The following is based on the original description by Corner and Bas (1962).
The cap is 25 - 65 mm wide, convex to slightly concave, sepia-fuscous over the
center, paler toward the margin, innately fibrillose, dry, with a nonstriate margin. The cap is closely set
with small, pale, brownish, more or less conical warts over the center, diminishing in size toward the margin.
The gills are free, subdistant, rather wide, and white to pale ochraceous. The short gills are attenuate.
The stem is 50 - 80 × 4 - 6 mm, solid, pale brownish, sometimes sepia-brown at the
base, with the entire fusiform base irregularly set with pale brown scales with slightly recurved tips.
The spores measure 6.5 - 7.5 × 5.5 - 6.5 µm and are subglobose to broadly
ellipsoid and amyloid. The original description presents no information on clamp connections in the fruiting body;
however, clamps are quite rare throughout sect. Validae.
This species was described from Singapore.
The spindle-shaped bulb is nearly covered with recurved scales—a very striking
character for a species in Amanita sect. Validae.
Corner and Bas suggest the most similar species is A. tristis Corner &
Bas; in addition, they point out the following: Its spores are smaller and
somewhat differently shaped; its fruiting bodies tend to be larger; it lacks scales or warts on the basal part of
the bulbous stipe base, while the warts present are of a different form in the two species; and A. tristis has more of a
grayish tint than A. squamosa.—R. E. Tulloss
Armillaria squamosa Massee. 1962. Kew Bull. 1908: 2? or 3?.
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.
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 entirely from (Corner & Bas 1962).
Corner and Bas (1962): 25 - 65 mm wide, sepia-fuscous over disc, paler toward margin, convex to slightly concave, innately fibrillose, dry; context white, turning slightly ochraceous buff(?) when cut; margin nonstriate; universal veil as rather closely set warts, small, pale brownish, more or less conic over disc, diminishing in size toward margin.
Corner and Bas (1962): free, subdistant, white to very pale ochraceous, rather wide; lamellulae attenuate.
Corner and Bas (1962): 50 - 80 × 4 - 6 mm (width measured at apex), pale brownish, sometimes sepia-brown at base, subglabrous, sometimes slightly and minutely dark-squamulose near base; bulb fusiform, 10 - 15 mm wide; context solid, white, turning slightly ochraceous buff(?) when cut; partial veil apical, membranous, whitish, rather wide, slightly striate above, with brown and often more or less denticulate edge; universal veil as rather closely and irregularly set pale brown scales with slightly recurved tips.
Odor and taste not recorded.
Corner and Bas (1962): filamentous hyphae 2 - 4 μm wide, subradially oriented.
Corner and Bas (1962): On pileus: inflated cells dominating, globose to ellipsoid, 25 - 55 × 20 - 50 μm, brownish, apparently mostly in erect chains. On stipe base: not described.
double click in markup mode to edit.
lamella edge tissue
Corner & Bas (1962):
[-/-/-] 6.5 - 7.5 × 5.5 - 6.5 μm,
(Q = 1.10 - 1.30; Q = 1.15 - 1.20), amyloid, broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid, seldom subglobose; apiculus proportionately small; contents not recorded; color in deposit not recorded.
Terrestrial in forest.
Corner & Bas (1962): SINGAPORE: Unkn. loc., s.d. Ridley 61 I (holotype, K, exsiccatum & watercolor drawing); Botanic Gardesns, 28.xi.1940 E. J. H. Corner s.n. (L, watercolor drawing only), s.d. E. M. Burkill 273 (L, watercolor drawing).
Corner & Bas (1962): "The...description is based on the drawings cited, on Massee's description, and on the type material. In the collection of ...[Corner]...there is only a drawing of this species...[combined with a drawing of A.]...tristis...."
"Within section Validae, A. squamosa is very well characterized by the squarrose fusiform base of the stipe. This feature reminds one of section Lepidella, where recurved scales on the base of the stipe occur in some species. In all other characters, however, A. squamosa very much resembles the species of section Validae. At first,...[Corner]...even doubted whether A. squamosa really differed from A. tristis. However, in that species the colours are more greyish, the scales on the base of the stipe restricted to the upper part of the bulb and not patent, the spores smaller, and the fruit-bodies larger."
The following figure provides a sporograph comparison between A. tristis and the present species.
—R. E. Tulloss
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs
can be found here.
(Massee) Corner & Bas comb. prov.
"Scaled Spindle Amanita"
1. Amanita squamosa, Singapore.
Prof. E. J. H. Corner - (1) Singapore, illustration from original description Corner and Bas
(1962) reproduced by courtesy of Persoonia, Leiden, the Netherlands.
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.