The following is based on the description of Beeli (1935) and on data obtained from recent collections, etc.
The cap is 40 mm wide, blackish brown, plano-convex, smooth, and thin. Its margin is striate and nonappendiculate. It bears a dark layer of volval material. The cap's flesh is white.
The gills are free, narrowing toward both ends, and white. The short gills were not described by Beeli.
The stem of A. fuliginosa is 60 × 4 - 5 mm, cylindric or narrowing upward, solid, similar in color to the cap although paler—a pale brownish red in Mme. Goossens' watercolor. The stipe's flesh is white. The superior annulus is very thin, rather fragile, and pallid. There may be ?membranous brownish volval limbs on the bulb.
The taste and odor were not described by Beeli.
The spores as reported by Bas (1969) measure (7-) 7.5 - 9 × 7 - 8.5 μm and are globose to subglobose to broadly ellipsoid and amyloid. If the species is correctly placed in Amanita sect. Validae it probably lacks clamps at the bases of basidia.
Beeli described the habitat of A. fuliginosa as wet forest.
This species was described from the Democratic Republic of Congo and is known from central Africa.
Despite the striate pileus margin and the cupulate remains of the volva at the stipe base, this species is (at present) thought to be assignable to Amanita section Validae.
Beeli thought this species close to Amanita
echinulata Beeli, but the differences are much greater than he enumerated. Gilbert thought the present species was simply based on an old collection of A. echinulata; however, as a general rule in Amanita, older specimens do not have larger spores than younger specimens. The two species also differ in the microscopic nature of the volva (Bas 1969) and the striations on the margin of A. fuliginosa—R. E. Tulloss
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, Beeli (1935), Gilbert (1940 & 1941), and Bas (1969).
from protolog: 40 mm wide, fuligineous, plano-convex, smooth; contents fleshy, thin, white; margin striate; universal veil as dark membranous scales. [Note: Considering Bas' brief report on the microscopic anatomy of the universal veil on the pileus (see below), the thin layer on the pileus should not be called membranous, but, perhaps, felted or subfelted.—ed.]
from protolog: free, density not described, white, narrowly ventricose; lamellulae not described.
double click in markup mode to edit.
from protolog: 60 × 4 - 5 mm, pale fuligineus, cylindric, glabrous; bulb present; context solid, white: partial veil superior, membranous, pendent; universal veil membranous, thin, brown. [Note: In the "pileus" data field, above, see the comment on use of the word "membranous" for the volva of this species.—ed.]
Bas (1969): On pileus: filamentous hyphae abundant, irregularly disposed; inflated cells abundant, terminal singly or in short chains. On stipe base: not described.
lamella edge tissue
from protolog: "not observed."
Gilbert (1940): [2/1/1] (8.6-) 9.6 × (7.3-) 7.6 - 9.1 μm, (Q = 1.06 - 1.26), hyaline, smooth, amyloid, subglobose to broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid; apiculus sublateral and cylindric per figure; contents not described; white in deposit. [Note: The spore measurements are taken from the two drawings of (Gilbert 1940: tab. LVII (fig. 6)) that are in apparent lateral view. Because both spores were the same length, a sporograph cannot be generated.—ed.]
Bas (1969): [-/-/-] (7-) 7.5 - 9 × 7 - 8.5 μm, (est. Q = 1.05 - 1.20), amyloid, globose to subglobose to broadly ellipsoid.
from protolog: Solitary. In flooded forest.
from protolog: CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF: PROV. EQUATEUR—Territoire Bokungu - Valley of Tshuapa River [ca. 2°50'00" S/ 18°47'00" E, ca. 340 m], viii.1924 Goossens 359 (holotype, BR).
Gilbert (1940 & 1941): CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF: PROV. EQUATEUR—Territoire Bokungu - Valley of Tshuapa River [ca. 2°50'00" S/ 18°47'00" E, ca. 340 m], viii.1924 Goossens 359 (holotype, BR).
Bas (1969): CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF: PROV. EQUATEUR—Territoire Bokungu - Valley of Tshuapa River [ca. 2°50'00" S/ 18°47'00" E, ca. 340 m], viii.1924 Goossens 359 (holotype, BR).
Bas (1969): "Initially Beeli described this fungus in Mrs. Goossens' collection by a single dried fruit-body and a good water-colour, as a distinct species, but later (1931: 107) he suggested its identity with A. echinulata Beeli.... Gilbert (1940: 37, 1941: 40) inclined to take the same point of view.
"The spores of the type of A. fuliginosa proved to measure (7-) 7.5 - 9 × 7 - 8.5 μm, against those of A. echinulata 5.5 - 6.5 × 4.5 - 5.5 μm. Moreover, the volval remnants on the cap of A. fuliginosa consist of irregularly disposed, abundant hyphae carrying terminally or in terminal short rows, abundant inflated cells; in A. echinulata the volva remnants consist of parallel erect rows of inflated cells. Therefore I am convinced that A. fuliginosa is not even closely related to A. echinulata, although in view of the friable volva, the non-appendiculate margin of the cap, the deeply coloured pileipellis, and the small, amyloid spore, it, like A. echinulata, belongs to section Validae and certainly not to section Lepidella."
—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.