In article , Muhammar
writes
Dear Archimedes,

try some Aconita plant on yourself - the leaves, the potato-like
roots, any part of it if you like.

It is a beautiful decorative plant. It will provide you with a
definitive answer to your questions.

Don't try this - Aconitum (sic) is one of the deadlier plants.

Suggesting the consumption of Aconitum (Wolfsbane), even in jest, is at
best irresponsible - not only is it possible that AP might take the
proposal at face value, but so might some innocent browsing a newsgroup
archive in the future. I recommend you cancel the post, and contact
Google to have it removed from their archive.


Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message news:417B61EE.394367
...

I suspect there is not a single plant seed or leaf when eaten can kill a
person. I guess that these plant poisons have to be taken in quantity
such as the Yew berry in order to kill a person. So has any scientist
made a precise data sheet on poisons?

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:25:07 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:

Suggesting the consumption of Aconitum (Wolfsbane), even in jest, is at
best irresponsible - not only is it possible that AP might take the
proposal at face value, but so might some innocent browsing a newsgroup
archive in the future. I recommend you cancel the post, and contact
Google to have it removed from their archive.

Nah, leave it there. If it results in the removal of but one complete
moron from the gene pool, it's worth it.

Steve Turner

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote in message news:

Don't try this - Aconitum (sic) is one of the deadlier plants.

Suggesting the consumption of Aconitum (Wolfsbane), even in jest, is at
best irresponsible - not only is it possible that AP might take the
proposal at face value, but so might some innocent browsing a newsgroup
archive in the future. I recommend you cancel the post, and contact
Google to have it removed from their archive.


Yeah, but Archimedes is a real annoying ass and since he is doing
Darwin-award experiments on himself already, he might just want to go
all the way. While we are on the subject: chicken marsala made with
few bits of common amanita phalloidum would work just as fine as
wolfbane but slower.

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:25:07 +0100 Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

In article , Muhammar
writes
Dear Archimedes,

try some Aconita plant on yourself - the leaves, the potato-like
roots, any part of it if you like.

It is a beautiful decorative plant. It will provide you with a
definitive answer to your questions.

Don't try this - Aconitum (sic) is one of the deadlier plants.

Suggesting the consumption of Aconitum (Wolfsbane), even in jest, is at
best irresponsible - not only is it possible that AP might take the
proposal at face value, but so might some innocent browsing a newsgroup
archive in the future. I recommend you cancel the post, and contact
Google to have it removed from their archive.


Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message news:417B61EE.394367
...

I suspect there is not a single plant seed or leaf when eaten can kill a
person. I guess that these plant poisons have to be taken in quantity
such as the Yew berry in order to kill a person. So has any scientist
made a precise data sheet on poisons?

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Good post Stewart! I had a hidden agenda in starting this thread. I want to get to
the issue of Plant to Animal Duality which should surface in poisons. So far a
discussion revolves around the poisoning of animals by plants. But the reverse
question of the poisoning of plants by animals is seldom if ever made an issue of.
And if Plant Kingdom is the dual compliment of Animal Kingdom then poisoning would
be part of that larger picture.

And I should also add the warning about my past actions. When I sample something of
a plant that is unknown to me if it tastes at all bitter or acrid or unpallatable I
immediately spit it out and consider it poisonous. Also is something is colorful or
"white" is signs that it is likely poisonous.

I had a motive of posting this thread in the manner in which I did and of sampling
the Eounymus seed in that I wanted to brew up a discussion of poisonous plants to
animals first and then set down the big question. If Plant Kingdom is complimentary
dual to Animal Kingdom then their poisons to one another should be of a pattern that
is far different from the pattern expected of Darwin-Evolution.

I am aware of Darwinian Evolution of poison of animals to animals such as the
salamander to gartersnakes in the Pacific Northwest.

But if Animals are duals to Plants then overall there should be a different pattern
to poisoning of one to another. Because if they are Complimentary Duals then there
should not exist any poison of one kingdom to the compliment dual kingdom that is a
knock them out and kill with a small quantity.

So what is the worst that animals can do to plants in terms of poisoning? The worst
that I can think of is that some plants cannot take urination such as dogs.
In fact I can not think of anything else wherein some animal poisons a plant.

So if that is true that a few Plants have a poison that poisons animals but wherein
the poisoning is a rare occurence and the reverse where there are "no animals" able
to poison plants suggests the Quantum Dual Compliment theory of Plant Kingdom the
dual of Animal Kingdom is more correct than the Darwin Theory.

It makes more sense on the broader scheme in that if these kingdoms are duals to one
another then they do not want to poison one another.

But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would have created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

It is the reverse analysis of animals poisoning plants that has seldom if ever be
given a deep analysis.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:


But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would have created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

(There are a few exceptions to plants not eating animals. Are there
any poisons involved here? I don't know. Given the way these plants
work, I doubt it. But this would be the place to look. Can any animal
that is trapped by a carnivorous plant kill/inhibit it and escape?)

bob

In article , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

(There are a few exceptions to plants not eating animals. Are there
any poisons involved here? I don't know. Given the way these plants
work, I doubt it. But this would be the place to look. Can any animal
that is trapped by a carnivorous plant kill/inhibit it and escape?)

I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.


Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Bruce Sinclair wrote,

In article ,
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

Strangely enough some plants do produce deadly toxins to defend
themselves. Castor bean secretes Ricin, jimson weed (and other
daturas) belladona compounds and we have stramonium in potato eyes.

Hemlock didn't grow poisonous with idea the Socrates would make
its draught famous. Aminita Phallodies kills mushroom lovers every
year. Digitalis is very handy with a toxin so mild it can be used
to control heart rate but an overdose will kill a healthy person.

All sorts of plants are out there with toxins and sometimes
animals, usually insects or insect larva can absorb it to poison
their enemies.

Finally the chemicals in certain plants are definity toxic but
so interesting in their effects that mankind goes out of it way to
cultivate them. Tobacco for one and nicotine is a deadly poison
even without its long term use. Coca plants give us cocaine which
is of course what makes the inhabitation of the Alto Plano possible
though the native only chew the leaves and don't extract the
alkaloid. Cocao of course is the basis of chocolate and despite
the name of the dessert the deadly dose is more than anyone can
eat. Willow secretes salicylates and was used for fever before
Bayer synthesized aspirin.

A lot of the poisonous plants are things that people never
consider eating but are used in OTC drugs or were when I was
a lot younger.


(There are a few exceptions to plants not eating animals. Are there
any poisons involved here? I don't know. Given the way these plants
work, I doubt it. But this would be the place to look. Can any animal
that is trapped by a carnivorous plant kill/inhibit it and escape?)

Animals make great fertiliser.


I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.

There lots of cooperative interactions and plants might have
a hard time existing without the insects and a few other creatures
that carry pollen from male flowers to female. Acorns that squirrels
don't eat have a chance of growing to adulthood.

Bruce

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered ...

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco
bliss at california dot com

"bobbie sellers" wrote in message ...

Strangely enough some plants do produce deadly toxins to defend
themselves. Castor bean secretes Ricin, jimson weed (and other
daturas) belladona compounds and we have stramonium in potato eyes.

Hemlock didn't grow poisonous with idea the Socrates would make
its draught famous. Aminita Phallodies kills mushroom lovers every
year. Digitalis is very handy with a toxin so mild it can be used
to control heart rate but an overdose will kill a healthy person.

All sorts of plants are out there with toxins and sometimes
animals, usually insects or insect larva can absorb it to poison
their enemies.

Finally the chemicals in certain plants are definity toxic but
so interesting in their effects that mankind goes out of it way to
cultivate them. Tobacco for one and nicotine is a deadly poison
even without its long term use. Coca plants give us cocaine which
is of course what makes the inhabitation of the Alto Plano possible
though the native only chew the leaves and don't extract the
alkaloid. Cocao of course is the basis of chocolate and despite
the name of the dessert the deadly dose is more than anyone can
eat. Willow secretes salicylates and was used for fever before
Bayer synthesized aspirin.

A lot of the poisonous plants are things that people never
consider eating but are used in OTC drugs or were when I was
a lot younger.

You can hardly get past the first page of ANY toxicology textbook
without reading that the dose makes the poison. All of the toxins you
mentioned, digitalis, nicotine,... are not mild poisons, as they have
fairly low LD50's. Butulina toxin is one of the most toxic of all
poisons, but properly diluted is used to take the wrinkles out of John
Kerry's forehead. In the other extreme, water has a very high LD50,
but people have killed themselves by drinking too much of it.

Again, it is the dose that makes the poison.

John

In article , "bobbie sellers" wrote:
Bruce Sinclair wrote,
In article ,

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would
have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

Strangely enough some plants do produce deadly toxins to defend
themselves. Castor bean secretes Ricin, jimson weed (and other
daturas) belladona compounds and we have stramonium in potato eyes.

Aside ... I wrote exactly nothing of what is above That said ...

Indeed ... but this sort of thing is usually defences against insects, are
they not ?

Hemlock didn't grow poisonous with idea the Socrates would make
its draught famous. Aminita Phallodies kills mushroom lovers every
year. Digitalis is very handy with a toxin so mild it can be used
to control heart rate but an overdose will kill a healthy person.

And some species can eat things that will kill others. We have a bird that
eats toxic seeds and copes just fine thank you

All sorts of plants are out there with toxins and sometimes
animals, usually insects or insect larva can absorb it to poison
their enemies.

Yep. Nothing so strange as real life

I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.

Aside ... this (above) I wrote

There lots of cooperative interactions and plants might have
a hard time existing without the insects and a few other creatures
that carry pollen from male flowers to female. Acorns that squirrels
don't eat have a chance of growing to adulthood.

There are some plants so specialised that if you take their (usually insect)
friends away, they can't breed ... or sometimes survive.



Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Animals have very complex enzyme systems - monooxygenases, etc. to
detoxify plant compounds; plants and microbes produce a huge diversity
of compounds that are anywhere from mildly toxic to extremely toxic
(e.g., ricin, aflatoxin). However, those compounds are not
necessarily made by the plants or microbes to be toxic to animals.
For example, aflatoxin is one of the most highly toxic and
carcinogenic compounds there is, but it is only toxic to animals that
have certain monooxygenases that "activate" aflatoxin into its toxic
state; it is also hard to see how making aflatoxin would protect a
common fungus that grows in the soil or on peanuts and corn
(Aspergillus flavus) from mammals that make the particular
monooxygenase. Thus, just because a plant or microbe makes something
that happens to be toxic to humans does not mean that it makes that
compound in order to be a toxic defense mechanism.


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:00:08 GMT,
z (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

In article , "bobbie sellers" wrote:
Bruce Sinclair wrote,
In article ,

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would
have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

Strangely enough some plants do produce deadly toxins to defend
themselves. Castor bean secretes Ricin, jimson weed (and other
daturas) belladona compounds and we have stramonium in potato eyes.

Aside ... I wrote exactly nothing of what is above That said ...

Indeed ... but this sort of thing is usually defences against insects, are
they not ?

Hemlock didn't grow poisonous with idea the Socrates would make
its draught famous. Aminita Phallodies kills mushroom lovers every
year. Digitalis is very handy with a toxin so mild it can be used
to control heart rate but an overdose will kill a healthy person.

And some species can eat things that will kill others. We have a bird that
eats toxic seeds and copes just fine thank you

All sorts of plants are out there with toxins and sometimes
animals, usually insects or insect larva can absorb it to poison
their enemies.

Yep. Nothing so strange as real life

I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.

Aside ... this (above) I wrote

There lots of cooperative interactions and plants might have
a hard time existing without the insects and a few other creatures
that carry pollen from male flowers to female. Acorns that squirrels
don't eat have a chance of growing to adulthood.

There are some plants so specialised that if you take their (usually insect)
friends away, they can't breed ... or sometimes survive.



Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Of course there is the possibility that toxic plants were planted by
Aliens.........


"Bruce Sinclair" wrote in
message ...
In article ,
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would
have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have
created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

(There are a few exceptions to plants not eating animals. Are there
any poisons involved here? I don't know. Given the way these plants
work, I doubt it. But this would be the place to look. Can any animal
that is trapped by a carnivorous plant kill/inhibit it and escape?)

I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.


Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

"Peter Jason" wrote in
:

Of course there is the possibility that toxic plants were planted
by Aliens.........



I did not!

Sean

z (Bruce Sinclair) wrote in message ...
In article , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

(There are a few exceptions to plants not eating animals. Are there
any poisons involved here? I don't know. Given the way these plants
work, I doubt it. But this would be the place to look. Can any animal
that is trapped by a carnivorous plant kill/inhibit it and escape?)

I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.


COMMENT:

Of course. Indeed you only find plants trying to poison animals eating
the wrong parts of them, like roots, stems, leaves. Which is why
herbals medicines come from those things-- herbals are dilute plant
poisons, as are many medicines, at base. The difference between herbs
and spices is which part of the plant they come from-- spices are from
parts the plants are more willing to give up, and thus are generally
less toxic.

Nor is it a coincidence that most medicinal plants come from tropical
climates. In temperature climates, plants get rest from insects when
winter kills them off, and they don't come back in numbers to do
damage until later in the growing season. So some plants get along
without much insect poison at all. In the tropics, it's chemical
warfare ALL the time.

Plants will discourage eating of fruits generally only if at the wrong
time, by making them toxic or at least sour. It's pretty rare you find
toxic fruits, and even then the plant is trying to discourage animals
that don't carry seeds, rather than ones that do.


SBH

Bob wrote in
:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:


But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom
would have created a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and
the animals would have created highly toxic poisons to alot of
plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not
need poisons to defend themselves against plants.

(There are a few exceptions to plants not eating animals. Are
there any poisons involved here? I don't know. Given the way these
plants work, I doubt it. But this would be the place to look. Can
any animal that is trapped by a carnivorous plant kill/inhibit it
and escape?)


There are 3 trap systems that carnivorous plants use. Bottles,
Sticky Snares, and Closing Boxes. (I made all those terms up for
this post)

Bottles are passive traps that contain digestive fluids, and
generally downward pointing hairs to prevent escape. To escape, an
animal must either not sink in the fluid, or be able to chew their
way out, Another option would be to be immune to the digestive
action of the fluids, which I believe that there are a few mosquitos
or other flies that can do that, their larvae eat the plants
victims, the adults escape because they float. There is no toxicity
toward the plant though, only defense against the digestive action.
Pitcher plants such as Sarracenia and Darlingtonia are Bottle traps

Sticky Snares are usually hairs that have glands that produce a
sticky, digestive substance. The hairs are often, but not always
capable of moving to improve the success of the catch. To escape,
your victim must be strong enough to pull out of the glue. Using
some sort of chemical would be useless, unless it is capable of
breaking down the glue. Sundews (Drosera) are common users of Sticky
Snares, along with Butterworts (Pinguicula).


Closing Boxes are traps that move quickly when they are stimulated
by the presence of an animal. They generally have some trigger that
sets them off, they trap the unfortunate, and then close more slowly
to seal their fate. Venus Fly-trap has long trichomes that prevent
escape after the first motion. To escape, you must either be strong
enough to open the trap, or be able to chew your way out. To use
chemistry, the trapped animal would have to produce some compound
that reverses the action of the trap, or fools the trap into
thinking that there is nothing there. Bladderworts (Utricularia) and
Venus Fly-trap (Dionaea) use a Closing Box type of trap.

Sean

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:


But if Animals are duals to Plants then overall there should be a
different pattern to poisoning of one to another. Because if they
are Complimentary Duals then there should not exist any poison of
one kingdom to the compliment dual kingdom that is a knock them
out and kill with a small quantity.

So what is the worst that animals can do to plants in terms of
poisoning? The worst that I can think of is that some plants
cannot take urination such as dogs. In fact I can not think of
anything else wherein some animal poisons a plant.

So if that is true that a few Plants have a poison that poisons
animals but wherein the poisoning is a rare occurence and the
reverse where there are "no animals" able to poison plants
suggests the Quantum Dual Compliment theory of Plant Kingdom the
dual of Animal Kingdom is more correct than the Darwin Theory.

It makes more sense on the broader scheme in that if these
kingdoms are duals to one another then they do not want to poison
one another.

But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom
would have created a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and
the animals would have created highly toxic poisons to alot of
plants.

It is the reverse analysis of animals poisoning plants that has
seldom if ever be given a deep analysis.


There are a number of cases of an animal producing some chemical
substance that is deleterious to a plant. Many galls are formed by
an insect or other arthropod producing some toxin that the plant
deals with by growing tissue around it, thereby protecting and
feeding the buggie. Some plants can inhibit the growth of their
neighbors by a chemical attack, but you are looking for animals that
kill plants by doing something other than eating them.

I have not heard of any substance that an animal produces that tends
to produce death in the plant. Since most plants don't hunt down and
eat animals, there isn't any real advantage for animals to produce a
poison that will kill a plant.

Sean