Colin A. B. Davidson
cabd2 at hermes.cam.ac.uk
Mon Jun 25 02:18:37 EST 2001
"boletebill" <droberts03 at snet.net> wrote in message
news:820a1f29.0106211550.ee870bb at posting.google.com...
> Yes Dave, I've spoken to Rod Tulloss, Gary Lincoff, Scott Redhead and
> others about this modern myth. I can't find a living soul who's
> collected it. Rod believes that it's been confused with other taxa for
> the most part. Gary said in effect if you found an Amanita that fit
> the criteria in the literature (doesn't stain with KOH, elliptical
> spores, pendent ring, etc.,etc.,)you could use that name if you
> wanted, why not? Scott cited the most recent literature(Amiranti 1975,
> Smith 1956) but said he'd never collected it. Have you collected an
> Amanita you'd call A. verna Dave? George F Atkinson said it was common
> in upstate New York in 1900. Alex Smith said it was common in the
> Great Lakes Area in 1956. Everyone I know believes that other people
> have collected it EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT. What happened to the
> Fool's Mushroom?
Hmmm. Amanita verna, here in the UK anyway, isn't the destroying angel of
which you speak. That mushroom is Amanita virosa, and I've come across it a
couple of times in the North East of England. A. verna would be referred to
as the 'spring amanita', despite the fact that it only appears in spring
A. verna differs from A. virosa in that the caps of young specimens of A.
verna are hemispherical in the former, conical in the latter. A. verna
doesn't have the shaggy, fibrous scales that A. virosa has, it's more kind
of mealy, powdery.
As I say, I've found A. virosa a couple of times, but I've only come across
one I'd call A. verna once (in Northumberland).
More information about the Mycology