Amanita elongatospora cannot readily be distinguished from other Amanita species on the basis of macroscopic features alone. But those features when combined with information on the size and shape of the spores makes the species readily distinguishable. It has mostly been found growing in coastal areas of southern and eastern Australia and it is these areas which are under the greatest pressure for development, and where risks from fire and storm and recreational pressure are greatest.
There are only 6 records for this species at six separate locations. They probably represent three subpopulations with the northern New South Wales and South-east Queensland collections being in one subpopulation. Because this species requires microscopic examination for confirmation we expect it has been overlooked by many amateur mycologists. But set against that is the fact that Alec Wood who wrote the monograph on Australian Amanita, Derek Reid from Kew and Tony Young all collected and identified this genus in New South Wales and Queensland over a considerable period. We think there might be three times more locations yet to be found. Using the Dahlberg & Mueller (2011) methodology we think that it would be reasonable to expect the population to be perhaps 10 times greater, that is 10 mature individuals at each of 18 locations: perhaps 180 mature individuals in total.
We recommend this species be assessed as vulnerable under B2a & b and D1.
Paraphrased from Wood (1997) and specimen notes from Fran Guard and Pat Leonard.
Cap: convexthen flattened convex, applanate; 45-60 mm diameter; glabrous, dry, smooth, slightly silky, pale grey-brown to grey-brown (13B3; 10YR/5–6/4)(Wood 1997), silvery grey (F. Guard) or grey (15B1; P. Leonard), with scattered velar scales, fibrillose to somewhat membranous,giving a scurfy appearance (not always easy to see velar remnants on the cap; F. Guard), flat, pale grey to darker buff-grey (or white; F. Guard).
Stipe: clavate to somewhat expanded to bulbous below (sub-bulbous; P. Leonard, fusiform, volva indistinct, 40mm underground; F. Guard); 40 – 110 × 10 – 13 mm; smooth to slightly fibrillose;matt white, white to cream; membranous annulus, cream, persistent or fragile(or absent; P. Leonard): base somewhat swollen to clavate or somewhat tapering, white to cream, with no velar remains or a series of fibrillar zones on upper portion (velar remains on bulb; P. Leonard).
Gills: free (adnate with decurrent tooth; F. Guard); moderately thick to robust, crowded, cream (to almost pink; F Guard), margin concolorous; lamellulae in two series.
Spore print: white.
Spores: elongated; 9 – 11.1 × 4.4 – 6 µm, Q = 1.95 – 2.1; amyloid
Basidia: narrowly clavate; 40 – 60 × 9 – 13 µm, four spored
Pleurocystidia: not observed (P. Leonard).
Pileipellis: sub basidial cell and subhymenial cells only slightly inflated, clamp connections clearly present, but only sparse and often inconspicuous;marginal cells plentiful, mostly more or less subglobose, 20–25 × 16–19 µm; velar remains on cap almost all of inflated cells, ovoid, with very few filamentous hyphae, inflated cells 40–70 µm, hyphae 6–10 µm.
”This species is closely related to A. sordidogrisea, because both have grey caps, without conical warts and elongate spores. It differs from that species in having slightly more elongate spores, clamp connections, a persistent annulus, larger inflated cells in velar remains, and somewhat wider marginal cells. Amanita griseoconica differs in having conical warts on the cap and broadly ellipsoid spores. There seem to be no other similar species.”
“This keyed to A. elangatospora when first examined and the high Q value of the spores matches Wood’s figure and supports this conclusion. However, it is not clear whether the base has a volva or not. If it does, then this collection keys to A. preisii a species otherwise only known from South Australia and which reportedly has lower Q values. It is also possible that this is an undescribed species.”
There are very few records of this species. The lack of data makes it impossible to verify if the species if rare and needs protecting or if this reflects a lack of data. Red listing this species can raise awareness within mycological communities so that more records, if available, can be obtained.
New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania.
Based on the principle that recordings that are >500 m apart are different sub-populations, then there are 3 subpopulations (see table below).
Subpopulation Locality State Date Type of record Source Herbarium Catalogue number
1 Fraser Island* Queensland 5/04/2011 Specimen Guard, F.E. BRI AQ0795070
1 Girraween NP Queensland 14/11/2016 Specimen Guard, F.E. BRI AQ0876934
1 Sunshine Coast Queensland 23/03/2017 Observation Patrick Leonard
1 Murwillumbah, Mooball State Forest New South Wales Before 1997 Specimen J.J. Bruhl (within Wood 1997) 17.iii..83, J.J.Bruhl (UNSW 83/219)
2 Sydney, Royal National Park New South Wales Before 1997 Specimen J.J. Bruhl (within Wood 1997) 18.iv.83, J.J.Bruhl (UNSW 83/464)
3 Port Sorell Tasmania 14/04/2016 Specimen Garnett, R.J.; Collier, P.A. MEL 2408967A
*Note: there are two duplicate records of this finding on Australian Living Atlas with the same date and place recorded
The collection of data on the distribution and population of fungi in Queensland was almost wholly dependent on the work of the staff at the Queensland herbarium until 1995. The herbarium currently holds 5200 fungal specimens accumulated over 150 years. Recording has undergone considerable change in the past 25 years. The foundation of Fungimap in 1995 engaged citizen scientists in recording fungi and those records are now part of the ALA database. Over 100000 records have been collected by Fungimap some of which were for Queensland. In 2007 the Queensland Mycological Society was founded and began a program of organised forays mainly focussed on South East Queensland. About 300 days of effort are expended annually by members and some 4000 records have been made. More recently the creation of a South East Queensland Facebook group has allowed other naturalists to contribute information on the sighting of fungi over a wider area of the state. All this effort means that fungal records are more extensive in the last decade than in previous periods. This makes it difficult to establish trends, but also means that there is a greater degree of accuracy about the size and distribution of fungal populations.
There are only 6 confirmed records for this species, therefore population trends cannot be inferred.
The few records for this species describe the habitat as Eucalyptus open forest, moist hardwood forest, Angophora costata woodland or wallum heathland. Where given, the associated plant species in the Eucalyptus open forest were Eucalyptus racemosa, Lophostemon confertus, Banksia aemula and cycads. For wallum heathland associated plant species were Melaleuca and some Allocasuarina. Soil was described as sandy and acidic for Fraser Island and Noosa records. Most (but not all) Amanita sp. are thought to be all ectomycorrhizal.
Most Amanita species are ectomycorrhizal. Therefore, this species would be threatened by land clearing of potential host species (see Habitat and Ecology). The habitat in which this species is found has declined rapidly as it is much in demand for urban development and for agricultural production. The sites in which these collections have been made are almost all managed by burning and have varying degrees of pollution, which could pose a threat for this species. Northern New South Wales and South-East Queensland have experienced the highest rates of clearing of Australia (Bradshaw 2012). The cleared forest in Queensland is equivalent to ~ 50% of the state’s total land surface and most of this clearing has happened in the last 50 years and in the South-East. In Northern New South Wales, between 50-67% of Eucalypt forests have been cleared (Bradshaw 2012). Therefore, many locations where this species is found have degraded or have been highly fragmented which has implied population losses for this species.
There are currently no conservation actions taken for this species. Most records are from within National Parks or reserves that already have some protection. Although, there are no data to confirm whether this is adequate to protect this species. Many of these reserves or National Parks are surrounded by extensive urban or agricultural areas that have had extensive land clearing.
- Habitat and distribution
- Ectomycorrhizal status
- Host range
- Taxonomic status with genetic data
Accad, A., Neldner, V.J., Kelley, J.A.R., Li, J. and Richter, D. (2019). Remnant Regional Ecosystem Vegetation in Queensland, Analysis 1997-2017. Queensland Department of Environment and Science: Brisbane.
Bradshaw, C. J. A. 2012. Little left to lose: Deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization. Journal of Plant Ecology 5:109–120.
Wood, A. E. 1997. Studies in the Genus Amanita (Agaricales) in Australia. Australian Systematic Botany 10:723–854.