name | Amanita kotohiraensis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
author | Nagas. & Mitani. 2000. Mem. Natl. Sci. Mus., Tokyo 32: 93, figs. 1-7. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
name status | nomen acceptum | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
english name | "Kotohira Lepidella" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
etymology | Kotohira + -ensis "from" or "of" or "having to do with" a locality; because the species was originally collected on Mt. Kotohira (Kotohira-yama). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
MycoBank nos. | 482864 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 | TMI; isotype, TNS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
revisions | Chen, Z.-H., Z. L. Yang and Z. G. Zhang. 2001. Mycotaxon 79: 279, figs. 5-8. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 follows Chen et al. (2001). NOTE: Spore measurements from papers by Z. L. Yang use his "Times New Roman" face for "Q" and "Q'"—respectively, " | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
basidiospores |
from protolog: [28/-/1] 7.0 - 10.0 × 5.5 - 6.5 μm, (Q = 1.30 - 1.70); Q = 1.50),
amyloid, ellipsoid to elongate; apiculus not described; contents as one "oleiferous drop"; color in deposit not reported. from Chen et al. (2001): [185/8/5] (7.0-) 7.5 - 9.5 (-11.0) × 5.0 - 6.5 (-7.0) μm, ( | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ecology | Solitary or in small groups. Japan: Under Castanopsis cuspidata in mixed forests. China: At 900± - 1200± m elev. On ground in mixed forests. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
material examined |
from protolog: JAPAN: SHIKOKU—Kagawa Prefecture - Kotohira-cho, Kotohira-yama, 13.vii.1998 S. Mitani & E. Nagasawa [Nagasawa 98/59] (holotype, TMI; isotype, TNS). Chen et al. (2001): CHINA: ANHUI—Huangshan (prefecture level) City - Huangshan District, unkn. loc., 30.viii.1957 S. C. Teng 5150 (HMAS 20106). HUNAN—Chenzhou (prefecture level) City - Yizhang Co., Mangshan, 900 m elev., 7.vii.2000 Z. H. Chen 3677 (HKAS 37051); Yizhang Co., Mangshan, 1200 m elev., 24.vii.1997 Z. H. Chen 3702 (HKAS 36995), 6.vii.2000 Z. H. Chen 4006 (HKAS 36996). JIANGSU—Nanjing (sub-provincial) City - former city of Nanjing, Lingusi woods, 17.viii.1957 S. C. Teng 4923b (HMAS 19941b). Zhang et al. (2010) vouchers for sequencing: CHINA: GUANGDONG—Guangzhou (sub-provincial) City - Unkn. Distr., Baiyunshan, s.d. unkn. coll. s.n. (MHHNU 7112). HUNAN—Chenzhou (prefecture level) City - Yizhang Co., Mangshan, s.d. unkn. coll. s.n. (MHHNU 6998). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
citations | —Zhu L. Yang | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
editors | RET | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs can be found here.
name | Amanita kotohiraensis |
bottom links |
[ Section Lepidella page. ] [ Amanita Studies home. ] [ Keys & Checklists ] |
name | Amanita kotohiraensis |
bottom links |
[ Section Lepidella page. ] [ Amanita Studies home. ] [ Keys & Checklists ] |
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.