Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> In article <1qshq1d.18hb5ue1pnafbfN%nospam@de-
> ster.demon.nl>, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl says...
> >
> > Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <ml6e2j1i7smijfau0raent5e1kr0ueu7jc@4ax.com>,
> > > rich.ulrich@comcast.net says...
> > > > I suppose some fish and some game-birds consume insects and
> > > > other non-vegetable matter. But the most popular meat-animals
> > > > (chickens, cows, pigs, sheep) are thoroughy vegetarian.
> > >
> > > !!! Every assassin knows the fastest way to dispose of
> > > the corpse, is by throwing it into a pen of hungry pigs.
> >
> > At least authors of detective stories know that.
> > I think there is one in which in the end
> > the villain is thrown before his own hogs.
> >
> > > Chickens (and many other birds) and pigs love meat and
> > > will gobble it down any time they get chance. Even deer
> > > eat anything (bones, frogs, baby birds).
> >
> > They have to get their salts and calcium from somewhere.
> >
> > > I've seen our chickens have a feeding frenzy among a
> > > mass migration of toads and frogs; they are merciless
> > > hunters of fieldmice nests to eat the helpless blind
> > > babies. I've seen hen pheasants steal kill and eat each
> > > others chicks. Right now the crows, seagulls and herons
> > > are scoffing scores of newly hatched baby ducklings.
> >
> > Well, yes, but but those birds are not supposed
> > to be vegetarians to begin with,
>
> Nor are chickens and ducks.

Depends on who you ask.
Some people are a bit naive about it all,

Jan

lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
> > On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> >> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 23:25:54 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>> Lodder) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Once you bring city names into the picture, the endings wander
> >>>>>>>>>> all over the shop. Australia has Sydneysider, Melbournite,
> >>>>>>>>>> Crow-eater, ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I had to look the last one up.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 'Crow-eaters' for South Australians is still commonly used, and
> >>>>>>>>> refers to the magpie on the coat of arms.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's one theory. Another is that there was a food shortage in the
> >>>>>>>> early days of white settlement, and the new settlers had to find new
> >>>>>>>> sources of food.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of the stuff they
> >>>>>>> eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to work I had to go around a crow
> >>>>>>> picking at a flattened rat.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
> >>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality degrades at each recycling
> >>>>> stage?
> >>>>
> >>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
> >>>
> >>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some poisons
> >>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
> >>> from one predator to another.
> >>
> >> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
> >> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
> >>
> >> But I don't really know.
> >> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous mushrooms
> >> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
> >>
> >> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by taking out organs
> >> like livers and kidneys,
> >
> > Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some types of
> > animals but not others.
>
> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had
> collected some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so
> the man ingested one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed
> out that many mushrooms are benign for dogs, but not for humans.

This is a bit of a puzzle for naive Darwinists.
How come mushrooms have evolved this extreme poisonousness?
It is hard to see how being more effective at poisoning humans
could have been a selective advantage to them, over the millenia,

Jan

lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
> > On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> >> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 23:25:54 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>> Lodder) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Once you bring city names into the picture, the endings wander
> >>>>>>>>>> all over the shop. Australia has Sydneysider, Melbournite,
> >>>>>>>>>> Crow-eater, ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I had to look the last one up.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 'Crow-eaters' for South Australians is still commonly used, and
> >>>>>>>>> refers to the magpie on the coat of arms.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's one theory. Another is that there was a food shortage in the
> >>>>>>>> early days of white settlement, and the new settlers had to find new
> >>>>>>>> sources of food.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of the stuff they
> >>>>>>> eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to work I had to go around a crow
> >>>>>>> picking at a flattened rat.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
> >>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality degrades at each recycling
> >>>>> stage?
> >>>>
> >>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
> >>>
> >>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some poisons
> >>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
> >>> from one predator to another.
> >>
> >> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
> >> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
> >>
> >> But I don't really know.
> >> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous mushrooms
> >> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
> >>
> >> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by taking out organs
> >> like livers and kidneys,
> >
> > Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some types of
> > animals but not others.
>
> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had
> collected some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so
> the man ingested one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed
> out that many mushrooms are benign for dogs, but not for humans.

Yes, and another example, the other way round, is chocolate.
It is very poisonous to dogs. (and even worse so for cats)
Call the vet at once if you suspect a dog or cat
may have eaten chocolate.

Jan

Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adam Funk suggested that ...
> > On 2024-04-25, Snidely wrote:
> >> Remember when lar3ryca bragged outrageously? That was Wednesday:
> >>> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
> >>>> On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder):
> >>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
[-]
> >>>>>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of the stuff
> >>>>>>>>>> they eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to work I had to go around a crow
> >>>>>>>>>> picking at a flattened rat.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
> >>>>>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality degrades at each recycling
> >>>>>>>> stage?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some poisons
> >>>>>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
> >>>>>> from one predator to another.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
> >>>>> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I don't really know.
> >>>>> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous mushrooms
> >>>>> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by taking out organs
> >>>>> like livers and kidneys,
> >>>>
> >>>> Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some types of
> >>>> animals but not others.
> >>>
> >>> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had collected
> >>> some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so the man
> >>> ingested one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed out that
> >>> many mushrooms are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
> >
> > I'm not surprised: there are quite a few human foods (chocolate,
> > garlic, onions, &c.) that are dangerous to dogs.
> >
> >
> >> You remind me of the definition of an expert on wild mushrooms: One
> >> who hasn't been fooled /yet/.
> >
> > Heh. I eat wild fungi occasionally but only if I've made a positive ID
> > with at least one good book. I don't consider myself an expert, though.
>
> Apparently there are some fungi that match the "good" pictures but
> aren't "good".

Yes. In particular some Amanita species are notorious for this.

Jan
(remembers a sad tale of some New-worlders being killed by eating
an Old-world species that had somehow managed to cross the Pond,
and so wasn't in their books)

lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2024-04-24 13:02, Janet wrote:
> > In article <1qshq1d.18hb5ue1pnafbfN%nospam@de-
> > ster.demon.nl>, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl says...
> >>
> >> Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <ml6e2j1i7smijfau0raent5e1kr0ueu7jc@4ax.com>,
> >>> rich.ulrich@comcast.net says...
> >>>> I suppose some fish and some game-birds consume insects and
> >>>> other non-vegetable matter. But the most popular meat-animals
> >>>> (chickens, cows, pigs, sheep) are thoroughy vegetarian.
> >>>
> >>> !!! Every assassin knows the fastest way to dispose of
> >>> the corpse, is by throwing it into a pen of hungry pigs.
> >>
> >> At least authors of detective stories know that.
> >> I think there is one in which in the end
> >> the villain is thrown before his own hogs.
> >>
> >>> Chickens (and many other birds) and pigs love meat and
> >>> will gobble it down any time they get chance. Even deer
> >>> eat anything (bones, frogs, baby birds).
> >>
> >> They have to get their salts and calcium from somewhere.
> >>
> >>> I've seen our chickens have a feeding frenzy among a
> >>> mass migration of toads and frogs; they are merciless
> >>> hunters of fieldmice nests to eat the helpless blind
> >>> babies. I've seen hen pheasants steal kill and eat each
> >>> others chicks. Right now the crows, seagulls and herons
> >>> are scoffing scores of newly hatched baby ducklings.
> >>
> >> Well, yes, but but those birds are not supposed
> >> to be vegetarians to begin with,
> >
> > Nor are chickens and ducks.
>
> Add any other bird to that.
> I was quite surprised to find out that even hummingbirds are not vegan.
> They eat drosophila, and at least one hummingbird feeder takes advantage
> of that.
>
> <https://www.amazon.ca/Humm-Yumm-Protein-Nectar-Hummingbird-Feeder/dp/B07J46CG
3H>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u7MNhx6_sY

Did you really suppose that they can live on honey alone?

Jan

On 2024-04-26 09:17:37 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 23:25:54 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>>> Lodder) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once you bring city names into the picture, the endings wander
>>>>>>>>>>>> all over the shop. Australia has Sydneysider, Melbournite,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Crow-eater, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I had to look the last one up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Crow-eaters' for South Australians is still commonly used, and
>>>>>>>>>>> refers to the magpie on the coat of arms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's one theory. Another is that there was a food shortage in the
>>>>>>>>>> early days of white settlement, and the new settlers had to find new
>>>>>>>>>> sources of food.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of the stuff they
>>>>>>>>> eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to work I had to go around a crow
>>>>>>>>> picking at a flattened rat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
>>>>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality degrades at each recycling
>>>>>>> stage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
>>>>>
>>>>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some poisons
>>>>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
>>>>> from one predator to another.
>>>>
>>>> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
>>>> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
>>>>
>>>> But I don't really know.
>>>> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous mushrooms
>>>> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
>>>>
>>>> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by taking out organs
>>>> like livers and kidneys,
>>>
>>> Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some types of
>>> animals but not others.
>>
>> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had
>> collected some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so
>> the man ingested one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed
>> out that many mushrooms are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
>
> Yes, and another example, the other way round, is chocolate.
> It is very poisonous to dogs. (and even worse so for cats)
> Call the vet at once if you suspect a dog or cat
> may have eaten chocolate.

We had a cat in the 1950s that loved chocolate (Cadbury's milk
chocolate, not chocolate as the word is understood in France and
Belgium). But that was pretty exceptional, I think.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2024-04-26, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Adam Funk suggested that ...
>> > On 2024-04-25, Snidely wrote:
>> >> Remember when lar3ryca bragged outrageously? That was Wednesday:
>> >>> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>> >>>> On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder):
>> >>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
> [-]
>> >>>>>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of the stuff
>> >>>>>>>>>> they eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to work I had to go around a crow
>> >>>>>>>>>> picking at a flattened rat.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
>> >>>>>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality degrades at each recycling
>> >>>>>>>> stage?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some poisons
>> >>>>>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
>> >>>>>> from one predator to another.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
>> >>>>> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But I don't really know.
>> >>>>> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous mushrooms
>> >>>>> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by taking out organs
>> >>>>> like livers and kidneys,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some types of
>> >>>> animals but not others.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had collected
>> >>> some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so the man
>> >>> ingested one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed out that
>> >>> many mushrooms are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
>> >
>> > I'm not surprised: there are quite a few human foods (chocolate,
>> > garlic, onions, &c.) that are dangerous to dogs.
>> >
>> >
>> >> You remind me of the definition of an expert on wild mushrooms: One
>> >> who hasn't been fooled /yet/.
>> >
>> > Heh. I eat wild fungi occasionally but only if I've made a positive ID
>> > with at least one good book. I don't consider myself an expert, though.
>>
>> Apparently there are some fungi that match the "good" pictures but
>> aren't "good".

The more useful books concentrate on the good fungi that don't have
dangerous close look-alikes.

> Yes. In particular some Amanita species are notorious for this.

E.g., Amanita rubescens (edible), which looks a lot like A. pantherina
(poisonous). The books that mention the former usually say something
like "not recommended for non-experts" because of that.

> (remembers a sad tale of some New-worlders being killed by eating
> an Old-world species that had somehow managed to cross the Pond,
> and so wasn't in their books)

--
Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
illa: doidy doidy doidy. ---plorkwort

On 2024-04-26, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> On 26-Apr-24 0:25, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2024-04-25, jerryfriedman wrote:
>>
>>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-04-24 13:02, Janet wrote:
>>>>> In article <1qshq1d.18hb5ue1pnafbfN%nospam@de-
>>>>> ster.demon.nl>, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>>> ..
>>>
>>>>>>> I've seen our chickens have a feeding frenzy among a
>>>>>>> mass migration of toads and frogs; they are merciless
>>>>>>> hunters of fieldmice nests to eat the helpless blind
>>>>>>> babies. I've seen hen pheasants steal kill and eat each
>>>>>>> others chicks. Right now the crows, seagulls and herons
>>>>>>> are scoffing scores of newly hatched baby ducklings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, yes, but but those birds are not supposed
>>>>>> to be vegetarians to begin with,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor are chickens and ducks.
>>>
>>>> Add any other bird to that.
>>>
>>> Almost any. There are some birds that eat animal food only
>>> incidentally, such as the kakapo, the hoatzin, the oilbird (I
>>> think), and closer to home for you and me, the American
>>> Goldfinch.
>>>
>>>> I was quite surprised to find out that even hummingbirds are not vegan.
>>>> They eat drosophila, and at least one hummingbird feeder takes advantage
>>>> of that.
>>>
>>> They eat the tiny insects and spiders they find in flowers.
>>> If you have a chance to watch one for a while, especially away
>>> from feeders and flowerbeds, you may see it hovering and
>>> making short darts in open air--catching flying insects.
>>>
>>> The reason you can feed hummingbirds plain sugar water is
>>> that they get the rest of their nutrition from arthropods.
>>
>> It turns out that tomatoes are carnivorous, just in a much more subtle
>> way than Venus flytraps. Tomato plants have sticky hairs that trap
>> small insects, which later fall to the ground dead & fertilize the
>> plants: "passive carnivores".
>
> Not to be confused with those other passive carnivores - couch potatoes.

Ha!

--
Disagreeing with Donald Rumsfeld about bombing anybody who gets in our
way is not a crime in this country. It is a wise and honorable idea
that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin risked their lives for.
---Hunter S Thompson

On 2024-04-26 03:17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-24 13:02, Janet wrote:
>>> In article <1qshq1d.18hb5ue1pnafbfN%nospam@de-
>>> ster.demon.nl>, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl says...
>>>>
>>>> Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <ml6e2j1i7smijfau0raent5e1kr0ueu7jc@4ax.com>,
>>>>> rich.ulrich@comcast.net says...
>>>>>> I suppose some fish and some game-birds consume insects and
>>>>>> other non-vegetable matter. But the most popular meat-animals
>>>>>> (chickens, cows, pigs, sheep) are thoroughy vegetarian.
>>>>>
>>>>> !!! Every assassin knows the fastest way to dispose of
>>>>> the corpse, is by throwing it into a pen of hungry pigs.
>>>>
>>>> At least authors of detective stories know that.
>>>> I think there is one in which in the end
>>>> the villain is thrown before his own hogs.
>>>>
>>>>> Chickens (and many other birds) and pigs love meat and
>>>>> will gobble it down any time they get chance. Even deer
>>>>> eat anything (bones, frogs, baby birds).
>>>>
>>>> They have to get their salts and calcium from somewhere.
>>>>
>>>>> I've seen our chickens have a feeding frenzy among a
>>>>> mass migration of toads and frogs; they are merciless
>>>>> hunters of fieldmice nests to eat the helpless blind
>>>>> babies. I've seen hen pheasants steal kill and eat each
>>>>> others chicks. Right now the crows, seagulls and herons
>>>>> are scoffing scores of newly hatched baby ducklings.
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes, but but those birds are not supposed
>>>> to be vegetarians to begin with,
>>>
>>> Nor are chickens and ducks.
>>
>> Add any other bird to that.
>> I was quite surprised to find out that even hummingbirds are not vegan.
>> They eat drosophila, and at least one hummingbird feeder takes advantage
>> of that.
>>
>> <https://www.amazon.ca/Humm-Yumm-Protein-Nectar-Hummingbird-Feeder/dp/B07J46CG
> 3H>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u7MNhx6_sY
>
> Did you really suppose that they can live on honey alone?

Never thought about it.

--
I can resist every­thing except temp­tation.
~ Oscar Wilde

On 2024-04-26, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>> > On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >
>> >> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 23:25:54 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >>> Lodder) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Once you bring city names into the picture, the endings wander
>> >>>>>>>>>> all over the shop. Australia has Sydneysider, Melbournite,
>> >>>>>>>>>> Crow-eater, ...
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I had to look the last one up.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 'Crow-eaters' for South Australians is still commonly used, and
>> >>>>>>>>> refers to the magpie on the coat of arms.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> That's one theory. Another is that there was a food shortage in the
>> >>>>>>>> early days of white settlement, and the new settlers had to find new
>> >>>>>>>> sources of food.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of the stuff they
>> >>>>>>> eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to work I had to go around a crow
>> >>>>>>> picking at a flattened rat.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
>> >>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality degrades at each recycling
>> >>>>> stage?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
>> >>>
>> >>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some poisons
>> >>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
>> >>> from one predator to another.
>> >>
>> >> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
>> >> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
>> >>
>> >> But I don't really know.
>> >> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous mushrooms
>> >> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
>> >>
>> >> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by taking out organs
>> >> like livers and kidneys,
>> >
>> > Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some types of
>> > animals but not others.
>>
>> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had
>> collected some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so
>> the man ingested one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed
>> out that many mushrooms are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
>
> This is a bit of a puzzle for naive Darwinists.
> How come mushrooms have evolved this extreme poisonousness?
> It is hard to see how being more effective at poisoning humans
> could have been a selective advantage to them, over the millenia,

Maybe it's just a coincidence that chemicals evolved for some other
purpose, or as a side effect of something evolutionarily useful,
happen to be poisonous to some animals. I can't see any evolutionary
advantage to the human-psychoactive properties of various plants &
fungi either.

--
Back off, man. I'm a scientist.

On 2024-04-26, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2024-04-25 23:22:30 +0000, Adam Funk said:
>
>> On 2024-04-25, Snidely wrote:
>>
>>> Remember when lar3ryca bragged outrageously? That was Wednesday:

>>>> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had collected
>>>> some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so the man ingested
>>>> one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed out that many mushrooms
>>>> are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
>>
>> I'm not surprised: there are quite a few human foods (chocolate,
>> garlic, onions, &c.) that are dangerous to dogs.
>
> I dose of aspirin (kg/kg, of course) that would have no effect on a
> human headache, is enough to kill a cat.

Not just aspirin (I was looking up why):

All salicylates have the potential to cause toxicity. These
chemicals may be found in a wide range of products including pain
medications, Pepto-Bismol, wintergreen oil, sunscreen, lip balms,
hair and skin care products, toothpaste, wart removers and pain
creams.
...
Cats have fewer functional cellular pathways to metabolize certain
types of drugs, including aspirin. This means they take
significantly longer to eliminate salicylates from their bodies
than humans or dogs. Since cats are not able to metabolize aspirin
efficiently, they are more vulnerable to poisoning.

<https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/aspirin-poisoning-in-cats>

--
There’s never enough time to do all the nothing you want.
---Calvin

On 2024-04-26, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2024-04-25 23:22:30 +0000, Adam Funk said:
>
>> On 2024-04-25, Snidely wrote:
>>
>>> Remember when lar3ryca bragged outrageously? That was Wednesday:
>>>> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 23:25:54 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>>>>> Lodder) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once you bring city names into the picture, the endings wander
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all over the shop. Australia has Sydneysider, Melbournite,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crow-eater, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had to look the last one up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Crow-eaters' for South Australians is still commonly used,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> refers to the magpie on the coat of arms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's one theory. Another is that there was a food shortage in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> early days of white settlement, and the new settlers had to find new
>>>>>>>>>>>> sources of food.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of the stuff they
>>>>>>>>>>> eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to work I had to go around a crow
>>>>>>>>>>> picking at a flattened rat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
>>>>>>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality degrades at each recycling
>>>>>>>>> stage?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some poisons
>>>>>>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
>>>>>>> from one predator to another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
>>>>>> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I don't really know.
>>>>>> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous mushrooms
>>>>>> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by taking out organs
>>>>>> like livers and kidneys,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some types of
>>>>> animals but not others.
>>>>
>>>> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had collected
>>>> some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so the man ingested
>>>> one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed out that many mushrooms
>>>> are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
>>
>> I'm not surprised: there are quite a few human foods (chocolate,
>> garlic, onions, &c.) that are dangerous to dogs.
>>
>>
>>> You remind me of the definition of an expert on wild mushrooms: One
>>> who hasn't been fooled /yet/.
>>
>> Heh. I eat wild fungi occasionally but only if I've made a positive ID
>> with at least one good book. I don't consider myself an expert, though.
>
> In France pharmacists are required to know enough about fungi to be
> able to give expert advice to customers.

So I've heard, although I wasn't foraging when I studied there.

--
I am at the moment writing a lengthy indictment against our
century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make
an occasional cheese dip. ---Ignatius J Reilly

Adam Funk wrote:

> On 2024-04-26, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Adam Funk suggested that ...
>>> > On 2024-04-25, Snidely wrote:
>>> >> Remember when lar3ryca bragged outrageously? That was Wednesday:
>>> >>> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> >>>> On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> >>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder):
>>> >>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
>> [-]
>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of the stuff
>>> >>>>>>>>>> they eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to work I had to go around a crow
>>> >>>>>>>>>> picking at a flattened rat.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
>>> >>>>>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality degrades at each recycling
>>> >>>>>>>> stage?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some poisons
>>> >>>>>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
>>> >>>>>> from one predator to another.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
>>> >>>>> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> But I don't really know.
>>> >>>>> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous mushrooms
>>> >>>>> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by taking out organs
>>> >>>>> like livers and kidneys,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some types of
>>> >>>> animals but not others.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had collected
>>> >>> some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so the man
>>> >>> ingested one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed out that
>>> >>> many mushrooms are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
>>> >
>>> > I'm not surprised: there are quite a few human foods (chocolate,
>>> > garlic, onions, &c.) that are dangerous to dogs.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> You remind me of the definition of an expert on wild mushrooms: One
>>> >> who hasn't been fooled /yet/.
>>> >
>>> > Heh. I eat wild fungi occasionally but only if I've made a positive ID
>>> > with at least one good book. I don't consider myself an expert, though.
>>>
>>> Apparently there are some fungi that match the "good" pictures but
>>> aren't "good".

> The more useful books concentrate on the good fungi that don't have
> dangerous close look-alikes.

>> Yes. In particular some Amanita species are notorious for this.

> E.g., Amanita rubescens (edible), which looks a lot like A. pantherina
> (poisonous). The books that mention the former usually say something
> like "not recommended for non-experts" because of that.

I've eaten a few wlld mushrooms, including a puffball or two when there
were no experts around. But I wouldn't eat anything with white gills.

--
Jerry Fredman

On 2024-05-01 08:07, jerryfriedman wrote:
> Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-26, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>>> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Adam Funk suggested that ...
>>>> > On 2024-04-25, Snidely wrote:
>>>> >> Remember when lar3ryca bragged outrageously?  That was Wednesday:
>>>> >>> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder):
>>>> >>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> [-]
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of
>>>> the stuff
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> they eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to
>>>> work I had to go around a crow
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>      picking at a flattened rat.
>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality
>>>> degrades at each recycling
>>>> >>>>>>>> stage?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some
>>>> poisons
>>>> >>>>>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
>>>> >>>>>> from one predator to another.
>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
>>>> >>>>> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I don't really know.
>>>> >>>>> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous
>>>> mushrooms
>>>> >>>>> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by
>>>> taking out organs
>>>> >>>>> like livers and kidneys,
>>>> >>>> >>>> Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some
>>>> types of
>>>> >>>> animals but not others.
>>>> >>> >>> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man
>>>> had collected
>>>> >>> some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so the man
>>>> >>> ingested  one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed
>>>> out that
>>>> >>> many mushrooms  are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not surprised: there are quite a few human foods (chocolate,
>>>> > garlic, onions, &c.) that are dangerous to dogs.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> You remind me of the definition of an expert on wild mushrooms:  One
>>>> >> who hasn't been fooled /yet/.
>>>> >
>>>> > Heh. I eat wild fungi occasionally but only if I've made a
>>>> positive ID
>>>> > with at least one good book. I don't consider myself an expert,
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently there are some fungi that match the "good" pictures but
>>>> aren't "good".
>
>> The more useful books concentrate on the good fungi that don't have
>> dangerous close look-alikes.
>
>>> Yes. In particular some Amanita species are notorious for this.
>
>> E.g., Amanita rubescens (edible), which looks a lot like A. pantherina
>> (poisonous). The books that mention the former usually say something
>> like "not recommended for non-experts" because of that.
>
> I've eaten a few wlld mushrooms, including a puffball or two when there
> were no experts around.  But I wouldn't eat anything with white gills.

Did you eat them before they became able to puff?

Disclaimer: I have read this in a book about mushrooms, but cannot claim
that the book was correct.

All non-gilled mushrooms are non-poisonous.
Presumably, that would include puffballs

--
If I make you breakfast in bed, a simple "Thank you" is all I need.
Not all this "How did you get into my house?" business.

lar3ryca wrote:

> Did you eat them before they became able to puff?
>
> Disclaimer: I have read this in a book about mushrooms, but cannot claim
> that the book was correct.
>
> All non-gilled mushrooms are non-poisonous.
> Presumably, that would include puffballs

I seem t remember that the spores are poisonous? or harmful in some way.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2024-04-26, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
> >> > On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[-]
> >> >> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
> >> >> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
> >> >>
> >> >> But I don't really know.
> >> >> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous mushrooms
> >> >> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
> >> >>
> >> >> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by taking out organs
> >> >> like livers and kidneys,
> >> >
> >> > Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some types of
> >> > animals but not others.
> >>
> >> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had
> >> collected some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so
> >> the man ingested one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed
> >> out that many mushrooms are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
> >
> > This is a bit of a puzzle for naive Darwinists.
> > How come mushrooms have evolved this extreme poisonousness?
> > It is hard to see how being more effective at poisoning humans
> > could have been a selective advantage to them, over the millenia,
>
> Maybe it's just a coincidence that chemicals evolved for some other
> purpose, or as a side effect of something evolutionarily useful,
> happen to be poisonous to some animals. I can't see any evolutionary
> advantage to the human-psychoactive properties of various plants &
> fungi either.

It is a problem only for those biologist who are too Panglossian.
Unfortunately much popularised talking about evolution
is much too Panglossian,

Jan

Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2024-04-26 09:17:37 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> > lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
> >> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
> >>> On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 23:25:54 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>>>> Lodder) wrote:
> >>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
[-]
> >>>>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to work I had to go around a crow
> >>>>>>>>> picking at a flattened rat.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
> >>>>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality degrades at each recycling
> >>>>>>> stage?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some poisons
> >>>>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
> >>>>> from one predator to another.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
> >>>> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I don't really know.
> >>>> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous mushrooms
> >>>> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
> >>>>
> >>>> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by taking out organs
> >>>> like livers and kidneys,
> >>>
> >>> Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some types of
> >>> animals but not others.
> >>
> >> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man had
> >> collected some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so
> >> the man ingested one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed
> >> out that many mushrooms are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
> >
> > Yes, and another example, the other way round, is chocolate.
> > It is very poisonous to dogs. (and even worse so for cats)
> > Call the vet at once if you suspect a dog or cat
> > may have eaten chocolate.
>
> We had a cat in the 1950s that loved chocolate (Cadbury's milk
> chocolate, not chocolate as the word is understood in France and
> Belgium). But that was pretty exceptional, I think.

I have no idea what "Cadbury's milk chocolate" might be.
Isn't it just milk with some colouring and flavouring?

But the problem is that most cats and dogs just love chocolate,
without having any idea that it is bad for them,

Jan

On 2024-05-02, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> lar3ryca wrote:
>
>> Did you eat them before they became able to puff?
>>
>> Disclaimer: I have read this in a book about mushrooms, but cannot claim
>> that the book was correct.
>>
>> All non-gilled mushrooms are non-poisonous.
>> Presumably, that would include puffballs
>
> I seem t remember that the spores are poisonous? or harmful in some way.

They are dangerous if inhaled.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoperdonosis>

--
You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the
original Klingon. ---Klingon Programmer's Guide

On 2024-05-02, lar3ryca wrote:

> On 2024-05-01 08:07, jerryfriedman wrote:
>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-04-26, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>>> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Adam Funk suggested that ...
>>>>> > On 2024-04-25, Snidely wrote:
>>>>> >> Remember when lar3ryca bragged outrageously?  That was Wednesday:
>>>>> >>> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>>> >>>> On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> >>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder):
>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>> [-]
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of
>>>>> the stuff
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> they eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to
>>>>> work I had to go around a crow
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>      picking at a flattened rat.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality
>>>>> degrades at each recycling
>>>>> >>>>>>>> stage?
>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some
>>>>> poisons
>>>>> >>>>>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food chain,
>>>>> >>>>>> from one predator to another.
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology textbook.
>>>>> >>>>> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I don't really know.
>>>>> >>>>> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous
>>>>> mushrooms
>>>>> >>>>> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by
>>>>> taking out organs
>>>>> >>>>> like livers and kidneys,
>>>>> >>>> >>>> Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some
>>>>> types of
>>>>> >>>> animals but not others.
>>>>> >>> >>> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man
>>>>> had collected
>>>>> >>> some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so the man
>>>>> >>> ingested  one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed
>>>>> out that
>>>>> >>> many mushrooms  are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'm not surprised: there are quite a few human foods (chocolate,
>>>>> > garlic, onions, &c.) that are dangerous to dogs.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> You remind me of the definition of an expert on wild mushrooms:  One
>>>>> >> who hasn't been fooled /yet/.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Heh. I eat wild fungi occasionally but only if I've made a
>>>>> positive ID
>>>>> > with at least one good book. I don't consider myself an expert,
>>>>> though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently there are some fungi that match the "good" pictures but
>>>>> aren't "good".
>>
>>> The more useful books concentrate on the good fungi that don't have
>>> dangerous close look-alikes.
>>
>>>> Yes. In particular some Amanita species are notorious for this.
>>
>>> E.g., Amanita rubescens (edible), which looks a lot like A. pantherina
>>> (poisonous). The books that mention the former usually say something
>>> like "not recommended for non-experts" because of that.
>>
>> I've eaten a few wlld mushrooms, including a puffball or two when there
>> were no experts around.  But I wouldn't eat anything with white gills.
>
> Did you eat them before they became able to puff?
>
> Disclaimer: I have read this in a book about mushrooms, but cannot claim
> that the book was correct.
>
> All non-gilled mushrooms are non-poisonous.

That is NOT true (like most simple, general rules about
fungi). Earthballs (Scleroderma species) and some boletes
(mushroom-shaped with pores under the cap instead of gills) are the
ones I can think of offhand.

> Presumably, that would include puffballs

Puffballs are edible as long as they are solid white all the way
through. You need to slice them vertically to confirm that they are
not young Amanita species anyway; but if puffballs are dark inside
they are no longer good to eat.

--
Musicians can run this state better than politicians. We won't get a
lot done in the mornings, but we'll work late and be honest.
---Kinky Friedman

lar3ryca wrote:

> On 2024-05-01 08:07, jerryfriedman wrote:
>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-04-26, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>>> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Adam Funk suggested that ...
>>>>> > On 2024-04-25, Snidely wrote:
>>>>> >> Remember when lar3ryca bragged outrageously?  That was Wednesday:
>>>>> >>> On 2024-04-24 12:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>>> >>>> On 2024-04-23, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> >>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder):
>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2024-04-17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/24 22:09, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>> [-]
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think crows are pretty cool, but considering some of
>>>>> the stuff
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> they eat [1] I doubt they taste good.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] A few weeks ago while biking to

>>>>> work I had to go around a crow
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>      picking at a flattened rat.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rats are edible are they are.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why would recycled rat be less edible?
>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe meat is like plastic --- the quality
>>>>> degrades at each recycling
>>>>> >>>>>>>> stage?
>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is not what my biology textbooks tell me,
>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But your biology textbooks ought to mention that some
>>>>> poisons
>>>>> >>>>>> become more concentrated as they are passed up the food
chain,
>>>>> >>>>>> from one predator to another.
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are no accumulating poisons in my biology
textbook.
>>>>> >>>>> All accumulating poisons are man-made.
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I don't really know.
>>>>> >>>>> Perhaps, if you force-feed a chicken on a diet of poisonous
>>>>> mushrooms
>>>>> >>>>> or something like that its muscle may become poisonous too.
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Guess not though, those biological poisons work by
>>>>> taking out organs
>>>>> >>>>> like livers and kidneys,
>>>>> >>>> >>>> Some naturally occurring chemicals are harmful to some
>>>>> types of
>>>>> >>>> animals but not others.
>>>>> >>> >>> I am reminded of a death in the Vancouver BC area when a man

>>>>> had collected
>>>>> >>> some mushrooms and fed one to his dog. The dog was fine, so the
man
>>>>> >>> ingested  one, and died shortly after. The news article pointed
>>>>> out that
>>>>> >>> many mushrooms  are benign for dogs, but not for humans.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'm not surprised: there are quite a few human foods (chocolate,
>>>>> > garlic, onions, &c.) that are dangerous to dogs.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> You remind me of the definition of an expert on wild mushrooms: 
One
>>>>> >> who hasn't been fooled /yet/.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Heh. I eat wild fungi occasionally but only if I've made a
>>>>> positive ID
>>>>> > with at least one good book. I don't consider myself an expert,
>>>>> though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently there are some fungi that match the "good" pictures but
>>>>> aren't "good".
>>
>>> The more useful books concentrate on the good fungi that don't have
>>> dangerous close look-alikes.
>>
>>>> Yes. In particular some Amanita species are notorious for this.
>>
>>> E.g., Amanita rubescens (edible), which looks a lot like A. pantherina
>>> (poisonous). The books that mention the former usually say something
>>> like "not recommended for non-experts" because of that.
>>
>> I've eaten a few wlld mushrooms, including a puffball or two when there
>> were no experts around.  But I wouldn't eat anything with white gills.

> Did you eat them before they became able to puff?

Yes. I didn't realize that the spores were dangerous if inhaled in
large amounts, but puffballs aren't tempting to eat when they've
reached that stage. And speaking of Adam, I did slice them in half.

> Disclaimer: I have read this in a book about mushrooms, but cannot claim

> that the book was correct.

> All non-gilled mushrooms are non-poisonous.

Definitely not correct. Another exception, in addition to the ones Adam
mentioned, is false morels.

> Presumably, that would include puffballs

Young puffballs are pretty safe.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 17/04/2024 11:55, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2), where
>>> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to comprehend.
>>>
>>> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
>>> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
>>> 3- Greek }
>>> 4- Dutch } -> Chinese
>>
>> Never heard or seen that one, probably a misunderstanding,,
>> based on the existence of the book:
>> Peter Ho, Dat is Chinees voor mij- Zin en onzin over China,
>> <https://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/de-geus/boek/dat-is-chinees-voor-mij/>
>> (sense and nonsense about China)
>> It is a book explaining China and Chinese culture.
>>
>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
>>
>> Best translated into English as 'gibberish', or 'gobbledygook',
>
> [continued]
> Cleared up in the meantime: 'Dat is Chinees voor mij'
> is Belgian Dutch only, based on literal translation
> of the corresponding French phrase.
>

Heh! That's very interesting. Also interesting is the fact that Flemish
(absent from the original list) was classified as Dutch.

I was interested in the perceived differences between Flemish and Dutch.
In this web page ('Undutchables' :-) ) the French influence on Flemish
is corroborated.

<https://undutchables.nl/about-us/blog/the-dutch-and-flemish-language-and-the-underlying-misconceptions>

From the same page:

"Dutch people also often mention that the Flemish dialect sounds softer."

Note to JJLodder: When I expressed this view some time ago ("I can
discern the difference between a Dutch speaker and a Flemish speaker at
a hundred paces") you denied it vehemently, for reasons unknown.

On 2024-05-02 04:04, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2024-05-02, lar3ryca wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-01 08:07, jerryfriedman wrote:
>>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>> I've eaten a few wlld mushrooms, including a puffball or two when there
>>> were no experts around.  But I wouldn't eat anything with white gills.
>>
>> Did you eat them before they became able to puff?
>>
>> Disclaimer: I have read this in a book about mushrooms, but cannot claim
>> that the book was correct.
>>
>> All non-gilled mushrooms are non-poisonous.
>
> That is NOT true (like most simple, general rules about
> fungi). Earthballs (Scleroderma species) and some boletes
> (mushroom-shaped with pores under the cap instead of gills) are the
> ones I can think of offhand.

Thanks for the correction. I don't have enough knowledge of fungi to be
confident in picking edible ones.

>> Presumably, that would include puffballs
>
> Puffballs are edible as long as they are solid white all the way
> through. You need to slice them vertically to confirm that they are
> not young Amanita species anyway; but if puffballs are dark inside
> they are no longer good to eat.

Good to know (though I still don't think I'll try the wild ones I find.

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to
stick to possibilities; truth isn’t.
– Mark Twain

occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 17/04/2024 11:55, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2), where
> >>> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to comprehend.
> >>>
> >>> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
> >>> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
> >>> 3- Greek }
> >>> 4- Dutch } -> Chinese
> >>
> >> Never heard or seen that one, probably a misunderstanding,,
> >> based on the existence of the book:
> >> Peter Ho, Dat is Chinees voor mij- Zin en onzin over China,
> >> <https://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/de-geus/boek/dat-is-chinees-voor-mij/>
> >> (sense and nonsense about China)
> >> It is a book explaining China and Chinese culture.
> >>
> >> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
> >> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
> >> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
> >> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
> >> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
> >>
> >> Best translated into English as 'gibberish', or 'gobbledygook',
> >
> > [continued]
> > Cleared up in the meantime: 'Dat is Chinees voor mij'
> > is Belgian Dutch only, based on literal translation
> > of the corresponding French phrase.
> >
>
> Heh! That's very interesting. Also interesting is the fact that Flemish
> (absent from the original list) was classified as Dutch.
>
> I was interested in the perceived differences between Flemish and Dutch.
> In this web page ('Undutchables' :-) ) the French influence on Flemish
> is corroborated.
>
> <https://undutchables.nl/about-us/blog/the-dutch-and-flemish-language-and-the-
underlying-misconceptions>

By far the best criterion to distinguish Flemish from Dutch is:
"Het vertaalt zoveel makkelijker in het Frans" (author forgotten)
(It is -so much- easier to translate into French)
In other words, it is not just the pronunciation,
or the choice of some of the words that is different,
there are also important differences in the construction of sentences.
(dare I say, in the way of thinking?)
For example, Wikipedia pages are often recognisably Belgian.
In case of doubt, and when it matters, hire a native speaker.

> From the same page:
>
> "Dutch people also often mention that the Flemish dialect sounds softer."

Yes, in particular the 'zachte g'. (the soft g)
which begins 'onder de rivieren' (under the great rivers)
so in Brabant and Limburg. (let's not do 'Van Gogh' again)

> Note to JJLodder: When I expressed this view some time ago ("I can
> discern the difference between a Dutch speaker and a Flemish speaker at
> a hundred paces") you denied it vehemently, for reasons unknown.

Correction, for reasons 'known only to you'.
You must be mistaken, have misremembered,
or you are just mistaking somebody else for me.

And you must have great hearing,
to hear anything at all at a hundred paces.
For me that is possible only with Americans in a big restaurant.

Jan

On 2024-05-04 11:18:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

[ … ]

>> Note to JJLodder: When I expressed this view some time ago ("I can
>> discern the difference between a Dutch speaker and a Flemish speaker at
>> a hundred paces") you denied it vehemently, for reasons unknown.
>
> Correction, for reasons 'known only to you'.
> You must be mistaken, have misremembered,
> or you are just mistaking somebody else for me.
>
> And you must have great hearing,
> to hear anything at all at a hundred paces.
> For me that is possible only with Americans in a big restaurant.

Yes, but it's not only the sound, but also the gestures. In 1983 we
were in a train in China. We were at one end of carriage, and at the
far end there were a group of non-Chinese people talking. My wife said,
"They're Argentinian". "How can you possibly tell from this distance,
where we can't hear anything?" I asked. She walked down to the other
end and listened to them for a moment, and reported back: "They're
Argentinian".

For a long time I couldn't recognize an Argentinian accent, but well
before that I could easily recognize a Chilean imitating an Argentinian.

Many years later the same conversation was partially repeated in the
museum attached to the cathedral in Oviedo. Again my wife announced
that a group of people outside hearing range were Argentinian. On that
occasion I walked over to hear them, and I said to my wife that they
sounded more Chilean to me. "That's because they're from Mendoza," she
said. (The accent of Mendoza is much closer to Chilean than the accent
of the River Plate region is.)

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 04/05/2024 16:05, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-05-04 11:18:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>
> [ … ]
>
>>> Note to JJLodder: When I expressed this view some time ago ("I can
>>> discern the difference between a Dutch speaker and a Flemish speaker at
>>> a hundred paces") you denied it vehemently, for reasons unknown.
>>
>> Correction, for reasons 'known only to you'.
>> You must be mistaken, have misremembered,
>> or you are just mistaking somebody else for me.

No, you are the only Dutch person here who gets over-defensive about
issues concerning the Dutch and their language. I am not mistaking you
for anyone else.

>>
>> And you must have great hearing,
>> to hear anything at all at a hundred paces.
>> For me that is possible only with Americans in a big restaurant.

The exaggeration ("at 100 paces") was for comic effect. I'm sorry it got
lost in translation.

>
> Yes, but it's not only the sound, but also the gestures. In 1983 we were
> in a train in China. We were at one end of carriage, and at the far end
> there were a group of non-Chinese people talking. My wife said, "They're
> Argentinian". "How can you possibly tell from this distance, where we
> can't hear anything?" I asked. She walked down to the other end and
> listened to them for a moment, and reported back: "They're Argentinian".
>
> For a long time I couldn't recognize an Argentinian accent, but well
> before that I could easily recognize a Chilean imitating an Argentinian.

Thank you for re-recounting that story, Athel. I believe you told the
same story - about your wife's ability to recognise the Argentinian from
afar - last time around also.

Google groups being semi-retired, I could not find my original post.
Perhaps you can, in your own archive of 'sent' posts?