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 field notes of collectors, molecular work by L. V. Kudzma, and other original research by R. E. Tulloss.
48 - 78 mm wide, white to off-white to sordid off-white, sometimes pale orangish tan or with yellowish water-soaked appearance over disc, hemispheric becoming convex or convex with slightly flattened disc; context white, 4.5 - 6.5 mm thick above stipe, thinning evenly to margin; margin nonstriate, nonappendiculate; universal veil absent; pileipellis peeling to disc but not to center.
free to narrowly adnate with very faint decurrent line on stipe apex (10× lens), crowded to subcrowded, white or off-white or very pale cream in mass, white in side view, unchanging when cut or bruised, projecting below pileus margin, 6 - 9.5 mm broad, with edge ?? and concolorous, broadest at ??; lamellulae truncate to subtruncate (shortest) to rounded truncate to subattenuate to attenuate, common to plentiful, unevenly distributed, of diverse lengths.
62 - 73 × 6.5 - 8 mm, white, occasionally with pale rusty stains, narrowing upward, flaring at apex, flocculose-fibrillose near partial veil, fibrillose below partial veil; bulb soft, subglobose, 10 - 18 × 16 - 26 mm; context solid or stuffed, white, with sometimes watersoaked central cylinder up to 2- mm wide, insect tunnels not observed; partial veil apical to superior, white, membranous, fragile, shredded during pileus expansion, detersile; universal veil white, thin, membranous, smooth, limbate, apparently enclosing basal bulb 24 - 35 × 16 - 27 mm, lacking obvious limbus internus, with limb edge uneven.
Odor faint or indistinct. Taste none.
KOH (5% aq. soln.) - strongly yellow on pileus. Text voucher: Tulloss 7-24-96-B.
composite of data from all material revised by RET:
[40/1/1] (8.0-) 8.5 - 11.0 (-12.5) × (7.5-) 7.6 -
10.0 (-12.2) μm, (L = 9.5 μm; W = 8.7
μm; Q = (1.02-) 1.05 - 1.16 (-1.27); Q =
1.09), colorless, hyaline, smooth, thin-walled,
amyloid, subglobose, infrequently globose,
infrequently broadly ellipsoid, at least somewhat
adaxially flattened, with occasional giant spores;
apiculus sublateral, cylindric;
contents granular or mono- to multiguttulate
with or without additional small granules; white to
off-white in deposit.
New Jersey: In small group. At 18 m elev. In sandy pine-oak barrens with Pinus rigida and diverse Quercus spp.
Tennessee: Solitary. At ca. 560 m elev. In forest of P. virginiana, Tsuga canadensis, and mixed hardwoods.
FLORIDA—Unkn. Co. - ca.
Florida/Georgia border, 9-110.xi.1985 Aaron
& Eugene R. Yetter s.n. [Tulloss 11-9/10-EY3]
(RET 082-1, nrITS seq'd.).
MASSACHUSETTS Co. - Mt. Holyoke, Mt. Tom
St. Pk., 27.ix.1986 Ellen Greer s.n. [Tulloss
9-27-86-EG6] (RET 224-5. nrITS seq'd.).
NEW JERSEY—Middlesex Co. - ca. Helmetta,
Jamesburg Co. Pk. [40.3853° N/ 74.4300° W, 18 m],
24.vii.1996 Britt Carlson & R. E. Tulloss
7-24-96-B] (RET 200-4, nrITS & nrLSU seq'd.),
[Tulloss 7-24-96-K] (RET 200-6, nrITS seq'd.).
Ocean Co. - Waretown, Hogenbirk prop., 4.x.1993
Cornelius Hogenbirk 11 (RET 111-5, nrITS
New York — Long Island - Suffolk County, Sears-Bellow County Park, 20.viii.2009 Joel Horman s.n. (RET 446-6) .
TENNESSEE—Cumberland Co. - 15.2 km N of
Crossville, Rinnie Community, Roberts prop. [36.1352°
N/ 85.0735° W, 558 m], 29.vii.2012 Toni Sue Roberts
(RET 508-1, nrITS seq'd.).
This species is genetically distinguishable from
A. bisporigera with which it has been confused
in the field. At least sometimes, the pileus
can be or become pale orangish tan or yellow over the
disc (RET 508-1).
In these pages, this species was formerly called
—R. E. Tulloss
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.