Fungalpedia – Note 3262, Amanitaceae
Amanitaceae E.-J. Gilbert, in Bresadola, Iconogr. Mycol., Suppl. I (Milan) 27: 63 (1940).
Citation when using this data: He MQ et al. 2024 – Fungalpedia.
Index Fungorum, Facesoffungi, MycoBank, GenBank.
Classification: Pluteineae, Agaricales, Agaricomycetidae, Agaricomycetes, Agaricomycotina, Basidiomycota, Dikarya, Fungi.
Currently the phylogenetic analyses and resulting taxonomic organization regarding the obligately ectomycorrhizal (ECM) Amanita and presumably saprotrophic Saproamanita species is unsettled. Bas (1969) suspected that members of Amanita subsect. Vittadiniae Bas were not ECM with regard to their habitat (meadows, prairies, lawns, pampa). Later, Wolfe et al. (2011) studied stable isotopes of A. thiersii Bas and found less depleted 13C in basidiomes of this species than commonly observed for ECM fungi. Subsequent studies by Wolfe et al (2012) proposed an evolutive overview on this and, considering Amanita an integrative genus with sequences of taxa of Amanita subsect. Vittadiniae basally, concluded that loss of saprotrophic mode was irreversible and all other amanitas evolved from this basal group acquired ECM biotrophic mode. On the other hand, Vizzini et al. (2012) interpreted this basal clade as the independent genus Aspidella, later renamed to Saproamanita for nomenclatural purposes (Redhead et al. 2015). The proposal to treat a weaklier supported basal clade of Amanita as independent genus was immediately contested by Tulloss et al. (2016) who argued in favour of placing greater importance on the morphological feature, the schizohymenial ontogeny of all members of the three supported clades, using it as synapomorphy of the integrated genus Amanita. This taxonomical and nomenclatural controversy was particularly solved when Cui et al. (2018) performed a robust multigene phylogeny also including Catatrama, Limacella, Limacellopsis, and Myxoderma Kühner (now = Zhuliangomyces), and confirmed a monophyletic Amanitaceae containing an integral Amanita with three subgenera subg. Amanita, subg. Amanitina, and subg. Lepidella, the last one containing the basal clade of saprotrophic taxa traditionally included in Vittadiniae.
Li et al. (2020a), on the other hand, analyzed the mitochondrial genome of six Amanita (sensu stricto) and two putative Saproamanita, suggesting that they did not form a distinct clade whereas the rest of Amanita did form a monophyletic clade. Interpreted differently in the classification by Tulloss et al. (2016) and of Cui et al. (2018), it would mean that Amanita subg. Lepidella is not monophyletic. Unfortunately, Li et al. (2020a) did not include the other Amanitaceae genera used by Cui et al. (2018) nor additional Saproamanita, including the type. Their results suggest that either Amanita should include Saproamanita (=Lepidella), or that Saproamanita should be split, contradicting Tulloss et al. (2016) and Cui et al. (2018). This possibility was raised by Redhead et al. (2015) and Tulloss et al. (2016). This solution was observed in the Lyophyllaceae to maintain Termitomyces (van de Peppel et al. 2022). Additional research is required.
Type genus: Amanita Pers. 1797.
Other accepted species: Species Fungorum – search Amanitaceae.
References
Entry by
Mao-Qiang He, State Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, People’s Republic of China.
Published online 24 September 2026.