https://www.flickr.com/photos/smutte.../shares/2Ez874

I am trying out Apps and the first one suggested Oxybasis rubra.


I played with an ID site a while back (forgotten now which one) which
suggested a halucinogenic sometimes smoked with Cannabis and with
dangerous seeds.

Still trying to track back.

Anyway I was waiting for it to flower but it seems a little too rampant so
is due for removal very soon.


Cheers


Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 14:08:36 +0000, David wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/smutte.../shares/2Ez874

I am trying out Apps and the first one suggested Oxybasis rubra.


I played with an ID site a while back (forgotten now which one) which
suggested a halucinogenic sometimes smoked with Cannabis and with
dangerous seeds.

Still trying to track back.

Anyway I was waiting for it to flower but it seems a little too rampant
so is due for removal very soon.

Two separate Apps go for Oxybasis Rubra so it looks as though the original
ID, although dangerous and exciting, was wrong.

Cheers


Dave R



--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 05/09/2020 15:13, David wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 14:08:36 +0000, David wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/smutte.../shares/2Ez874

I am trying out Apps and the first one suggested Oxybasis rubra.


I played with an ID site a while back (forgotten now which one) which
suggested a halucinogenic sometimes smoked with Cannabis and with
dangerous seeds.

Still trying to track back.

Anyway I was waiting for it to flower but it seems a little too rampant
so is due for removal very soon.

Two separate Apps go for Oxybasis Rubra so it looks as though the original
ID, although dangerous and exciting, was wrong.

Yes, Oxybasis rubra (the second part of the name is not capitalised) aka
Chenopodium rubrum - it turns up in a variety of places such as maize
fields, the drawdown zone of reservoirs, manure piles, and roadside gutters.

This is abiut as close to flowering as it gets - i.e. the flowers aren't
very showy. If you use a handlens, or take a macro photograph, you
should be able to see the stamens sticking out of the flowers.

Cheers


Dave R

On 05/09/2020 20:52, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
On 05/09/2020 15:13, David wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 14:08:36 +0000, David wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/smutte.../shares/2Ez874

I am trying out Apps and the first one suggested Oxybasis rubra.


I played with an ID site a while back (forgotten now which one) which
suggested a halucinogenic sometimes smoked with Cannabis and with
dangerous seeds.

Still trying to track back.

Anyway I was waiting for it to flower but it seems a little too rampant
so is due for removal very soon.

Two separate Apps go for Oxybasis Rubra so it looks as though the
original
ID, although dangerous and exciting, was wrong.

Yes, Oxybasis rubra (the second part of the name is not capitalised) aka
Chenopodium rubrum - it turns up in a variety of places such as maize
fields, the drawdown zone of reservoirs, manure piles, and roadside
gutters.

This is abiut as close to flowering as it gets - i.e. the flowers aren't
very showy. If you use a handlens, or take a macro photograph, you
should be able to see the stamens sticking out of the flowers.

Cheers


Dave R




For those of us not scientific, it's a form of Fathen.

On 05/09/2020 20:57, David Hill wrote:
On 05/09/2020 20:52, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
On 05/09/2020 15:13, David wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 14:08:36 +0000, David wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/smutte.../shares/2Ez874

I am trying out Apps and the first one suggested Oxybasis rubra.


I played with an ID site a while back (forgotten now which one) which
suggested a halucinogenic sometimes smoked with Cannabis and with
dangerous seeds.

Still trying to track back.

Anyway I was waiting for it to flower but it seems a little too rampant
so is due for removal very soon.

Two separate Apps go for Oxybasis Rubra so it looks as though the
original
ID, although dangerous and exciting, was wrong.

Yes, Oxybasis rubra (the second part of the name is not capitalised)
aka Chenopodium rubrum - it turns up in a variety of places such as
maize fields, the drawdown zone of reservoirs, manure piles, and
roadside gutters.

This is abiut as close to flowering as it gets - i.e. the flowers
aren't very showy. If you use a handlens, or take a macro photograph,
you should be able to see the stamens sticking out of the flowers.

Cheers


Dave R




For those of us not scientific, it's a form of Fathen.

The usual English name is red goosefoot. I'd restrict fathen to the
Chenopodium album aggregate. (Floras restrict the name to Chenopodium
album, but since the rest of the aggregate is rather difficult to
identify - all I can manage is fig-leaved goosefoot and maybe quinoa - I
expect that in practice the name is applied to the aggregate.)

--
SRH

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

The usual English name is red goosefoot. I'd restrict fathen to the
Chenopodium album aggregate. (Floras restrict the name to Chenopodium
album, but since the rest of the aggregate is rather difficult to
identify - all I can manage is fig-leaved goosefoot and maybe quinoa - I
expect that in practice the name is applied to the aggregate.)

If it passes the duck test ....

If anyone is interested, almost all of those are good eating (and not
just edible) as spinach alternatives and when flowering or when seeds
are just developing as 'broccolis'. A pain to pick, because they are
all small, and it's a little surprising that fat hen doesn't seem to
have been adopted as a cultivated plant. Quinoa, magenta spreen and
a few others are cultivated, mainly in south America, and I have
grown and eaten a few.

The seeds are edible, too, but I found them to be mostly husk. I don't
know how to remove that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 06/09/2020 11:10, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,

If anyone is interested, almost all of those are good eating (and not
just edible) as spinach alternatives and when flowering or when seeds
are just developing as 'broccolis'. A pain to pick, because they are
all small, and it's a little surprising that fat hen doesn't seem to
have been adopted as a cultivated plant. Quinoa, magenta spreen and
a few others are cultivated, mainly in south America, and I have
grown and eaten a few.

The seeds are edible, too, but I found them to be mostly husk. I don't
know how to remove that.


The European species with a history of cultivation for culinary use is
Chenopodium bonus-henricus (Good King Henry).

--
SRH

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
On 06/09/2020 11:10, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,

If anyone is interested, almost all of those are good eating (and not
just edible) as spinach alternatives and when flowering or when seeds
are just developing as 'broccolis'. A pain to pick, because they are
all small, and it's a little surprising that fat hen doesn't seem to
have been adopted as a cultivated plant. Quinoa, magenta spreen and
a few others are cultivated, mainly in south America, and I have
grown and eaten a few.

The seeds are edible, too, but I found them to be mostly husk. I don't
know how to remove that.

The European species with a history of cultivation for culinary use is
Chenopodium bonus-henricus (Good King Henry).

Thanks for reminding me - I grew it for some years. As greens,
it is coarse in texture and taste (unlike fat hen and even magenta
spreen); blanched shoots (i.e. Lincolnshire asparagus), it is OK,
but unexciting. And the damn thing self-seeds everywhere, and sends
its roots down deep.

It's specifically fat hen I was thinking of. We know it was eaten in
neolithic times, and I would be utterly flabberghasted if it wasn't
in mediaeval ones. But it's the toxic spinach that was cultivated
for larger leaves, and is far trickier to grow (though the wild form
may be easier).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:10:41 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

The usual English name is red goosefoot. I'd restrict fathen to the
Chenopodium album aggregate. (Floras restrict the name to Chenopodium
album, but since the rest of the aggregate is rather difficult to
identify - all I can manage is fig-leaved goosefoot and maybe quinoa - I
expect that in practice the name is applied to the aggregate.)

If it passes the duck test ....

If anyone is interested, almost all of those are good eating (and not
just edible) as spinach alternatives and when flowering or when seeds
are just developing as 'broccolis'. A pain to pick, because they are
all small, and it's a little surprising that fat hen doesn't seem to
have been adopted as a cultivated plant. Quinoa, magenta spreen and a
few others are cultivated, mainly in south America, and I have grown and
eaten a few.

The seeds are edible, too, but I found them to be mostly husk. I don't
know how to remove that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Just to confirm, are you saying that the plant I asked to be IDd is "good
eating"?

TIA


Dave R



--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 07/09/2020 11:53, David wrote:
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 10:10:41 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

The usual English name is red goosefoot. I'd restrict fathen to the
Chenopodium album aggregate. (Floras restrict the name to Chenopodium
album, but since the rest of the aggregate is rather difficult to
identify - all I can manage is fig-leaved goosefoot and maybe quinoa - I
expect that in practice the name is applied to the aggregate.)

If it passes the duck test ....

If anyone is interested, almost all of those are good eating (and not
just edible) as spinach alternatives and when flowering or when seeds
are just developing as 'broccolis'. A pain to pick, because they are
all small, and it's a little surprising that fat hen doesn't seem to
have been adopted as a cultivated plant. Quinoa, magenta spreen and a
few others are cultivated, mainly in south America, and I have grown and
eaten a few.

The seeds are edible, too, but I found them to be mostly husk. I don't
know how to remove that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Just to confirm, are you saying that the plant I asked to be IDd is "good
eating"?


Here's a "two star review"

https://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?Lat...opodium+rubrum

My rule of thumb is don't eat something if you're not 110% sure of what
it is.

--
SRH

In article ,
David wrote:

Just to confirm, are you saying that the plant I asked to be IDd is "good
eating"?

I was referring to the C. album aggregate, but I would expect that
one to be similar, and the Web seems to confirm that. I haven't
tried it.

It's always worth being a little cautious, because wild forms of most
food plants have rather higher toxin levels than cultivated forms.
However, we need some toxins in our diet, which is why we use spices
in our food! But, if such a plant tastes bitter or acrid, reject it
and don't eat large quantities or every day. The same applies to a
great many cultivated plants, incidentally.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
On 07/09/2020 11:53, David wrote:


Just to confirm, are you saying that the plant I asked to be IDd is "good
eating"?

Here's a "two star review"

https://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?Lat...opodium+rubrum

That Web site is pretty awful, and has more arse-covering than useful
information. Compare that entry with its ones for C. giganteum and
C. album, which most definitely ARE good eating and not toxic. The
difference in edibility ratings is not supported by anything in the
text that I can see, and it's the same as Rumex crispus (also edible).
God help us all, Rumex acetosa gets FIVE stars and that's definitely
toxic in excess!

I am pretty sure that they use the word edibility where palatability
would be more accurate.

My rule of thumb is don't eat something if you're not 110% sure of what
it is.

Hmm. You're a better botanist than THAT, surely! My rule is to try
something if (a) it seems interesting and (b) nothing I could mistake
it for is seriously toxic. As you know, toxins run in families, and
I am paranoid only about plants in dangerous families or ones that I
can't be sure aren't. For example, if it's a brassica, but it's not
clear which, why not? And, if were another of the cruciferae, there
aren't any real nasties in the UK that I know of.

But I don't eat ANY wild umbelliferae, despite the edibility of many,
as I am not good enough on them, and there ARE some real nasties.
Even eating carrot or parsnip tops (as is sometimes proposed) isn't
a good idea.

In particular, when you eat seedling greens (very trendy), you can't
be absolutely sure what they are, even from a supermarket.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 08/09/2020 11:13, Nick Maclaren wrote:

It's always worth being a little cautious, because wild forms of most
food plants have rather higher toxin levels than cultivated forms.

What evidence do you have that wild forms have higher levels of toxins
than cultivated forms? Does wild rhubarb have more oxalic acid than
cultivated forms? How are you defining "toxins"?

However, we need some toxins in our diet, which is why we use spices
in our food!

Now I really don't understand that. What "toxins" do we /need/ in our
diet? Maybe it's best to use the word "poisons" instead of "toxins"
(most definitions of toxin seem to end up eventually as being synonymous
with "poison"). So what level of "poison" would you deem acceptable?
Something like vitamin A, perhaps, which becomes poisonous in large
quantities? Any what has that do do with spices? I thought they were
there to add to the taste of bland food, or take away the taste of
unpleasant food - perhaps, for example, to mask the taste of meat which
has "gone off" a bit. Surely, though, we don't actively seek out that
sort of food to have in our diet?

But, if such a plant tastes bitter or acrid, reject it
and don't eat large quantities or every day. The same applies to a
great many cultivated plants, incidentally.

I have never liked a bitter taste in food or drink, even beer, even
though I used to drink lager, and also occasionally stout. I'm afraid I
have no time for these "designer" leaves which taste slightly bitter.
Give me a Romaine or Iceberg lettuce any day - you can keep your frisee!
It often seems to me that, like those who think the hotter chillies are
the better, even though you can't taste anything else in the dish, there
is a movement to make bitter things even more bitter. I once made the
mistake of trying Brew Dog's "Nanny State" when I was looking for a
low/non-alcoholic drink. To me, it was undrinkable. Mind you, there's no
accounting for taste. I tried Åžalgam in a restaurant here last year - I
understand it is very popular in Turkey. Heaven knows why!

--

Jeff

In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

It's always worth being a little cautious, because wild forms of most
food plants have rather higher toxin levels than cultivated forms.

What evidence do you have that wild forms have higher levels of toxins
than cultivated forms? Does wild rhubarb have more oxalic acid than
cultivated forms? How are you defining "toxins"?

Er, do you REALLY not know how many cultivated plants have been bred to
have low levels of plant toxins? Yes, that includes rhubarb. And I
am using toxin in its normal sense.

However, we need some toxins in our diet, which is why we use spices
in our food!

Now I really don't understand that. What "toxins" do we /need/ in our
diet?

No, nor do I, and I believe nor does anyone else. But research has
found that low levels of toxins, as found in spices, are necessary
for our digestive systems to work properly.

No, using poisons instead of toxins is not an improvement.

Something like vitamin A, perhaps, which becomes poisonous in large
quantities? Any what has that do do with spices?

No, I am referring to things with no known metabolic function, and which
are not nutritious. Spices 'work' by containing small amounts of various
toxins - look it up.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 08/09/2020 17:02, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

It's always worth being a little cautious, because wild forms of most
food plants have rather higher toxin levels than cultivated forms.

What evidence do you have that wild forms have higher levels of toxins
than cultivated forms? Does wild rhubarb have more oxalic acid than
cultivated forms? How are you defining "toxins"?

Er, do you REALLY not know how many cultivated plants have been bred to
have low levels of plant toxins? Yes, that includes rhubarb. And I
am using toxin in its normal sense.

No. It's not something I ever came across. I had a look at available
sources and must say the Wikipedia article on "Plant Breeding" is
particularly unhelpful. The only comment it makes wasn't particularly
inspiring: "for example the poison solanine was unintentionally
increased to unacceptable levels in certain varieties of potato through
plant breeding. New potato varieties are often screened for solanine
levels before reaching the marketplace."

There was one interesting paper at
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224419310817
which definitely supported your comment. However, it seems that most
research has been done on things like grass pea and lupins for use as
crops in tropical climates, although rape oil has benefited from removal
of erucic acid.

However, we need some toxins in our diet, which is why we use spices
in our food!

Now I really don't understand that. What "toxins" do we /need/ in our
diet?

No, nor do I, and I believe nor does anyone else. But research has
found that low levels of toxins, as found in spices, are necessary
for our digestive systems to work properly.

I couldn't find any good papers to support that. Lots of
"parascientific" reports, and quite a bit of Ayurvedic medicine, but
nothing which would grace "Nature". Maybe I wasn't looking in the right
place.

No, using poisons instead of toxins is not an improvement.

Something like vitamin A, perhaps, which becomes poisonous in large
quantities? Any what has that do do with spices?

No, I am referring to things with no known metabolic function, and which
are not nutritious. Spices 'work' by containing small amounts of various
toxins - look it up.

See above.

--

Jeff