DOCSLIB.ORG

Universidad Mariano Gálvez De Guatemala Facultad De Ciencias Jurídicas Y Sociales Escuela De Ciencias Criminológicas Y Criminalísticas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Universidad Mariano Gálvez De Guatemala Facultad De Ciencias Jurídicas Y Sociales Escuela De Ciencias Criminológicas Y Criminalísticas UNIVERSIDAD MARIANO GÁLVEZ DE GUATEMALA FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS JURÍDICAS Y SOCIALES ESCUELA DE CIENCIAS CRIMINOLÓGICAS Y CRIMINALÍSTICAS ESTUDIO CRIMINOLÓGICO Y CRIMINALÍSTICO DE RIESGOS DEL CONSUMO DE HONGOS TÓXICOS Y POTENCIALMENTE TÓXICOS MODULO: Amanita farinosa EVELYN YADEL RUANO MERCADO GUATEMALA, NOVIEMBRE 2014 UNIVERSIDAD MARIANO GALVEZ DE GUATEMALA FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS JURÍDICAS Y SOCIALES ESCUELA DE CIENCIAS CRIMINOLÓGICAS Y CRIMINALÍSTICAS ESTUDIO CRIMINOLÓGICO Y CRIMINALÍSTICO DE RIESGOS DEL CONSUMO DE HONGOS TÓXICOS Y POTENCIALMENTE TÓXICOS MODULO: Amanita farinosa TESIS DE LICENCIATURA PRESENTADA POR EVELYN YADEL RUANO MERCADO PREVIO A OPTAR AL TITULO DE LICENCIADA EN CIENCIAS CRIMINOLOGICAS Y CRIMINALISTICAS GUATEMALA, NOVIEMBRE 2014 AUTORIDADES DE LA FACULTAD, ASESOR Y REVISORA DEL TRABAJO DE GRADUACIÓN DECANO DE FACULTAD: LICENCIADO LUIS ANTONIO RUANO CASTILLO DIRECTORA DE LA ESCUELA DE CIENCIAS CRIMINOLÓGICAS Y CRIMINALÍSTICAS DOCTORA MIRIAM DOLORES OVALLE GUTIERREZ DE MONROY ASESOR: LICENCIADO ALLAN ESTUARDO URBIZO HERRERA REVISORA: LICENCIADA SONIA MARIBEL VÁSQUEZ SÚCHITE iii REGLAMENTO DE TESIS Artículo 8: RESPONSABILIDAD Solamente el autor es responsable de los conceptos expresados en el trabajo de tesis. Su aprobación en manera alguna implica responsabilidad para la Universidad ix INDICE 1. INTRODUCCION ...................................................................................................................... 1 A. Enfoque Introductorio ........................................................................................................... 1 B. ANTECEDENTES ............................................................................................................ 3 C. OBJETIVO GENERAL ..................................................................................................... 6 D. OBJETIVOS ESPECIFICOS .......................................................................................... 6 E. Glosario especializado ......................................................................................................... 7 F. Glosario genérico................................................................................................................ 11 2. CUERPO DE LA TESIS ........................................................................................................ 19 A. Texto relativo al seminario ............................................................................................ 19 i. Hongos ................................................................................................................................. 19 ii. Hongos venenosos ............................................................................................................. 19 iii. Análisis criminológico ..................................................................................................... 20 iv. Análisis criminalistico ..................................................................................................... 21 B. Texto relativo al módulo ................................................................................................ 23 i. Descripción del hongo ....................................................................................................... 23 ii. Clasificación ........................................................................................................................ 23 iii. Distribución ...................................................................................................................... 24 iv. Toxicidad .......................................................................................................................... 24 v. Síntomas .............................................................................................................................. 24 vi. Estudio criminológico y criminalistico de riesgos del consumo de hongos tóxicos y potencialmente tóxicos Amanita farinosa ............................................................................ 25 vii. Constitución Política de la República de Guatemala ............................................... 28 viii. Ley que regula la Alimentación y Seguridad Alimentaria Decreto 32-2005. ........ 30 ix. Código de Salud Decreto 90-97 ................................................................................... 30 x. Código Penal Decreto 17-73 ............................................................................................ 31 xi. Legislación Internacional ............................................................................................... 32 xii. Información sobre incidentes ocurridos por el consumo del hongo Amanita farinosa a nivel internacional. ................................................................................................... 32 x xiii. Doctrina del informe pericial ......................................................................................... 33 C. Resultados ....................................................................................................................... 40 D. Análisis de Resultados .................................................................................................. 41 3. CONCLUSIONES ................................................................................................................... 42 4. RECOMENDACIONES .......................................................................................................... 43 5. APENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 44 i. Imágenes de la familia de las Amanita farinosa que tienden a confundirse y pueden ser ingeridas o comidas .............................................................................................. 44 ii. Informe pericial relacionado al hongo Amanita Farinosa .................................................... 44 iii. Embalaje. ......................................................................................................................... 54 iv. Cadena de Custodia. ..................................................................................................... 55 6. BIBLIOGRAFIA ....................................................................................................................... 57 xi 1. INTRODUCCION A. Enfoque Introductorio El Seminario denominado ESTUDIO CRIMINOLÓGICO Y CRIMINALÍSTICO DE RIESGOS DEL CONSUMO DE HONGOS TÓXICOS Y POTENCIALMENTE TÓXICOS fue seleccionado como tema de Tesis por el grupo de alumnos del Seminario en virtud de la importancia y peligro que reviste el consumo de los mismos, por la gran variedad de especies de hongos que existen y por la gravedad de las intoxicaciones que producen en una persona luego de su ingesta, llegando a provocar la muerte en algunos casos. Las setas tóxicas pueden provocar diversos trastornos en función de la toxina que contengan. Aunque los hongos superiores no se encuentran en alta proporción en la dieta humana, presentan un alto riesgo tóxico, principalmente por la frecuencia de la intoxicación, incluso con una alta fatalidad, en relación al número de personas expuestas. Debido a que las distintas especies de hongos varían ampliamente en las toxinas que contienen y porque identificarlas con certeza es difícil, se utiliza la clínica más que un sistema taxonómico de clasificación. Aún así existen 8 grupos de hongos tóxicos reconocidos con mayor frecuencia en función del tipo de toxina que contienen: ciclopéptidos, giromitrina, orellanina, muscarina, coprina, ácido iboténico/ muscinol, psilocibina y toxinas gastrointestinales (Rios, 2012) Por lo expuesto anteriormente es necesario conocer la etiología de la intoxicación, en el entendido que la etiología (gr. aitia, causa) consiste en la búsqueda y conocimiento del origen o motivación de una intoxicación. Conforme a esto, para clasificar las intoxicaciones, es importante considerar si en su producción ha habido o no voluntariedad, es decir, si el sujeto activo ha deseado realizarla o si la intoxicación se produjo de forma accidental. (Repetto, 2007) 1 2 El propósito que se persigue con la elaboración del trabajo y los distintos módulos que lo conforman es que la investigación realizada llegue a la población guatemalteca y dé a conocer los riesgos y las consecuencias a que puede llevar el consumo de estos productos. La metodología y modalidad empleada para el desarrollo del trabajo es eminentemente investigativa bibliográfica; este tipo de trabajos ha sido descrito por algunos autores como “de transcripción” y procuran dar extensión y profundidad al tema. En el trabajo se incluyeron varias partes así en los antecedentes del tema, se incluyeron asimismo estudios realizados por expertos tanto a nivel nacional como internacional, casos que por el consumo inadecuado de estos productos han generado situaciones calificadas como impericias, imprudencias, dolos o criminalidad premeditada. Un glosario genérico del tema y un glosario especializado se añadió también. Se definieron los objetivos que finalmente pretenden arribar al desarrollo del tema grupal “Estudio Criminológico y Criminalístico de riesgos del consumo de hongos tóxicos y potencialmente tóxicos” y a profundizar sobre el módulo Amanita farinosa. 3 B. ANTECEDENTES El consumo de hongos o setas tóxicas es un hecho relativamente frecuente que data de la antigüedad: Sebastián de Covarrubias, en el primer diccionario de la Lengua Castellana (siglo XVII) cita a Plinio el Viejo, quien consideraba
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Molecular Phylogenetic Studies in the Genus Amanita
    1170 Molecular phylogenetic studies in the genus Amanita I5ichael Weiß, Zhu-Liang Yang, and Franz Oberwinkler Abstracl A group of 49 Amanita species that had been thoroughly examined morphologically and amtomically was analyzed by DNA sequence compadson to estimate natural groups and phylogenetic rclationships within the genus. Nuclear DNA sequences coding for a part of the ribosomal large subunit were determined and evaluated using neighbor-joining with bootstrap analysis, parsimony analysis, conditional clustering, and maximum likelihood methods, Sections Amanita, Caesarea, Vaginatae, Validae, Phalloideae, and Amidella were substantially confirmed as monophyletic groups, while the monophyly of section Lepidell.t remained unclear. Branching topologies between and within sections could also pafiially be derived. Stbgenera Amanita an'd Lepidella were not supported. The Mappae group was included in section Validae. Grouping hypotheses obtained by DNA analyses are discussed in relation to the distribution of morphological and anatomical chamcters in the studied species. Key words: fungi, basidiomycetes phylogeny, Agarrcales, Amanita systematics, large subunit rDNA, 28S. R6sum6 : A partir d'un groupe de 49 esp,ces d'Amanita prdalablement examinees morphologiquement et anatomiquement, les auteurs ont utilisd la comparaison des s€quences d'ADN pour ddfinir les groupes naturels et les relations phylog6ndtiques de ce genre. Les sdquences de I'ADN nucl6aire codant pour une partie de la grande sous-unit6 ribosomale ont 6t6 ddterminEes et €valu6es en utilisant l'analyse par liaison en lacet avec le voisin (neighbor-joining with bootstrap), l'analyse en parcimonie, le rcgroupement conditionnel et les m€thodes de ressemblance maximale. Les rdsultats confirment substantiellement les sections Afiarira, Caesarea, Uaqinatae, Ualidae, Phalloideae et Amidella, comme groupes monophyldtiques, alors que la monophylie de la section Lepidella demerxe obscure.
    [Show full text]
  • Thirty Plus Years of Mushroom Poisoning
    Summary of the Poisoning Reports in the NAMA Case Registry for 2006 through 2017 By Michael W. Beug, Chair NAMA Toxicology Committee In the early years of NAMA, toxicology was one of the concerns of the Mycophagy Committee. The existence of toxicology committees in the Puget Sound and Colorado clubs stimulated the NAMA officers to separate the good and bad aspects of ingesting mushrooms. In 1973 they established a standing Toxicology Committee initially chaired by Dr. Duane H. (Sam) Mitchel, a Denver, Colorado MD who founded the Colorado Mycological Society. In the early 1970s, Sam worked with Dr. Barry Rumack, then director of the Rocky Mountain Poison Center (RMPC) to establish a protocol for handling information on mushroom poisonings resulting in the center becoming nationally recognized for handling mushroom poisonings. Encouraged by Dr Orson Miller and acting on a motion by Kit Scates, the NAMA trustees then created the Mushroom Poisoning Case Registry in 1982. Dr. Kenneth Cochran laid the groundwork for maintaining the Registry at the University of Michigan. Individuals can report mushroom poisonings using the NAMA website (www.namyco.org). The reporting is a volunteer effort and at the end of each year members of the NAMA toxicology committee assemble all of the reports for the previous year as well as any other earlier cases that can still be documented. Individuals are encouraged to submit reports directly through the NAMA website. In addition, members of the toxicology committee work with Poison Centers to gather mushroom poisoning reports. The toxicology committee has 160 toxicology identifiers living in 36 states and 3 Canadian Provinces.
    [Show full text]
  • Rock Island State Park Species List
    Rock Island State Park Species List Place cursor over cells with red By Cumberland Mycological Society, Crossville, TN triangles to view pictures click on underlined species for web links to details about those species and/or comments Inventory List: Common Name (if applicable) Jun-12 Oct-12 Jun-13 Aug-14 Edibility Notes* Aleuria aurantia syn. Peziza aruantia "Orange Peel" x(?) edible but flavorless Agaricus placomyces "Eastern Flat-topped Agaricus" x(?) poisonous Agaricus pocillator none x unknown -possibly poisonous Agaricus silvicola none x edible (with extreme caution) Amanita abrupta "Abrupt-bulbed Lepidella" x unknown and possibly poisonous Amanita amerifulva [often called 'Amanita fulva' -a European species] “Tawny Grisette” x x edible -with extreme caution!! Amanita amerirubescens "Blusher" x x x edible -with extreme caution!! Amanita banningiana "Mary Banning's Slender Caesar" x x Amanita bisporigera = A. virosa sensu auct. amer. (Ref. RET) "Destroying Angel" x x x deadly poisonous! Amanita brunnescens “Cleft foot-Amanita” x x possibly poisonous Amanita cinereoconia var. cinereoconia "American Gray Dust Lepidella" x no information -best avoided Amanita citrina f. lavendula "Lavender-staining Citrina" x possibly poisonous Amanita citrina sensu auct. amer. "Citron Amanita," "False Death Cap" x possibly poisonous Amanita daucipes "Turnip-foot Amanita" x x possibly poisonous Amanita farinosa "Powdery-cap Amanita" x x x x unknown; not recommended Amanita flavoconia “Yellow Patches" x x x possibly poisonous Amanita gemmata complex "Gem-studded Amanita" x x possibly poisonous Amanita jacksonii syn. A. umbonata, syn. A. caesarea "American Caesar's Mushroom" x edible -with extreme caution!! Amanita muscaria var. guessowii syn. A. muscaria var. formosa "Yellow-orange Fly Agaric" x poisonous Amanita parcivolvata "Ringless False Fly Agaric" x x likely poisonous Amanita polypyramis "Plateful of Pyramids Lepidella" x x poisonous Amanita subcokeri Tulloss nom.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Distinguish Amanita Smithiana from Matsutake and Catathelasma Species
    VOLUME 57: 1 JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2017 www.namyco.org How to Distinguish Amanita smithiana from Matsutake and Catathelasma species By Michael W. Beug: Chair, NAMA Toxicology Committee A recent rash of mushroom poisonings involving liver failure in Oregon prompted Michael Beug to issue the following photos and information on distinguishing the differences between the toxic Amanita smithiana and edible Matsutake and Catathelasma. Distinguishing the choice edible Amanita smithiana Amanita smithiana Matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare) from the highly poisonous Amanita smithiana is best done by laying the stipe (stem) of the mushroom in the palm of your hand and then squeezing down on the stipe with your thumb, applying as much pressure as you can. Amanita smithiana is very firm but if you squeeze hard, the stipe will shatter. Matsutake The stipe of the Matsutake is much denser and will not shatter (unless it is riddled with insect larvae and is no longer in good edible condition). There are other important differences. The flesh of Matsutake peels or shreds like string cheese. Also, the stipe of the Matsutake is widest near the gills Matsutake and tapers gradually to a point while the stipe of Amanita smithiana tends to be bulbous and is usually widest right at ground level. The partial veil and ring of a Matsutake is membranous while the partial veil and ring of Amanita smithiana is powdery and readily flocculates into small pieces (often disappearing entirely). For most people the difference in odor is very distinctive. Most collections of Amanita smithiana have a bleach-like odor while Matsutake has a distinctive smell of old gym socks and cinnamon redhots (however, not all people can distinguish the odors).
    [Show full text]
  • Mycological Society of America NEWSLETTER
    Mycological Society of America NEWSLETTER Vol. 36 No. 1 June 1985 SUSTAINING MEMBERS ANALYTAB PRODUCTS TED PELLA, INC. (PELCO) CAMSCO PRODUCE COMPANY,INC. PFIZER, INC. CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL SUPPLY PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC. DEKALB-PFIZER GENETICS THE QUAKER OATS COYPANY DIFCO LABORATORIES ROHM AND HAAS COYPANY HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC. SCHERING CORPORATION LANE SCIENCE EQUIPMENT COMPANY SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES ELI LILLY & COMPANY SOUTHWEST MOLD AND ANTIGEN LABS MERCK SHARP AND DOHYE RESEARCH LABS SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK MILES LABORATORIES SYLVAN SPAWN LABORATORY, INC. NALGE COMPANY/SYBRON CORPORATION TRIARCH, INC. NEW BRUNSWICK SCIENTIFIC COMPANY WYETH LABORATORIES The Society is extremely grateful for the support of its Sustaining Members. These organizations are listed above in alphabetical order. Patronize them and let their representatives know of our appreciation whenever possible. OFFICERS OF THE MYCOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA Officers Councilors Henry C. Aldrich, President Sandra Anagnostakis (1983-85) Roger D. Goos, President-elect Martha Christiansen (1983-86) James M. Trappe, Vice-president Alan Jaworski (1983-87) Harold H. Burdsall, Jr., Secretary Richard E. Yoske (1983-86) Amy Y. Rossman, Treasurer David Malloch (1985-88) Richard T.,.Hanlin, Past President (1984) Gareth Morgan-Jones (1983-86) Harry D. Thiers, Past President (1983) Francis A. Uecker (1 982-85) MYCOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NEWSLETTER Volume 36, No. 1, June 1985 Walter J. Sundberg, Editor Department of Botany Southern Illinois University Carbondal e, I11 i noi s, 62901 (618) 536-2331 TABLE OF CONTENTS Sustaining Members .......... i Uni v. 41 berta Mold Herbarium ........45 Officers of the MSA ......... i Computer Software Available ........46 Table of Contents .........
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Ligno Biotech Sdn
    TOXICOLOGICAL AND BIOPHARMACOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF TIGER MILK MUSHROOM−Lignosus tigris KONG BOON HONG Malaya of FACULTY OF MEDICINE UniversityUNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2018 TOXICOLOGICAL AND BIOPHARMACOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF TIGER MILK MUSHROOM−Lignosus tigris KONG BOON HONG Malaya of THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UniversityFACULTY OF MEDICINE UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2018 UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLARATION Name of Candidate: KONG BOON HONG Matric No: MHA140006 Name of Degree: DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Title of Project Paper/Research Report/Dissertation/Thesis (“this Work”): TOXICOLOGICAL AND BIOPHARMACOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF TIGER MILK MUSHROOM-Lignosus tigris Field of Study: MOLECULAR MEDICINE I do solemnly and sincerely declare that: (1) I am the sole author/writer of this Work; (2) This Work is original; (3) Any use of any work in which copyright exists was done by way of fair dealing and for permitted purposes and any excerpt or extract from, or reference to or reproduction of any copyright work has been disclosed expressly and sufficiently and the title of the Work and its authorship have been acknowledged in this Work; (4) I do not have any actual knowledge nor do IMalaya ought reasonably to know that the making of this work constitutes an infringement of any copyright work; (5) I hereby assign all and every rights in the copyright to this Work to the University of Malaya (“UM”), who henceforth ofshall be owner of the copyright in this Work and that any reproduction or use in any form or by any means whatsoever is prohibited without the written consent of UM having been first had and obtained; (6) I am fully aware that if in the course of making this Work I have infringed any copyright whether intentionally or otherwise, I may be subject to legal action or any other action as may be determined by UM.
    [Show full text]
  • Macrofungi Branch Control Document 1999.Book
    1999 Trial Year Notebook for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory Epigeous Macromycetes Rod Tulloss and the Asheville Volunteer Fungal Department This document is a work in progress. Any user should check with Rod Tulloss ([email protected] or 609 448 5096) in order to be sure that the copy in hand is the most recent version. Copyright 1999 by Rodham E. Tulloss. Duplication for use in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory is permitted. Version printed June 14, 1999 Cover illustration and all layout by Rodham E. Tulloss. Table of Contents 1 General Introduction and Conventions ......................................................................... 7 1.1 Hypertext Version Convention ......................................................................................... 7 1.2 Fundamental Reference Work......................................................................................... 7 1.3 Standard for Citation of Chapters, Sections, Requirements, and Recommendations ..... 7 1.4 Myxomycetes Excluded ................................................................................................... 7 2 GSMNP Resource Activity Permit................................................................................. 8 2.1 Permit Instruction Letter from GSMNP ............................................................................ 8 2.2 Application Form.............................................................................................................. 9 2.3
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Edible Mushrooms of Uttarakhand Himalaya: Diversity, Distribution, Nutritive Value and Medicinal Potential
    WILD EDIBLE MUSHROOMS OF UTTARAKHAND HIMALAYA: DIVERSITY, DISTRIBUTION, NUTRITIVE VALUE AND MEDICINAL POTENTIAL SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (From September 01, 2017 to August 31, 2018) Sanction Letter No. and Date: GBPI/IERP-NMHS/15-16/24/27 Dt. 31.03.2016 Submitted To: GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi – Katarmal, Almora 263643 Uttarakhand, India Submitted By: Prof. R. P. Bhatt Principal Investigator Department of Botany & Microbiology H. N. B. Garhwal University, Srinagar (Garhwal) – 246174 Uttarakhand, India APPENDIX II G.B. PANT INSTITUTE OF HIMALAYAN ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT UTILIZATION CERTIFICATE (IERP Projects in the Himalayan Region) (To be sent in Duplicate) For the financial year (from September 01, 2017 to August 31, 2018) 1. Title of the Project/Scheme: WILD EDIBLE MUSHROOMS OF UTTARAKHAND HIMALAYA: DIVERSITY, DISTRIBUTION, NUTRITIVE VALUE AND MEDICINAL POTENTIAL. 2. Name of the Organization & Principal Investigator: Department of Botany & Microbiology, H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal, Uttarakhand, Prof. R.P. Bhatt. 3. GBPIHED Letter No. & Date of sanctioning the project: GBPI/IERP-NMHS/15-16/24/27 Dt. 31. 03. 2016. 4. Amount brought forward from the previous financial year quoting Letter No. & date on which the approval to carry forward the said amount was given: Rs. 20,156.00 vide letter No. GBPI/IERP-NMHS/15-16/24/27 Dt. 14 August, 2018. 5. Amount received from GBPIHED during the financial year (please give No. and dates of sanctions showing the amount paid): Rs. 3,41,044.00 vide letter No. GBPI/IERP- NMHS/15-16/24/27 Dt. 14 August, 2018. Money transferred by CENTRAL/RTGC Core Dt.
    [Show full text]
  • (FR. Ex Pers.) QUEL. Champ. Jura Vosg. 1, 23, 1872
    June 20. 1933] . IMAI•\STUDIES ON THE AGARICACEAE OF JAPAN I . 423 Studies on the Agaricaceae of Japan I. Volvate Agarics in Hokkaido. 1) By Sanshi Imai 2) Received Mwich, 27, 1933 In the course of the study on the Agaricaceae of Japan, the writer ob- tained a considerable number of specimens of the volvate agarics. Among them, the species collected in Hokkaido are selected an preliminarily reported in this short paper. Amanita (FR. ex PERs.) QUEL. Champ. Jura Vosg. 1, 23, 1872. Amanita PERS. Syn. Fung. 246, 1801. Agaricus •˜ Amanita FR. Syst. Myc. 1, 12, 1821. Venenarius EARLE, Bull. N. Y. Bot. Mus. 5, 450, 1909. Leucomyces EARLE, ibid. 451, 1909. Sect. Volvatue SCHROET.Pilze Schles. 1, 680, 1889. 1. Amanita Caesarea (FR. ex SCOP.) QUEL. Champ. Jura Vosg. 1, 24, 1872. Agaricus Caesareu SCOP. Fl. Carn. ed. 2, 2, 419, 1772. Amanita caesarea PERS. Syn. Fung. 252, 1801. Amanita anrantiaca PERS. ibid. 252, 1801. Agaricus (Amanita) Cacsareus FR. Syst. Myc. 1, 15, 1821. Amanita pellucida BANN. et PK. in PK. A nn. Rep. N. Y. St. Mus. 44, 178, 1892. Venenarius caesareus MURRILL, Mycologia 5, 73, 1913. Blab. On the ground in woods, in solitary or scattered. Sept.-Oct . Distr. Hokkaido (Ishikari, Iburi&Kushiro)&Honshu. Europe &NorthAmerica. Jap.name.Tamago-take, O-benitake.(卵 茸,大 紅 茸) 1 ) The present paper was prepared to read at the meeting of the Botanical Society of Japan on April 1, 1933. 2 ) The writer wishes to express his sincere thanks to Prof. Emer. K. MIYABE and Prof. S. ITO for their many kind ad-vices in various ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Mycologia Newsletter of the Mycological Society of America -- In
    Supplement to Mycologia Vol. 53(4) August 2002 Newsletter of the Mycological Society of America -- In This Issue -- Fungal Protein For Human Use by Karl Leo Braun and Gustavo Viniegra Fungal Protein for Human Use ............... 1-2 Questions or comments should be sent to Karl Leo Braun at 5460 Ballentine MSA Official Business .......................... 2-15 Pike, Springfield, OH 45502 or email: <[email protected]>. From the President .................................. 2 MSA Council Email Express ................. 2-3 As a follow up to his article entitled “An Interview With Dr. William Important Announcements ............... 3-4 Dudley Gray” [Inoculum 53(3):1-5] concerning the production of Annual Reports of: fungal protein, Karl Leo Braun contacted Dr. Gaston Guzman in Officers .............................................. 5-6 Xalapa, Mexico. In turn, Dr. Guzman suggested that he get in touch with Dr. Gustavo Viniegra. Mr. Braun did contact Dr. Viniegra and Publications ....................................... 6-8 received the following reply. Standing Committees ......................... 8-9 Rotating Committees ..................... 10-11 Dear Mr. Braun: Affiliates and Assignments ........... 11-13 The idea to use mycelial cultures as fungal protein was considered Ad Hoc Committees ...................... 13-14 in many countries, including Mexico, but to my knowledge, only the Representatives ............................. 14-15 Rank Hovis and McDougall company started food protein from From the Editor ..................................... 15 sugars at UK. I remember, Dr. Solomon’s announcing in 1980 at the Forms International Biotechnology Symposium the approval of UK of Change of Address ............................. 25 mycelial protein for human uses. The brand name is Quorn and you Endowment & Contributions ............. 28 may check the details in the following address <http://sst.tees.ac.uk/ Gift Membership ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Oklahoma Native Plant Record
    58 Oklahoma Native Plant Record Volume 20, December 2020 SOME COMMON AMANITA SPECIES OF OKLAHOMA Clark L. Ovrebo Department of Biology University of Central Oklahoma Edmond, OK 73034 [email protected] Jay Justice 16055 Michelle Drive Alexander, AR 72002 ABSTRACT Brief descriptions and photos are presented for twenty species of the mushroom genus Amanita that are common to Oklahoma. The descriptions and illustrations introduce mushroom morphology and terminology for Amanitas that are important for their identification. Short diagnoses are also presented for each of the seven sections of Amanita. The species are arranged according to their placement in each section. One species, A. persicina, has not yet been reported for Oklahoma but we include it with the speculation that it is present in the pine forests of eastern Oklahoma. Key words: Agaricomycetes, Amanitaceae, mushrooms, biodiversity INTRODUCTION present. The geographical “hot spot” that has the greatest diversity of Amanitas in Amanita is a charismatic genus because North America, and perhaps the entire of its reputation for having some of the world, is the Southeastern/Gulf Coast deadliest poisonous species, because of the regions of the United States. We cannot lore associated with several species, and estimate for sure how many species occur in because of their artistic beauty. Amanitas Oklahoma but it could be as many as one rank among the most photographed or hundred. painted of all wild mushrooms. Illustrations In this article, we report on and illustrate of Amanitas are frequently featured on tea some of the frequently encountered towels, coffee cups and many other kitchen Amanitas in Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]
  • Amanita Subgenus Amanita
    GSMNP ATBI Amanita subgenus Amanita Amanita Pers. Amanita section Amanita (Amanitaceae) Amanita section Vaginatae Amanita subgenus Lepidella Key to Sections Section List Amanita section Lepidella Bibliography Amanita section Amidella Back to Top Amanita section Phalloideae Amanita section Validae Amanita of GSMNP - 1 Key to Sections of the Genus Amanita GSMNP T.b.w. ATBI Amanita Pers. (Amanitaceae) Key to Sections Section List Bibliography Back to Top Amanita of GSMNP - 2 Taxa of Amanita section Amanita in Park GSMNP ATBI Amanita agglutinata (B. & C. in B.) Lloyd (t.b.w.) Amanita farinosa Schw. Amanita frostiana (Peck) Sacc. Amanita Amanita gemmata sensu Jenkins (t.b.w.) section Amanita monticulosa (B. & C.) Sacc. (t.b.w.) Amanita Amanita multisquamosa Peck Amanita muscaria (L.:Fr.) Pers. var. persicina Jenkins (t.b.w.) Key to Amanita (section) Amanita parcivolvata (Peck) E. J. Gilb. List of Amanita (section) Key to Sections Amanita pubescens sensu Coker (t.b.w.) Section List Amanita roseitincta (Murr.) Murr. Bibliography Amanita velatipes Atk. Back to Top Amanita wellsii (Murr.) Sacc. (t.b.w.) Amanita sp. S1 sect. Amanita - 1 Key to Amanita section Amanita in the Park GSMNP T.b.w. ATBI Amanita section Amanita Key to Amanita (section) List of Amanita (section) Key to Sections Section List Bibliography Back to Top sect. Amanita - 2 Amanita farinosa Schw. GSMNP BRIEF DESCRIPTION: T.b.w. ATBI Amanita section Amanita Key to Amanita (section) List of Amanita (section) Key to Sections Section List Bibliography Back to Top A. farinosa - 1 Amanita frostiana (Peck) Sacc. GSMNP BRIEF DESCRIPTION: T.b.w. ATBI Amanita section Amanita Key to Amanita (section) List of Amanita (section) Key to Sections Section List Bibliography Back to Top A.
    [Show full text]