In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
On 07/09/2020 11:53, David wrote:


Just to confirm, are you saying that the plant I asked to be IDd is "good
eating"?

Here's a "two star review"

https://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?Lat...opodium+rubrum

That Web site is pretty awful, and has more arse-covering than useful
information. Compare that entry with its ones for C. giganteum and
C. album, which most definitely ARE good eating and not toxic. The
difference in edibility ratings is not supported by anything in the
text that I can see, and it's the same as Rumex crispus (also edible).
God help us all, Rumex acetosa gets FIVE stars and that's definitely
toxic in excess!

I am pretty sure that they use the word edibility where palatability
would be more accurate.

My rule of thumb is don't eat something if you're not 110% sure of what
it is.

Hmm. You're a better botanist than THAT, surely! My rule is to try
something if (a) it seems interesting and (b) nothing I could mistake
it for is seriously toxic. As you know, toxins run in families, and
I am paranoid only about plants in dangerous families or ones that I
can't be sure aren't. For example, if it's a brassica, but it's not
clear which, why not? And, if were another of the cruciferae, there
aren't any real nasties in the UK that I know of.

But I don't eat ANY wild umbelliferae, despite the edibility of many,
as I am not good enough on them, and there ARE some real nasties.
Even eating carrot or parsnip tops (as is sometimes proposed) isn't
a good idea.

In particular, when you eat seedling greens (very trendy), you can't
be absolutely sure what they are, even from a supermarket.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.