name | Amanita subcitriniceps |
name status | insufficiently known |
author | (Murrill) Murrill |
english name | "Pale Citrine Amanita" |
images | |
intro |
Based on the original description of Murrill (1941) and a type study by David T. Jenkins (1979). |
cap |
The cap of Amanita subcitriniceps is approximately 40 mm wide, convex to plano-concave, slightly viscid when wet, smooth, uniformly pale citrinous, with a nonstriate margin. The flesh is thin, white, unchanging. |
gills |
The gills are adnate with a slight decurrent tooth, narrow, very close, white with a finely fimbriate edge. |
stem |
The stem is 80 × 6 - 10 mm, slightly narrowing upward, solid, unchanging, white, floccose above and below ring. The bulb 20 × 13 mm, only slightly broader than stem, white. The volva is friable and disappearing at an early age. The ring is small, white, collapsing, persistent, fixed about 20 mm from the top of the stem. |
odor/taste |
Odorless. |
spores | The spores measure 7.8 - 8.6 (-9.4) × 5.5 - 6.2 µm and are ellipsoid and weakly amyloid. Clamps are absent at bases of basidia. |
discussion |
Originally described from Florida, USA under oak and solitary. This species is apparently rare and poorly known.—R. E. Tulloss |
brief editors | RET |
name | Amanita subcitriniceps | ||||||||
author | (Murrill) Murrill. 1945b. Quart. J. Florida Acad. Sci. 8(2): 198. | ||||||||
name status | insufficiently known | ||||||||
english name | "Pale Citrine Amanita" | ||||||||
synonyms |
≡Venenarius subcitriniceps Murrill. 1945b. Quart. J. Florida Acad. Sci. 8(2): 183. 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. | ||||||||
MycoBank nos. | 308591, 325445 | ||||||||
GenBank nos. |
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.
| ||||||||
holotypes | FLAS | ||||||||
type studies | Jenkins. 1979. Mycotaxon 10: 191. | ||||||||
intro |
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 material. 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 not directly from the protolog of the present taxon and not cited as the work of Dr. Z. L. Yang or another researcher is based on original research by R. E. Tulloss. | ||||||||
macrochemical tests |
none reported. | ||||||||
basidiospores | type study of Jenkins (1979): [-/-/1] 7.8 - 8.6 (-9.4) × 5.5 - 6.2 μm, (Q = 1.39 - 1.52; Q' = 1.43), hyaline, thin-walled, extremely weakly amyloid, ellipsoid, often adaxially flattened; apiculus sublateral, short, cylindric; contents guttulate; color in deposit not recorded. | ||||||||
material examined | type study of Jenkins (1979): U. S. A.: FLORIDA— Alachua Co. - Gainesville, 30.vi.1944 W. A. Murrill F 38901 (holotype, FLAS). | ||||||||
citations | —R. E. Tulloss | ||||||||
editors | RET | ||||||||
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.