The following is based on the type studies of Jenkins (1977, 1978a). The taxon appears unlikely to be closely related to A. frostiana.
The cap of A. frostiana var. pallidipes is approximately 25 - 40 mm wide, whitish to pale yellow, convex to plane, with a faintly striate margin. The volval remnants are floccose patches or flattened warts.
The gills are free and crowded. The short gills are truncate.
The stem is approximated 35 - 60 × 3 - 6 mm, tapering slightly upward, white. The bulb is ovoid. The ring was fragmentary in the type collection and 15 - 20 mm from the top of the stem. The volva is present on the bulb as a slight free margin.
Neither odor nor taste was recorded for this species.
According to Jenkins' type studies, the spores measure (7.3-) 7.9 - 10.2 × (5.8-) 6.3 - 7.9 (-8.4) µm and are broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid, occasionally subglobose, and inamyloid. Clamps are rare at bases of basidia.
This species was originally described from Long Island, New York. The name is out of use. The only reference in which it is possible to compare the present taxon to other species' descriptions in which all the descriptions were prepared by the same author is (Jenkins, 1978a). The information is duplicated in Jenkins' thesis (1977). Utilizing this source, comparisons of the present taxon to Amanita multisquamosa Peck and Amanita glabriceps Peck (taxonomic synonyms) indicate striking resemblance. Therefore it should be considered a possibility that Amanita frostiana var. pallidipes is a taxonomic synonym of A. multisquamosa.
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
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 derived from the protolog of the present taxon, (Jenkins 1977), and (Jenkins 1978a).
from Jenkins (1977, 1978a): 25 - 40 mm wide, whitish to pale yellow, convex to planar; context not described; margin faintly striate; universal veil as floccose patches or flattened warts.
from Jenkins (1977, 1978a): free, crowded, white; lamellulae truncate.
from Jenkins (1977, 1978a): ca. 35 - 60 × 3 - ? mm, white, narrowing upward slightly; bulb ovoid; context not described; partial veil fragmentary in neotype, 15 - 20 mm from apex; universal veil as slight free margin on bulb.
from Jenkins (1977, 1978a): filamentous hyphae interwoven or subradial, gelatinized.
from Jenkins (1977, 1978a): filamentous hyphae present; inflated cells elongate.
from Jenkins (1977, 1978a): On pileus: filamentous hyphae 3 - 8 μm, moderately branched; inflated cells globose to subglobose to ellipsoid to ovoid to pyriform to clavate, up to 125 × 51 μm, terminal singly or in disordered chains; clamps rare. On stipe base: similar to tissue on pileus; filamentous hyphae 3 - 7 μm wide, moderately branched; inflated cells [up to] 160 × 51 μm, terminal singly or in chains, with a greater preponderance of elongate cells; clamps rare. [Note: In the later republication the dimensions of inflated cells on the pileus are given as "100 × 51 μm" and those on the stipe base as "100 × 40 μm."—ed.]
from Jenkins (1977, 1978a): longitudinally acrophysalidic; filamentous hyphae inconspicuous; acrophysalides up to 318 × 45 μm.
from Jenkins (1977, 1978a): filamentous hyphae up to 7 μm wide, moderately branched; inflated cells elongate, up to 50 × 10 μm, terminal singly, rare; clamps rare.
from Jenkins (1977, 1978a): [-/-/-] (7.3-) 7.9 - 10.2 × (5.8-) 6.3 - 7.9 (-8.4) μm, (Q = 1.13 - 1.46; Q = 1.27), hyaline, smooth, thin-walled, inamyloid, subglobose to broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid; apiculus sublateral, cylindric to slightly truncate-conic; contents guttulate; color in deposit not recorded.
not recorded; however, the type locality lies in a region of sandy, Pinus-Quercus barrens.
from Jenkins (1977, 1978a): U.S.A.: NEW YORK—Suffolk Co. (Long Isl.) - Port Jefferson, vii C. H. Peck s.n. (neotype, NYS, mixed collection annotated by D. T. Jenkins).
Jenkins (1978a): "There were no specimens originally cited, requiring designation of a neotype. The collection chosen is mixed, but includes fruit bodies exhibiting the characters of the original description. the two taxa can be separated on amyloidity of spores, those of the type fruit bodies of Amanita frostiana var. pallida exhibiting a negative reaction, the others reacting positively. Fruit bodies have been annotated appropriately."
Because of the rarity of clamps on the basidia and the form of the universal veil on the stipe's bulb, it is clear that that the present taxon cannot be a variety of A. frostiana, a muscarioid taxon. We provisionally place the present taxon in subsection Pantherinae. In this subsection, it is very unusual for a small-capped specimen to lack distinct striations on the pileus. If this part of the descripion of the present taxon is in error, then the present taxon seems very comparable to A. multisquamosa. A comparison of the sporographs of the two taxa is presented in the following figure:
At present, we don't see a good reason to return this name to common use and consider it a poorly known, possible synonym of A. multisquamosa.
—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.