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 following material is based on original research by R. E. Tulloss.
68 mm wide, dingy yellowish cream (paler and grayer than 2.5Y 8/6), becoming tan (paler than or close to 10YR 7/4), darker brown at margin and regions near margin in some young specimens, brownish over disc in older specimens, subglobose then subhemispheric, becoming convex with slight central depression, dull when tacky, viscid when moist; context just off-white, faintly brownish under pileipellis in disc, unchanging when cut or bruised, 5 mm thick, thinning evenly to within few mm of margin, then membranous; margin minimally striate or not striate, sometimes decorated with fine flocculence of universal veil, incurved and remaining so up to maturity; universal veil as small to large warts and strip along margin, mostly minutely verruculose (10× lens), flocculent in marginal strip, white at first, becoming concolorous with pileipellis, then grayer than pileipellis, friable, detersile.
free to narrowly adnate with very short (10× lens) decurrent line on stipe apex, crowded, off-white in mass, slightly watery white in side view, unchanging when cut or bruised, 6 - 6.5 mm broad, with flocculose margin; lamellulae truncate, unevenly distributed, of diverse lengths, plentiful.
36 × 10 mm, white, unchanging when cut or bruised, narrowing upward, distinctly flaring at apex, pulverulent above annulus; bulb 21 × 19.5 mm, broadly napiform to napiform; context off-white, unchanging when cut or bruised, no larva tunnels observed, stuffed with dense white material, with 1 mm central cylinder; partial veil median, membranous, white, strongly flaring, rather smooth above, flocculose-fibrillose below, with margin rather evenly thickened with universal veil material; universal veil as appressed thin layer over upper one-quarter to one-third of bulb concolorous with and changing like the universal veil on the pileus (and so reminiscent of A. crenulata Peck), with dense wedge of longitudinally fibrillose universal veil limbus internus appressed to stipe at top of bulb in young material, becoming reduced to a thin line in older material, lacking pantherinoid-ocreate limb.
Odor fungoid. Taste not recorded.
Spot test for laccase (syringaldazine) - negative throughout basidiocarps from button to maturity. Spot test for tyrosinase (paracresol) - positive in pileipellis in basidiocarps of all ages; positive in central pileus context, lower half of stipe context, base of bulb and spots on lamellae in button; positive throughout fruiting basidiocarps except for spots on lamellae in basidiocarps of intermediate age; positive in isolated spots in top and bottom of stipe and in center of bulb in oldes material. Test voucher: Tulloss 7-17-96A.
Solitary to subgregarious. At 2640 - 3015 m elev. In open, dry Quercus woodland on deep volcanic tuff or in isolated grove of mature Quercus.
MEXICO: TLAXCALA—Mpio. Huamantla - La Malinche Parq. Nac., E slope of Volcan La Malintzi, ca. old CREA cabaña [19°14’24” N/ 97°58’35” W, ca. 3015 m], 16.vii.1996 R. E. Tulloss 7-16-96-K (RET 255-5; TLXM). Mpio. Panotla - 1 km E of San Francisco Temezontla [19°20’41” N/ 98°16’31” W, 2640 m], 17.vii.1996 A. Montoya Esquivel & R. E. Tulloss [Tulloss 7-17-96-A] (RET 252-1; TLXM).
This species has powdery volva around the upper bulb in a manner reminiscent of the volval remains of A. crenulata of the eastern U.S. and southeastern Canada.
—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.