Which Laurel?
 

I presume this is Laurel
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meow224/
I just want to be sure which type of laurel it is, as it might be usable for food. I think its Laurus nobilis. The blackish fruit are half an inch across.

thanks,
NT

Which Laurel?
 

In article ,
wrote:
I presume this is Laurel
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meow224/
I just want to be sure which type of laurel it is, as it might be
usable for food. I think its Laurus nobilis. The blackish fruit are
half an inch across.

IMG_5904-3 Laurel?

I don't. I think that, if you cut into them, they will have a stone.
It's Prunus laurocerasus. You probably won't kill yourself if you
use it in the quantities most people use bay leaves in, but it's
certainly a possibility.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Which Laurel?
 

On 12/09/2012 13:42, wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
I presume this is Laurel
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meow224/
I just want to be sure which type of laurel it is, as it might be
usable for food. I think its Laurus nobilis. The blackish fruit are
half an inch across.

IMG_5904-3 Laurel?

I don't. I think that, if you cut into them, they will have a stone.
It's Prunus laurocerasus. You probably won't kill yourself if you
use it in the quantities most people use bay leaves in, but it's
certainly a possibility.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


Forget it.
The leaves used to be used crushed in the bottom of a Jar to gas butterflys.

Which Laurel?
 

In message ,
writes
I presume this is Laurel
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meow224/
I just want to be sure which type of laurel it is, as it might be
usable for food. I think its Laurus nobilis. The blackish fruit are
half an inch across.

thanks,
NT

It's cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), and both leaves and fruits are
poisonous
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Which Laurel?
 

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:42:47 PM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
In article ,

meow2222 wrote:

I presume this is Laurel

http://www.flickr.com/photos/meow224/

I just want to be sure which type of laurel it is, as it might be

usable for food. I think its Laurus nobilis. The blackish fruit are

half an inch across.



IMG_5904-3 Laurel?



I don't. I think that, if you cut into them, they will have a stone.

It's Prunus laurocerasus. You probably won't kill yourself if you

use it in the quantities most people use bay leaves in, but it's

certainly a possibility.





Regards,

Nick Maclaren.

Ooh. Thank you


NT

Which Laurel?
 

In article ,
David Hill wrote:
On 12/09/2012 13:42, wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
I presume this is Laurel
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meow224/
I just want to be sure which type of laurel it is, as it might be
usable for food. I think its Laurus nobilis. The blackish fruit are
half an inch across.

IMG_5904-3 Laurel?

I don't. I think that, if you cut into them, they will have a stone.
It's Prunus laurocerasus. You probably won't kill yourself if you
use it in the quantities most people use bay leaves in, but it's
certainly a possibility.

Forget it.
The leaves used to be used crushed in the bottom of a Jar to gas butterflys.

Oh, yes, indeed - but remember that uses volatile cyanides, which
would (mostly) disappear during cooking. It has caused deaths,
but typically only when used in fairly large quantities. While
some people have used it to give an almond flavour, I wouldn't
risk it myself.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Unfortunately, the plants we colloquially call laurel in England, Prunus laurocerasus, P. lusitanica, and -quite different again - Aucuba japonica are not even members of the true laurel family. We call true laurel, bay (or bay-laurel for avoidance of confusion). The word bay comes via French baie from the latin for berry baca, and is first recorded in English in the early 16th century. The word laurel was known in English from the 13th century. In Greek, bay-laurel is called daphne, a name we have appropriated for something rather different.

This is a common situation - there are a limited number of simple common names for plants and animals and they tend to get reapplied to something else if the original referent is absent, or even just uncommon, locally. For example, the "sycamore" of the bible is a kind of fig tree. Here in England we appropriated the name for a kind of maple, because its leaves are lobed like those of the sycamore fig. In North America, they applied the name to some species of plane family, which have similar leaves to the sycamore maple. In North America, the names robin and blackbird are applied to quite different bids from the original European version. In Australia, names like ash and box are applied to various species of Eucalyptus, the original referents being absent there. In Spanish the word for oak is roble: but they don't have oak trees in South America, so there they apply it to a species of southern beech. Avellana is Spanish for hazel, but they don't have that in South Americal, so they apply it to a local proteaceous tree related to the Macadamia. In Bolivia I bought some Brazil nuts, and discovered the locals called them by the Spanish word for chestnuts.