Can we have a Flora and Fauna pioson "PICS" thread

[Stevie777]

I have bought a few books on wild edibles, Food for free being my latest purchase and i'm pretty disappointed to say the least. Drawings of plants tell me nothing. not detailed enough for my liking, I'm not playing a game here. This is your life you are playing with.

Could we start a thread with more detailed pics of deadly stuff, looks similar to edibles, but with a stay away warning.

We could grab pics from either our own archive or the internet that we could later download to our android phones or print off. I so wish someone would bring out a book with real life pics only instead of a artists impression of a plant he's maybe never seen close up or had experience with.

would it be so hard and or costly to do this.?

I'll start...False Chanterelle AKA the Jack-o-lantern.

[/URL][/IMG]

Omphalotus olearius, the Jack O'Lantern, exists in three variants or three different species depending on your viewpoint: a European form typically associated with olive trees, an orangish eastern species associated with hardwoods, and a greenish-orange California species associated with oaks. All glow in the dark. The eastern variant, known as Omphalotus illudens, has often been mistaken for Chanterelles and the mistake makes itself apparent in one to three hours with the onset of gastric upset lasting anywhere from a few hours to a few days. Abdominal pain, headache, a sense of exhaustion, sleepiness, feeling cold, weakness and dizziness are common. Diarrhea and sweating are uncommon. Internal bleeding has been reported in some cases. Terpinoid compounds are the important toxins. Early researchers reported muscarine in Omphalotus species, but except in some European cases, there are usually no PSL symptoms characteristic of muscarinic poisoning.

Edible Chanterelle.

[/URL][/IMG]

Just on a side note, i do NOT recommend Mushrooms to be your first dabble into the world of wild food. so many things can go south if we get it wrong.

fire in with your input and comments, positive/negative..? all welcome.

 

[rorymax]

I can understand Stevie's concerns, if I was buying a guide to edible fungi, I would want one that illustrated the non-edible lookalikes, any guide without comparisons is chancy and pretty useless.

 

[Stevie777]

I can understand Stevie's concerns, if I was buying a guide to edible fungi, I would want one that illustrated the non-edible lookalikes, any guide without comparisons is chancy and pretty useless.

I have the easy Edible Mushroom guide by Prof. David Pegler....once again, artists illustrations more than photographs. I simply dont trust a artists impression. The book it'self does cover the toxic shooms, skull and crossbones from 1-3.It also covers the look-a-likes, but very little real time photograghy. Not Good. i simply dont trust it as a Guide to edible mushrooms for that reason.

 

[mick91]

Good idea Stevie! Sure if we look around in our own gardens we'll find a fair few.

 

[Toddy]

"Drawings of plants tell me nothing. not detailed enough for my liking, I'm not playing a game here. This is your life you are playing with." [QUOTE; Stevie777]

I disagree. Learn to read the drawing. A good botanical illustrator will make sure that 'every' detail is included in the illustration, and that 'every' detail is clearly given.
Every photograph is different. Different colours, different lights, different backgrounds, different viewpoint, different observer, different focus and different season and growth through the years.

There are good reasons that accurate drawing is a degree course, and good reasons why every discipline that records visual information does not rely solely on photographic evidence.

I'm not saying photographs are bad, just that they are not objective but subjective.

Actually, that's a good point; since it's your objective to be absolutely clear on your recognition, why not make your own notebook of the plants that are around the area you know ? We're incredibly lucky in the sheer variety in the valley here, we have such an enormously wide range all close by that is rarely found like that else where.
Make up your own record as you spot, recognise and familiarise yourself with them through the seasons.

M

 

[Stevie777]

"Drawings of plants tell me nothing. not detailed enough for my liking, I'm not playing a game here. This is your life you are playing with." [QUOTE; Stevie777]

I disagree. Learn to read the drawing. A good botanical illustrator will make sure that 'every' detail is included in the illustration, and that 'every' detail is clearly given.
Every photograph is different. Different colours, different lights, different backgrounds, different viewpoint, different observer, different focus and different season and growth through the years.

There are good reasons that accurate drawing is a degree course, and good reasons why every discipline that records visual information does not rely solely on photographic evidence.

I'm not saying photographs are bad, just that they are not objective but subjective.

Actually, that's a good point; since it's your objective to be absolutely clear on your recognition, why not make your own notebook of the plants that are around the area you know ? We're incredibly lucky in the sheer variety in the valley here, we have such an enormously wide range all close by that is rarely found like that else where.
Make up your own record as you spot, recognise and familiarise yourself with them through the seasons.

M

I'm trying Mary, I just dont trust the drawings. I am in no hurry to meet my maker. Maybe i should go on a course where i get to see the plant/Fungi up close and personal.

I like the idea of making up my own notebook. What i dont want though is the book to come to a sudden halt with the words lovely red berries or something.

 

[Toddy]

Honestly, there's a kind of protocol to the illustrations. It is worth learning to read them. It's worth the effort to become comfortable spotting the details and making the comparisons between the illustration and the real plant that is actually in front of you.

Round here there's no red berries that will do you in Black bryony I've only seen once and it was way down south. Yew will kill, but only if you crack the seeds. Holly will make you ill, but not kill, gueldar rose isn't poisonous, but it (like elder) doesn't sit well in many modern and underused guts. Bittersweet doesn't taste good and you're unlikely to eat much of it anyway. Rasps are always good (mind the wee maggots) there are no poisonous plums or apples, Lord and ladies most definitely are to be avoided but are unmistakeable anyway, though the roots can be processed to make good food, honeysuckle is like the gueldar and the elder, hawthorns are edible but mealy, rosehips are all edible, just avoid the itchy coos, assorted cranberries are edible but incredibly soor.

Get out the notebook and make yourself some willow charcoal pencils

M

 

[mick91]

Honestly, there's a kind of protocol to the illustrations. It is worth learning to read them. It's worth the effort to become comfortable spotting the details and making the comparisons between the illustration and the real plant that is actually in front of you.

Round here there's no red berries that will do you in Black bryony I've only seen once and it was way down south. Yew will kill, but only if you crack the seeds. Holly will make you ill, but not kill, gueldar rose isn't poisonous, but it (like elder) doesn't sit well in many modern and underused guts. Bittersweet doesn't taste good and you're unlikely to eat much of it anyway. Rasps are always good (mind the wee maggots) there are no poisonous plums or apples, Lord and ladies most definitely are to be avoided but are unmistakeable anyway, though the roots can be processed to make good food, honeysuckle is like the gueldar and the elder, hawthorns are edible but mealy, rosehips are all edible, just avoid the itchy coos, assorted cranberries are edible but incredibly soor.

Get out the notebook and make yourself some willow charcoal pencils

M

Slightly off topic but still on topic. Are whitebeam berries edible in any way Mary?

 

[Stevie777]

Trouble is Mary i know very little. I could identify 3 possibly 4 edible mushrooms, Cat tail roots, pine needles, nettles, obviously some berries, rasps, strawbs, black and dangle. that's about it.

 

[Stevie777]

Get out the notebook and make yourself some willow charcoal pencils

M

My friends laugh at me when i do things like this. Just last week i went for a wild BBQ with a few neighbours, I made everyone some tooth pics on the spot. Deep down i know they are just in awe at my skills.

 

[shaggystu]

http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/books/default.asp

Lots of books there with photos. Roger Phillips is kinda pretty well known for his field guides. They're very good.

Personally I'm in agreement with Toddy on this one, artists impressions done correctly are a much better tool for visual identification. Even more important than the illustration is the text, text can describe a wide range of features and explain them in all their possible variants, illustrations show one plant, and plants do not grow in a standardised manner. Text can say describe a plant at all stages of growth, it'll tell you if the plant is a monocot or a diocot, no-one in their right mind is going to illustrate that information in a field guide. Text tells me what the flowers of a plant look like, what the roots looks like, what the structure of the stem is, the leaf shape and arrangement, what the seeds look like, etc. It is impossible to illustrate all of that information concisely, many photographs would be needed.

On the flip side, my other half, who's probably a better botanist than I am, works solely from photographs when she's identifying plants, she really dislikes drawings. Horses for courses I guess

Cheers,

Stuart.

 

[Stevie777]

The problem is the illustrator is probably going by a pic.

He or she might not have any knowledge whatsoever about the fungi/plant as far as the important parts to be illustrating. maybe i just need to read the books more in depth.

in fact, i'm going out tomorrow with my books. I will try and identify at least 5 edible fungi and plants each. wish me luck. i'll take my phone just in case my rotting carcass needs to be tracked down from my sim card signal.

 

[shaggystu]

The problem is the illustrator is probably going by a pic.

He or she might not have any knowledge whatsoever about the fungi/plant as far as the important parts to be illustrating. maybe i just need to read the books more in depth.

in fact, i'm going out tomorrow with my books. I will try and identify at least 5 edible fungi and plants each. wish me luck. i'll take my phone just in case my rotting carcass needs to be tracked down from my sim card signal.

If you use a reputable company, "collins" for example, the illustrators really do know what they're doing, it's one of the main reasons that the collins' guides have such a good reputation. We're not talking some bloke with a pencil and a sketchbook we're talking high end professionals with the study and qualifications that entails, with years of experience, usually with a huge level of interest in the subject that they're illustrating. It's a massively competitive industry where jobs are generally awarded on merit. Learn the illustrations stevie, they're really useful

 

[Toddy]

Slightly off topic but still on topic. Are whitebeam berries edible in any way Mary?

They're just one of the Rowan type family. Sour but edible, better cooked, and usually just made into jelly.
The three native ones of that kind are Rowan, Whitebeam and Service tree.
All edible, but only the Service tree is (usually) considered a 'fruit' tree. The fruits (called chequers) really need to be bletted (kind of frost bitten) to sweeten them, then they're supposed to taste like dates.

cheers,
M

 

[mick91]

They're just one of the Rowan type family. Sour but edible, better cooked, and usually just made into jelly.
The three native ones of that kind are Rowan, Whitebeam and Service tree.
All edible, but only the Service tree is (usually) considered a 'fruit' tree. The fruits (called chequers) really need to be bletted (kind of frost bitten) to sweeten them, then they're supposed to taste like dates.

cheers,
M

Thank ye kindly looks like I have 2 fruit baring trees in the garden then!