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 field notes
provided by Debbie Viess, DNA extraction and
sequencing provided by Dr. L. V. Kudzma, and
other original research of R. E. Tulloss.
75 - 94 mm wide, "coppery orange" with margin somewhat
browner than disc, unchanging when cut or bruised,
viscid at first; context cream,
?? mm thick over stipe,
thinning evenly toward margin until membranous for
last ?? mm of pileus
radius; margin nonappendiculate, striate
(0.05 - 0.1R); universal veil as smooth buffy
gray patches of varying size, detersile,
submembranous, unevenly distributed.
narrowly adnate without decurrent line on upper stipe, crowded, pale yellow in mass, cream in side view, unchanging when cut or bruised, 5 - 8 mm broad; lamellulae ??, of at least two lengths, uncommon.
90 - 130 × 10 - 20 mm, cream, cylindric or narrowing
upward, sometimes flaring at apex,
??; bulb 20 - 35 ×
12 - 26 mm, subglobose to irregularly radicating;
context cream, unchanging when cut or bruised,
stuffed with cottony pith, with central cylinder 3 - 5
mm wide; partial veil cream, prominent,
submembranous, sometimes fragmenting, sometimes
separating from stem at point of attachment, striate
above, often with free edge decorated with pendent
rectangular buffy gray patches of universal veil;
universal veil sometimes as buffy gray
patches distributed over stipe below partial veil,
sometimes absent, with limbus internus sometimes
present as 2 - 3 mm thick cream limb encircling
upper bulb at stipe base, sometimes absent.
?? × ?? μm, 1-, 2-, or 4-sterigmate, with sterigmata up to 8.5 × 2.0 on 1- and 2-sterigmate basidia, with basidia arising from ??; clamps at least locally common.
BRITISH COLUMBIA—Powell River recreation
complex [49.8522° N/ 124.5246° W, 100 m], 25.ix.2018
Jason Leane ATM-2018-035 [mushroomobserver
CALIFORNIA—Marin Co. - Point Reyes Nat.
Seashore, Coastal Tr., 4.vii.2018 Debbie Klein s.n.
(herb. A. Rockefeller, nrITS seq'd.);
Point Reyes Nat.
Seashore, Bear 5 Tr., 20.i.2014 Richard Lyons s.n.
(RET 585-6, nrITS seq'd.); Point Reyes Nat. Seashore,
unkn. loc., 20.i.2007 mycoblitz participant s.n.
(RET 421-7, nrITS & nrLSU seq'd.), s.n.
(RET 584-5, nrITS seq'd.), s.n.
(RET 584-10, nrITS seq'd.).
WASHINGTON—Pierce Co. -Eatonville, Pack
For., 30.viii.2019 Drew T. Henderson s.n.
(RET 877-10, nrITS-LSU seq'd.).
Thurston Co. - Olympia,
Evergreen Pkwy., 1.ix.2019 D. T. Henderson s.n.
(RET 878-1, nrITS-LSU seq'd.).
The material examined to date was collected in dry
weather at temperatures described as "very
cold." These conditions as well as the
immaturity of the material may have contributed to the
malformation of spores and the presence of a
significant number of basidia with less than four
The nrITS sequences obtained from the three
collections from Marin County communicated by Debbie
Viess (RET 584-5, 584-10, and 585-6) all have genetic
distances in the range of 0.1 to 0.5% from the
following sequences from GenBank (derived from
material from Marin County or from one or more sites
in British Columbia): GQ250406, HM240517, HQ604823,
HQ604824, JF899545. The species determinations
on the GenBank sequence pages indicate that the
authors placed the material near A. gemmata
or A. pantherina. The presence of
clamps on the bases of basidia indicate that the
material is not morphologically close to either of
those two taxa.
—R. E. Tulloss
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs
can be found here.
1. Amanita sp-C21,Evergreen Parkway, Olympia, Thurston County,
2. Amanita sp-C21,Evergreen Parkway, Olympia, Thurston County,
Michael Beug - (1-2) Evergreen Parkway, Olympia, Thurston County,
(RET 878-1) & [Note: for untrimmed, unedited
images see here.—ed.]
Spore data for collections provisionally identified as: Amanita sp-C21
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.