|
Poisonous plants
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , "Charlie Pridham" writes: | | name) Strychnos toxifera or curare. You could tell from the length that it was intended to cover only common garden plants - I didn't know that was one. I will experiment with some families but, as you know, I have enough botanical and toxological knowledge to make an educated guess. I will not experiment with the solanaceae or fabaceae/leguminoseae, despite the number of food plants in those families! Nor will I trust Web pages that say they are edible without further evidence (black nightshade being the obvious example). Regards, Nick Maclaren. I know Strychnos toxifera is not a common garden plant! but its relative Gelsemium isn't exactly common in this country either and that's on the list at least twice! I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. (which I am pretty sure most people won't read) Where I do think they have a point is when something unexpected happens like hogweed sap irritation when normal gardening practice may need to be changed, I also think pointing out to people that plants like euphorbia which may cause them skin problems but would prove lethal to fish if the sap were to get into the water. -- Charlie, gardening in Cornwall. http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs) |
Poisonous plants
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:16:14 +0100, Charlie Pridham wrote:
I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. IMHO, there's a real downside to overdoing the "poisonous plant" schtick as some of the earth-mother crowd are wont. Namely, by running around claiming that nearly every garden plant is "poisonous", you obscure the fact that some plants present genuine, serious hazards not to be sneezed at. Aconitum napellus, the common monkshood, is very poisonous, in the true sense of the word: it won't just give you a tummy ache if you ingest it: it can easily kill you. As long as you grow it in the perennial border, it probably doesn't present a real threat, but you don't want to grow it anywhere near a patch of Jerusalem artichokes because the roots of the two look too much alike. There are other Aconitum species that are even more poisonous, Aconitum ferox being so much so that knowledgable sorts won't even consider having it in their gardens. (Some of the fiercer natives of Myanmar and adjacent parts traditionally used it to poison their arrows.) If a booklet of "poisonous plants" runs into dozens or hundreds of common garden denizens, the genuine hazard presented by aconitum, among others, may be obscured by the presence of irrelevancies. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada [change "atlantic" to "pacific" and "invalid" to "net" to reply by email] |
Poisonous plants
Rodger Whitlock17/4/04 1:53
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:16:14 +0100, Charlie Pridham wrote: I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. IMHO, there's a real downside to overdoing the "poisonous plant" schtick as some of the earth-mother crowd are wont. Namely, by running around claiming that nearly every garden plant is "poisonous", you obscure the fact that some plants present genuine, serious hazards not to be sneezed at. Yes but if nursery owners *don't* give a warning, they could be in trouble, even if all little Johnnie gets is a skin rash. ;-( Aconitum napellus, the common monkshood, is very poisonous, in the true sense of the word: it won't just give you a tummy ache if you ingest it: it can easily kill you. As long as you grow it in the perennial border, it probably doesn't present a real threat, but you don't want to grow it anywhere near a patch of Jerusalem artichokes because the roots of the two look too much alike. Shame because it's a handsome plant. snip -- Sacha (remove the weeds to email me) |
Poisonous plants
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , "Charlie Pridham" writes: | | name) Strychnos toxifera or curare. You could tell from the length that it was intended to cover only common garden plants - I didn't know that was one. I will experiment with some families but, as you know, I have enough botanical and toxological knowledge to make an educated guess. I will not experiment with the solanaceae or fabaceae/leguminoseae, despite the number of food plants in those families! Nor will I trust Web pages that say they are edible without further evidence (black nightshade being the obvious example). Regards, Nick Maclaren. I know Strychnos toxifera is not a common garden plant! but its relative Gelsemium isn't exactly common in this country either and that's on the list at least twice! I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. (which I am pretty sure most people won't read) Where I do think they have a point is when something unexpected happens like hogweed sap irritation when normal gardening practice may need to be changed, I also think pointing out to people that plants like euphorbia which may cause them skin problems but would prove lethal to fish if the sap were to get into the water. -- Charlie, gardening in Cornwall. http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs) |
Poisonous plants
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , "Charlie Pridham" writes: | | name) Strychnos toxifera or curare. You could tell from the length that it was intended to cover only common garden plants - I didn't know that was one. I will experiment with some families but, as you know, I have enough botanical and toxological knowledge to make an educated guess. I will not experiment with the solanaceae or fabaceae/leguminoseae, despite the number of food plants in those families! Nor will I trust Web pages that say they are edible without further evidence (black nightshade being the obvious example). Regards, Nick Maclaren. I know Strychnos toxifera is not a common garden plant! but its relative Gelsemium isn't exactly common in this country either and that's on the list at least twice! I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. (which I am pretty sure most people won't read) Where I do think they have a point is when something unexpected happens like hogweed sap irritation when normal gardening practice may need to be changed, I also think pointing out to people that plants like euphorbia which may cause them skin problems but would prove lethal to fish if the sap were to get into the water. -- Charlie, gardening in Cornwall. http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs) |
Poisonous plants
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:16:14 +0100, Charlie Pridham wrote:
I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. IMHO, there's a real downside to overdoing the "poisonous plant" schtick as some of the earth-mother crowd are wont. Namely, by running around claiming that nearly every garden plant is "poisonous", you obscure the fact that some plants present genuine, serious hazards not to be sneezed at. Aconitum napellus, the common monkshood, is very poisonous, in the true sense of the word: it won't just give you a tummy ache if you ingest it: it can easily kill you. As long as you grow it in the perennial border, it probably doesn't present a real threat, but you don't want to grow it anywhere near a patch of Jerusalem artichokes because the roots of the two look too much alike. There are other Aconitum species that are even more poisonous, Aconitum ferox being so much so that knowledgable sorts won't even consider having it in their gardens. (Some of the fiercer natives of Myanmar and adjacent parts traditionally used it to poison their arrows.) If a booklet of "poisonous plants" runs into dozens or hundreds of common garden denizens, the genuine hazard presented by aconitum, among others, may be obscured by the presence of irrelevancies. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada [change "atlantic" to "pacific" and "invalid" to "net" to reply by email] |
Poisonous plants
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , "Charlie Pridham" writes: | | name) Strychnos toxifera or curare. You could tell from the length that it was intended to cover only common garden plants - I didn't know that was one. I will experiment with some families but, as you know, I have enough botanical and toxological knowledge to make an educated guess. I will not experiment with the solanaceae or fabaceae/leguminoseae, despite the number of food plants in those families! Nor will I trust Web pages that say they are edible without further evidence (black nightshade being the obvious example). Regards, Nick Maclaren. I know Strychnos toxifera is not a common garden plant! but its relative Gelsemium isn't exactly common in this country either and that's on the list at least twice! I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. (which I am pretty sure most people won't read) Where I do think they have a point is when something unexpected happens like hogweed sap irritation when normal gardening practice may need to be changed, I also think pointing out to people that plants like euphorbia which may cause them skin problems but would prove lethal to fish if the sap were to get into the water. -- Charlie, gardening in Cornwall. http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs) |
Poisonous plants
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:16:14 +0100, Charlie Pridham wrote:
I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. IMHO, there's a real downside to overdoing the "poisonous plant" schtick as some of the earth-mother crowd are wont. Namely, by running around claiming that nearly every garden plant is "poisonous", you obscure the fact that some plants present genuine, serious hazards not to be sneezed at. Aconitum napellus, the common monkshood, is very poisonous, in the true sense of the word: it won't just give you a tummy ache if you ingest it: it can easily kill you. As long as you grow it in the perennial border, it probably doesn't present a real threat, but you don't want to grow it anywhere near a patch of Jerusalem artichokes because the roots of the two look too much alike. There are other Aconitum species that are even more poisonous, Aconitum ferox being so much so that knowledgable sorts won't even consider having it in their gardens. (Some of the fiercer natives of Myanmar and adjacent parts traditionally used it to poison their arrows.) If a booklet of "poisonous plants" runs into dozens or hundreds of common garden denizens, the genuine hazard presented by aconitum, among others, may be obscured by the presence of irrelevancies. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada [change "atlantic" to "pacific" and "invalid" to "net" to reply by email] |
Poisonous plants
Rodger Whitlock17/4/04 1:53
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:16:14 +0100, Charlie Pridham wrote: I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. IMHO, there's a real downside to overdoing the "poisonous plant" schtick as some of the earth-mother crowd are wont. Namely, by running around claiming that nearly every garden plant is "poisonous", you obscure the fact that some plants present genuine, serious hazards not to be sneezed at. Yes but if nursery owners *don't* give a warning, they could be in trouble, even if all little Johnnie gets is a skin rash. ;-( Aconitum napellus, the common monkshood, is very poisonous, in the true sense of the word: it won't just give you a tummy ache if you ingest it: it can easily kill you. As long as you grow it in the perennial border, it probably doesn't present a real threat, but you don't want to grow it anywhere near a patch of Jerusalem artichokes because the roots of the two look too much alike. Shame because it's a handsome plant. snip -- Sacha (remove the weeds to email me) |
Poisonous plants
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , "Charlie Pridham" writes: | | name) Strychnos toxifera or curare. You could tell from the length that it was intended to cover only common garden plants - I didn't know that was one. I will experiment with some families but, as you know, I have enough botanical and toxological knowledge to make an educated guess. I will not experiment with the solanaceae or fabaceae/leguminoseae, despite the number of food plants in those families! Nor will I trust Web pages that say they are edible without further evidence (black nightshade being the obvious example). Regards, Nick Maclaren. I know Strychnos toxifera is not a common garden plant! but its relative Gelsemium isn't exactly common in this country either and that's on the list at least twice! I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. (which I am pretty sure most people won't read) Where I do think they have a point is when something unexpected happens like hogweed sap irritation when normal gardening practice may need to be changed, I also think pointing out to people that plants like euphorbia which may cause them skin problems but would prove lethal to fish if the sap were to get into the water. -- Charlie, gardening in Cornwall. http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs) |
Poisonous plants
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:16:14 +0100, Charlie Pridham wrote:
I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. IMHO, there's a real downside to overdoing the "poisonous plant" schtick as some of the earth-mother crowd are wont. Namely, by running around claiming that nearly every garden plant is "poisonous", you obscure the fact that some plants present genuine, serious hazards not to be sneezed at. Aconitum napellus, the common monkshood, is very poisonous, in the true sense of the word: it won't just give you a tummy ache if you ingest it: it can easily kill you. As long as you grow it in the perennial border, it probably doesn't present a real threat, but you don't want to grow it anywhere near a patch of Jerusalem artichokes because the roots of the two look too much alike. There are other Aconitum species that are even more poisonous, Aconitum ferox being so much so that knowledgable sorts won't even consider having it in their gardens. (Some of the fiercer natives of Myanmar and adjacent parts traditionally used it to poison their arrows.) If a booklet of "poisonous plants" runs into dozens or hundreds of common garden denizens, the genuine hazard presented by aconitum, among others, may be obscured by the presence of irrelevancies. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada [change "atlantic" to "pacific" and "invalid" to "net" to reply by email] |
Poisonous plants
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , "Charlie Pridham" writes: | | name) Strychnos toxifera or curare. You could tell from the length that it was intended to cover only common garden plants - I didn't know that was one. I will experiment with some families but, as you know, I have enough botanical and toxological knowledge to make an educated guess. I will not experiment with the solanaceae or fabaceae/leguminoseae, despite the number of food plants in those families! Nor will I trust Web pages that say they are edible without further evidence (black nightshade being the obvious example). Regards, Nick Maclaren. I know Strychnos toxifera is not a common garden plant! but its relative Gelsemium isn't exactly common in this country either and that's on the list at least twice! I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. (which I am pretty sure most people won't read) Where I do think they have a point is when something unexpected happens like hogweed sap irritation when normal gardening practice may need to be changed, I also think pointing out to people that plants like euphorbia which may cause them skin problems but would prove lethal to fish if the sap were to get into the water. -- Charlie, gardening in Cornwall. http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs) |
Poisonous plants
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:16:14 +0100, Charlie Pridham wrote:
I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. IMHO, there's a real downside to overdoing the "poisonous plant" schtick as some of the earth-mother crowd are wont. Namely, by running around claiming that nearly every garden plant is "poisonous", you obscure the fact that some plants present genuine, serious hazards not to be sneezed at. Aconitum napellus, the common monkshood, is very poisonous, in the true sense of the word: it won't just give you a tummy ache if you ingest it: it can easily kill you. As long as you grow it in the perennial border, it probably doesn't present a real threat, but you don't want to grow it anywhere near a patch of Jerusalem artichokes because the roots of the two look too much alike. There are other Aconitum species that are even more poisonous, Aconitum ferox being so much so that knowledgable sorts won't even consider having it in their gardens. (Some of the fiercer natives of Myanmar and adjacent parts traditionally used it to poison their arrows.) If a booklet of "poisonous plants" runs into dozens or hundreds of common garden denizens, the genuine hazard presented by aconitum, among others, may be obscured by the presence of irrelevancies. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada [change "atlantic" to "pacific" and "invalid" to "net" to reply by email] |
Poisonous plants
Rodger Whitlock17/4/04 1:53
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:16:14 +0100, Charlie Pridham wrote: I was just having a bit of a general grump about having to put toxicity warnings on all plants when there are so many ways a plant can harm you, that you are in danger of having a booklet sized label for them. IMHO, there's a real downside to overdoing the "poisonous plant" schtick as some of the earth-mother crowd are wont. Namely, by running around claiming that nearly every garden plant is "poisonous", you obscure the fact that some plants present genuine, serious hazards not to be sneezed at. Yes but if nursery owners *don't* give a warning, they could be in trouble, even if all little Johnnie gets is a skin rash. ;-( Aconitum napellus, the common monkshood, is very poisonous, in the true sense of the word: it won't just give you a tummy ache if you ingest it: it can easily kill you. As long as you grow it in the perennial border, it probably doesn't present a real threat, but you don't want to grow it anywhere near a patch of Jerusalem artichokes because the roots of the two look too much alike. Shame because it's a handsome plant. snip -- Sacha (remove the weeds to email me) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter