type study of Jenkins (1979): On pileus: filamentous hyphae up to 7 μm wide, moderately branched, sparse; inflated cells dominant, terminal in chains, subglobose to broadly ellipsoid to ovoid (up to 94 × 79 μm), few fusiform or clavate (up to 71 × 15 μm); clamps absent. On stipe base: filamentous hyphae dominant, interwoven; inflated cells few. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| stipe context | type study of Jenkins (1979): longitudinally acrophysalidic; filamentous hyphae up to 7 μm wide, moderately conspicuous, sparsely branched, acrophysalidice up to 345 × 35 μm; clamps absent. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| partial veil | type study of Jenkins (1979): not present. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| lamella edge tissue | not described, probably sterile. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| basidiospores | type study of Jenkins (1979): 7.8 - 8.6 × 7.0 - 8.6 μm, (Q = 1.0 - 1.11; Q' = 1.03), hyaline, thin-walled, amyloid, globose to subglobose; contents guttulate; apiculus sublateral, short cylindric; color in deposit not recorded. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ecology | protolog: In low woods. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| material examined |
protolog: U.S.A.:
FLORIDA—Alachua Co. - ca. Fairbanks,
29.xii.1945 G. F. Weber s.n. [Murrill 15454] (holotype,
FLAS); Gainesville, 29.xii.1945 Marjorie Gratz s.n.
[Murrill 16255] (paratype, FLAS); ca. Gainesville,
Weber's Pond, 4.i.1946
W. A. Murrill F 16362 (paratype, FLAS). type study of Jenkins (1979): U.S.A.: FLORIDA—Alachua Co. - ca. Fairbanks, 29.xii.1945 G. F. Weber s.n. [Murrill 15454] (holotype, FLAS). | ||||||||||||||||||||
| discussion | It's possible that this taxon is one of the following A. lavendula, A. sp-lavendula01, and A. sp-lavendula03. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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.