"Sacha" wrote in message
o.uk...
Neil Jones13/4/04 3:25

snip

I just raised a simple point - that half the plants on "Poisonous
plants" list were actually described as non-toxic.

Years ago, my grandmother pricked herself with a rose thorn and the
wound turned nasty. The doctor told her to put her hand in water as hot
as she could stand in order to "draw the poison" - she scalded herself.

Neil

"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)

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]

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)

"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)

"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)

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]

"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)

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]

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)

"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)

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]

"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)

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]

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)