|
oops (:-( - photo now here.
|
oops (:-( - photo now here.
In article ,
Sacha wrote: On 2012-10-30 18:36:23 +0000, "Pete" said: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8130344...in/photostream Dangerous to ask for a positive ID on the internet, imo. Not at all - all that is dangerous is to actually rely on it! I am pretty sure that I could guess, but I won't. As a general rule, NEVER eat any fungus that you have not positively identified as being definitely not one of the lethal ones. So don't eat it. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
oops (:-( - photo now here.
wrote in message ... In article , Sacha wrote: On 2012-10-30 18:36:23 +0000, "Pete" said: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8130344...in/photostream Dangerous to ask for a positive ID on the internet, imo. Not at all - all that is dangerous is to actually rely on it! I am pretty sure that I could guess, but I won't. As a general rule, NEVER eat any fungus that you have not positively identified as being definitely not one of the lethal ones. So don't eat it. I will take that as a "not to eat" then - lol An attempt at an (impositive) id would be welcomed, all the same (:-) Thanks Pete |
oops (:-( - photo now here.
On 30/10/2012 22:02, Pete wrote:
wrote in message ... In article , Sacha wrote: On 2012-10-30 18:36:23 +0000, "Pete" said: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8130344...in/photostream Dangerous to ask for a positive ID on the internet, imo. Not at all - all that is dangerous is to actually rely on it! I am pretty sure that I could guess, but I won't. As a general rule, NEVER eat any fungus that you have not positively identified as being definitely not one of the lethal ones. So don't eat it. I will take that as a "not to eat" then - lol An attempt at an (impositive) id would be welcomed, all the same (:-) Thanks Pete Looks as if it might be this http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevegreaves/5088679337/ |
oops (:-( - photo now here.
"Pete" wrote in message ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/8130344...in/photostream Pete I wouldn't even consider eating it. I had a bad experience a while ago by eating a mushroom in my garden that I thought I'd identified as safe from my book and got well told off on here, rightly so. I was on the toilet for two days. My mushrooms now come from the supermarket. Tina |
oops (:-( - photo now here.
|
oops (:-( - photo now here.
In article ,
David Hill wrote: On 30/10/2012 22:02, Pete wrote: I will take that as a "not to eat" then - lol An attempt at an (impositive) id would be welcomed, all the same (:-) Looks as if it might be this http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevegreaves/5088679337/ I am almost certain that it is NOT that! Sorry. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
oops (:-( - photo now here.
"Christina Websell" wrote in message ... "Pete" wrote in message ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/8130344...in/photostream Pete I wouldn't even consider eating it. I had a bad experience a while ago by eating a mushroom in my garden that I thought I'd identified as safe from my book and got well told off on here, rightly so. I was on the toilet for two days. My mushrooms now come from the supermarket. Tina Thanks everybody, and David for having a go. No, I do not think in is one of those David - mine has an unusually pronounced convex bottom. Sorry my piccy did not show this very well. And worry not folks peter will not be eating it or any of its offspring until he has got expert guidance. Just that it the biggest fungi that has ever appeared on any lawn that I have ever owned that I recall (:-) |
oops (:-( - photo now here.
I wouldn't even consider eating it. I had a bad experience a while ago by eating a mushroom in my garden that I thought I'd identified as safe from my book and got well told off on here, rightly so. I was on the toilet for two days. My mushrooms now come from the supermarket. Tina Thanks Tina - worry not - its worst fate would have been to be "souped" then frozen. Time then to get the wise to judge (:-) I have read the dire warnings on the internet, you were lucky to escape with just the toilet effect not "the box they carry you off in" result !! Pete |
oops (:-( - photo now here.
Sacha wrote in :
On 2012-10-30 18:36:23 +0000, "Pete" said: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8130344...in/photostream Pete Dangerous to ask for a positive ID on the internet, imo. Looks like one of my Yorkshire puds. DO NOT EAT. Can cause swelling of waist, hips, buttocks and thighs. Seriously though, I agree with Sacha. Never trust the internet in matters like this, especially any Wiki sites. Baz |
Quote:
|
oops (:-( - photo now here.
"Baz" wrote in message ... Sacha wrote in : On 2012-10-30 18:36:23 +0000, "Pete" said: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8130344...in/photostream Pete Dangerous to ask for a positive ID on the internet, imo. Looks like one of my Yorkshire puds. DO NOT EAT. Can cause swelling of waist, hips, buttocks and thighs. Seriously though, I agree with Sacha. Never trust the internet in matters like this, especially any Wiki sites. Baz Nothing dangerous in asking - though Baz ! Nick - I would agree on that - I have a similar one to that as well, about 10ft away from the mystery one ! It is about half the size though. Pete |
oops (:-( - photo now here.
Dangerous to ask for a positive ID on the internet, imo. Looks like one of my Yorkshire puds. DO NOT EAT. Can cause swelling of waist, hips, buttocks and thighs. Seriously though, I agree with Sacha. Never trust the internet in matters like this, especially any Wiki sites. Baz Nothing dangerous in asking - though Baz ! Nick - I would agree on that - I have a similar one to that as well, about 10ft away from the mystery one ! It is about half the size though. Pete Rekon this is the common one per the illustration already posted by David above as mentioned above. http://www.flickr.com/photos/8130344...in/photostream Pete |
oops (:-( - photo now here.
In article ,
Pete wrote: Nick - I would agree on that - I have a similar one to that as well, about 10ft away from the mystery one ! It is about half the size though. Rekon this is the common one per the illustration already posted by David above as mentioned above. http://www.flickr.com/photos/8130344...in/photostream I don't think that the original was a Boletus - that's easy to check, because Boleti have spongy pores, and I suspect that one has gills. It might be a Lactarius, in which case it would weep milky sap when broken, but there are other possibilities. There is a Hebeloma that grows in my garden that looks similar, but it's not one of the most common ones. Neither Boletus nor Lactarius are particularly dangerous, because the key indicator is pretty obvious, and none of the REALLY lethal fungi belong to either. But some of them are definitely poisonous, and mere diarrhoea and vomiting can kill people with prexisting problems. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
oops (:-( - photo now here.
"Pete" wrote in
: "Baz" wrote in message . .. Sacha wrote in : On 2012-10-30 18:36:23 +0000, "Pete" said: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8130344...in/photostream Pete Dangerous to ask for a positive ID on the internet, imo. Looks like one of my Yorkshire puds. DO NOT EAT. Can cause swelling of waist, hips, buttocks and thighs. Seriously though, I agree with Sacha. Never trust the internet in matters like this, especially any Wiki sites. Baz Nothing dangerous in asking - though Baz ! Yes, Pete, but respectfuly some people take as a fact things written on the internet. Not you. People who are not as savvy as you. Nick - I would agree on that - I have a similar one to that as well, about 10ft away from the mystery one ! It is about half the size though. Pete Baz |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter