=Amanita battarrae sensu Schalkwijk-Barendsen. 1991. Western Canada: 55, fig. 2.
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 unreleased (pending) pages.
These pages will eventually be made live, so try again later.
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 text below is derived from original research of R. E. Tulloss.
up to 70 mm wide, dirty dull brown with an orange tint, hemispheric; context white, thin; margin striate (0.2R?? [est. from cited figure]); universal veil as a patch or patches, at least one rather large and often over the disk.
free, leaving decurrent line on stipe apex, close, off-white, yellow-brown in exsiccatum; lamellulae relatively common, truncate to subtruncate.
100 × 10+ mm, whitish, brownish gray at apex in exsiccatum, narrowing upward, with fine chevron-like pattern of fibrillose scales, rounded below; context not recorded; exannulate; universal veil as a saccate volva, often splitting into well-defined lobes, whitish, with upper two-thirds of limb grayish brown in exsiccatum, tall and relatively narrow.
Odor and taste not recorded.
bilateral, wcs = 100± µm, with angle of divergence very shallow to shallow (under 30°); filamentous, undifferentiated hyphae 3.0 - 8.0 µm wide; terminal inflated cells not observed; vascular hyphae 2.2 - 12.8 µm wide, not uncommon.
wst-near = 5± µm; wst-far = 25± (-45?) µm; subhymenial tree mostly consisting of uninflated hyphal segments in frequently branching structure, sometimes with some partially inflated (e.g., clavate) elements, and in some regions with intercalary inflated elements (ellipsoid to clavate to irregular and branching) in one or two layers below basidia and with basal cell partially embedded in central stratum; with basidia arising from elements of all forms, mostly from uninflated hyphal segments.
61± × 13.5 - 14.8 µm, 4-sterigmate, often poorly reinflating or partially gelatinized, with occasional large basidiole (e.g., 54 × 16.2 µm) with slightly thickened walls; clamps not observed.
On pileus, upper surface: ??. On pileus, interior: orangish brown in mass; filamentous, undifferentiated hyphae 2.0 - 9.2 µm wide, plentiful to locally dominant, often in fascicles, branching; inflated cells ellipsoid to broadly clavate to ovoid (up to 62 × 41 µm) or narrowly clavate to clavate (up to 76 × 32 µm), thin-walled, terminal, sometimes pale orange-brown, locally plentiful to dominant, sometimes in rather dense clusters; vascular hyphae ??.
longitudinally acrophysalidic; ??.
[40/1/1] (9.8-) 10.0 - 13.2 (-22.5) × (8.0-) 9.2 - 12.5 (-15.0) µm, (L = 11.8 µm; W = 10.7 µm; Q = 1.05 - 1.18 (-1.58); Q = 1.11), hyaline, smooth, with walls thin to 0.5 - 0.8 µm thick (up to 1.5 µm thick in one 22.5 × 14.2 µm spore), often with evenly distributed granules on the inner surface, inamyloid, subglobose to broadly ellipsoid, adaxially flattened, often expanded at one end; apiculus sublateral, narrowly truncate-conic to truncate-conic, often prominent, up to 3.8 µm wide at base, up to at least 2.0 µm high; contents almost always monoguttulate, with or without additional small granules, occasionally granular; white in deposit.
At 1850 m elev. In alpine forest, associated with conifers.
CANADA: ALBERTA—Jasper Nat. Pk., Elysium Pass, Tekara Crk., 4.viii.1981 Helene M. E. Schalkwijk 1754 (DAOM 185615 as “A. battarrae”).
—R. E. Tulloss
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs
can be found here.
Spore data for collections provisionally identified as: Amanita sp-ALB01 Tulloss
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.