=Amanita baccata sensu Bres. in Beardslee. 1902. J. Elisha Mitchell Scient. Soc. 12: 2, pl. 1.
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.
Due to delays in data processing at GenBank, some accession numbers may lead to dead pages.
These pages will eventually be made live, so try again later.
accession
locus
voucher
source
holotypes
NYS (implicit); isotypes, CUP, L (fragments), & MICH
type studies
Type study: Jenkins. 1978a. Mycotaxon 7: 37.
Tulloss, herein.
from type study of Jenkins (1978a): [-/-/1] 12.5 - 14.8 × 4.9 - 5.9 μm, (Q = 2.27 - 3.02; Q' = 2.60), hyaline, smooth, thin-walled, amyloid, cylindric to bacilliform; apiculus sublateral, cylindric; contents guttulate; color in deposit not recorded.
type study by RET: [40/2/1] (10.5-) 10.6 - 16.1 (-16.4) × (4.6-) 4.7 - 6.8 (-8.2) μm, (L = 12.7 - 13.7 μm; L' = 13.2 μm; W = 5.4 - 5.7 μm; W' = 5.5 μm; Q = (1.54-) 1.92 - 3.19 (-3.50); Q = 2.38 - 2.48; Q' = 2.43), smooth, amyloid, cylindric to bacilliform, occasionally elongate, infrequently ellipsoid; apiculus sublateral; contents not recorded; color in deposit not recorded.
ecology
Solitary to scattered to subgregarious. Oklahoma: Under Quercus stellata and Q. marilandica.
material examined
from type study of Jenkins (1978a):
U. S. A.: MICHIGAN— Allegan Co. - New Richmond,
1912 C. H. Kauffman s.n. (holotype, NYS).
RET: U.S.A.: MICHIGAN— Allegan Co. - New Richmond,
1912 C. H. Kauffman s.n. (holotype, NYS).
OKLAHOMA—Oklahoma Co. - Edmond, Hafer Pk., 10.ix.2008 C. L. Ovrebo 4764 (CSU).
citations
—R. E. Tulloss
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.