The fruiting bodies of A. sinocitrina are small to medium-sized. The cap is
40-60 mm wide, convex to applanate, gray-yellow, sometimes brownish,
with indistinct, innate, radial fibrils. It is covered with grey to brownish, verrucose to floccose, felty, volval patches; its flesh is
white, but turns brownish when exposed, especially in the bulb.
The gills of this species are free to subfree, crowded, white to cream-colored; and the short gills are
attenuate and of diverse lengths
The stipe is 60 - 90 × 5 - 10 mm, subcylindric to attenuate upwards; its surface is white to dirty white,
covered with yellowish to yellow squamules above the annulus, and with
whitish to grayish squamules or fibrils below the annulus; the stipe's basal bulb is 15 - 25 mm wide, subabrupt to abrupt, marginate, with the
upper margin covered with grayish to brownish, verrucose to floccose volval remnants.. The annulus is membranous and superior to nearly
medium, with its upper surface cream-colored to yellowish and lower surface whitish to grayish or brownish.
Spores of A. sinocitrina measure (5.5) 6.0 - 7.5 (8.0) × (5.0) 5.5 - 7.0 (7.5) µm and are
globose to subglobose, and amyloid. Clamps are not present on the bases of basidia.
Amanita sinocitrina was originally described from central China. It occurs in mixed forests
with broad-leaved trees and conifers. Its distribution range is still unknown.
Amanita sinocitrina is characterised by its small to medium-sized basidiome with a gray-yellow pileus, grey to brownish
volval remnants, a whitish to yellowish annulus, a subabrupt to abrupt, marginate bulb on the base of the stipe, and small basidia and spores. It
is related to taxa such as A. bulbosa var. citrina (Schaeff.) Gillet [≡A. citrina (Schaeff.) Pers.
non Gunnerus] and A. bulbosa var.
bulbosa (Schaeff.) Lam. [=A. citrina var. alba (Quél.) E.-J. Gilbert].
However, A. sinocitrina differs from the European A. citrina by its differently
colored pileus with somewhat darker colored volval remnants, smaller basidia and significantly smaller spores.
Amanita sinocitrina is also similar to A. citrina
var. grisea (Hongo) Hongo, A. citrina f. lavendula (Coker) Veselý,
A. brunnescens G. F. Atk. var. brunnescens
(=A. brunnescens var. pallida L. Krieg.), A. brunnescens f. straminea
E.-J. Gilbert (=A. citrina sensu auct. amer. orient.), A. aestivalis Singer ex Singer and
A. asteropus Sabo ex Romagn. However, A. citrina var. grisea,
described from Japan, has a darker colored pileus, pallid yellow annulus, larger basidia and larger spores.
Amanita citrina f. lavendula, originally described from the U.S., is distinguished from A. sinocitrina by, among
others features, its differently colored pileus with lavender staining fruiting body and
somewhat smaller spores. Amanita brunnescens from eastern North America usually has larger
basidiomes with umbrinous brown, innate radial striations or fibrils
on the pileus covered with whitish to pallid volval remnants, a white
stipe with a usually longitudinally cleft bulb, longer basidia, and
larger spores. Amanita brunnescens f. straminea has a
differently colored pileus and stipe, and larger spores. Amanita
brunnescens var. pallida and A. aestivalis, both described from eastern North America, have
a paler colored pileus, a longitudinally splitting bulb, larger basidia
and larger spores. Amanita asteropus, described from Europe, has
a differently colored pileus with differently colored volval remnants,
and without innate, radial fibrils, a longitudinally splitting bulb,
trama or surface of stipe turning rapidly brown-orange when injured, and larger spores.—Zhu L. Yang
Zhu L. Yang, Z. H. Chen & Z. G. Zhang in Chen, Z. H., Zhu L. Yang & Z. G. Zhang. 2001. Mycotaxon 79: 275, figs. 1-4.
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.
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 is derived entirely from the protolog.
NOTE: Spore data from papers by Z. L. Yang are presented following his use of the "Times New Roman" face for "Q" and "Q'"—respectively, "Q" and "Q."
Odor and taste not recorded.
from protolog: [135/6/5] (5.5-) 6.0 - 7.5 (-8.0) × (5.0-) 5.5 - 7.0 (-7.5) μm, (Q = 1.0 - 1.15 (-1.20); Q = 1.08 ± 0.05), colorless, hyaline, thin-walled, smooth, amyloid, globose to subglobose, rarely broadly ellipsoid; amyloid proportionately small; contents not recorded; color in deposit not recorded.
from protolog: At 900 - 1200 m elev. On ground in mixed forests.
from protolog: CHINA: HUNAN—Chenzhou (prefecture level) City - Yizhang Co., Mangshan, 900 m. elev., 24.vi.1997 Z. H. Chen 3691 (holotype, HKAS 36983), 29.ix.1981 Y. C. Zong & Z. L. Mao 65 (paratype, HMAS 42248, as A. porphyria in [Mao et al. 1986]), 27.ix.1981 X. L. Mao & Y. C. Zong 20 (paratype, HMAS 52613, as A. porphyria in [Mao et al. 1986]); Yizhang Co., Mangshan, 1200 m elev., 27.vii.1997 Z. H. Chen 3712 (paratype, HKAS 36982).
—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.