Cool, now all Google has to do is make it easier to onboard new GCP customers and more people will probably use it...its comical how hard it is to create a new GCP
organization & billing account. Also I think more Workspace customers would probably try Gemini if it was a usage-based trial as opposed to clicking a "Try for 14 days" CTA to activate a new subscription.
Yes, there may be a large amount of undescribed fungal species diversity, but most of it doesn't take the form of distinctive, visibly novel macroscopic structures. A lot of new species descriptions are of cryptic species, species only distinguishable to an expert eye, entirely microbial species, unremarkable little brown things, species only known from sequences in enviromental samples, and so on. I have spent years rambling around tropical forests and have only had a handful of "what the hell is that?" moments that turned out to be truly unusual.
The first time I found a bird's nest fungus in my yard I felt like an explorer. Same for watching the various slime molds that appear and disappear at various points of the year.
I caught a ladybug in the house and while taking it outside I noticed it had something on it, best I can tell it was some type of Laboulbeniales, a parasitic fungus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboulbeniales
If they were obvious they would already be known would they not?
The world 'remarkable' implies that people will be hard pressed not to communicate about it. You don't see an aminita muscaria and not tell someone about it. Clown red mushroom with white spots? Of course you're gonna tell someone, and of course it will have a name if it didn't already.
There are "obviously" new species that do still crop up because undescribed biodiversity is concentrated in little-surveyed tracts of remote tropical rainforest, and the visible spore-producing structures of those fungi might only appear rarely under poorly-understood environmental triggers. So no, they are not all already known about. "Obvious" species new to science are still being described from such locations. Two examples from recent decades I have seen myself, Chlorogaster dipterocarpi, Spongiforma squarepantsii... I know of many more from taxonomic journals. Also I have found some spectacuar mycoheterotrophic plants in the genus Thismia that were only very recently described. Also, there is a high diversity of secotioid hypogeous fungi many of which are "obvious", but you have to be digging around in the soil looking for them to find them, so they are still poorly known.
(2) "Raise the migration" - plant native milkweed in your region and learn how to raise butterflies for release. I followed tips on this blog (link below) for the past two years and have released more than 50+ healthy monarchs into the wild. It's been very fun and rewarding, but unfortunately this year I observed far fewer monarchs in our region compared to previous years. They need our help.
Crunchbase | Frontend & Platform Engineers | Remote US | Fulltime | Visa sponsorship | crunchbase.com
* Crunchbase is the leading platform for professionals to discover innovative companies, connect with the people behind them, and pursue new opportunities. Our platform has best-in-class live data powered by our unique community of contributors, partners, in-house data experts, and machine learning systems.
* Benefits include: Paid medical/dental/vision, 14 weeks parental leave, flexible vacation policy, volunteer time off, company-wide mental health days, $1K allowance for home office, wellness reimbursement plan, monthly internet stipend and more.
This article offers terrible advice to novice foragers. It's irresponsible at best, even with the disclaimer in the opening paragraph.
Experts such as David Arora advise foragers that, "people can have adverse idiosyncratic reactions to edible mushrooms just as they can to scallops or peanut butter. Since each kind of mushroom is a different food, you can be allergic to one but not the other. To minimize the chances of an adverse reaction, cook each kind well and eat a modest amount the first few times" [Arora. All the Rain Promises and More. 1991].
Be careful when cooking wild mushrooms for friends and family even if you are 100% sure of your identification. Despite being considered "foolproof" from an identification perspective, mushrooms like the Chicken of the Woods can make you very ill ("gastrointestinal distress" is worse than it sounds) if they're growing on pretty much anything besides an oak (e.g. conifer, buckeye, etc). Puffballs are also notorious for giving people stomach aches. I've been mushroom foraging for over 15 years and about 10 years ago I made this mistake - correct identification of Chicken of the Woods (tasted great!) but was growing on a conifer. I not only made myself sick but a few of my friends too. Thankfully they forgave me as we are very good/old friends but since then I very rarely cook any wild mushroom for anyone besides myself.
My wife has been reading a book on mushroom foraging. This section on different types of mushroom poisoning was particularly terrifying.
Trichothecenes, symptoms: Multi-organ failure, which can commence soon after exposure (such as through drinking an infusion), particularly bone marrow failure and lamellar desquamation (shredding and reddening) of palms, soles of feet and face. Death may occur.
Agaricus Bisporus is indeed universally safe, and comes in large, small, brown and white varieties. The variety of flavors and textures that awaits the slightly more adventurous is a delight!
There are also other tasty cultivated mushrooms like shiitake! More expensive (at least in the US), but much cheaper than a visit to the emergency room after eating a dangerous wild mushroom...
This is absolutely correct. Neither chanterelles nor puffballs are "foolproof" mushrooms, even slightly. Mistaken puffballs are probably the number one cause of serious mushroom poisonings and even fatalities, since small puffballs look so much like amanita mushrooms that haven't fully opened yet.
And chanterelles have a number of at least moderately toxic lookalikes depending on the region you're in and how much an eager amateur is willing to stretch the definition. I don't think a lot of beginners can reliably tell the difference between "gills" and "folds."
Plus what you referred to about toxins leached from the tree that the mushroom was growing on. I'd not eat anything growing on a locust tree or a fallen rhododendron. Just seems like inviting trouble.
I think the "depending on the region you're in" part is what struck me most as lacking about this article.
It's also imprecise in giving advice on precise growing conditions. E.g telling a beginner that no matter what they think, a given mushroom doesn't grow in summer is a good way of reducing misidentification.
Yes, once you have felt and identified a chanterelle with success a few times, it's very easy for an experienced forager to tell the difference between gills and folds (especially in the larger species such as C. californicus). The folds are often veiny and cannot be moved or 'plucked' like gills. In general though, identification should be done using as many factors as possible (e.g. using a identification key which is like a decision tree). For example, besides gills and smell, another way to differentiate the (non- or only mildly-toxic) false chanterelle is the firmness.
Arora's remarks can be applied to any new food, not just mushrooms. You could have an allergic reaction to anything.
I'm sort of in the middle on the article. The chicken of the woods pictured is clearly old and woody -- you wouldn't want to pick it. Small amanitas can look like puffballs, so you cut them in half if you're unsure. And the article is not a complete guide -- you'd need a little bit of supplementary info (in my opinion) to correctly nail the oysters and the king bolete, but:
Even if someone just used these pictures and description as a guide, they're not going to die -- barring some kind of freak reaction, the worst that'll happen is they'll get it a (rare) tummyache. It has happened to me maybe twice in my 10 years of foraging and it was hardly the riskiest thing I've done with my body.
That's what the article means by "safest". They're not saying "perfectly safe" but "if you're going to start, start with these, the risk is the lowest." I think you're kind of overreacting.
Then again, I could be underestimating the incompetence of the average person.
About me: I pick and eat mushrooms all the time all over the world, and sometimes sell them to restaurants.
Arora's remarks can be applied to any new food, not just mushrooms. You could have an allergic reaction to anything.
Of course, but unfortunately many articles like this one fail to add a note like this to their disclaimers. It's easy to forget during and after the excitement of a mushroom hunt.
I think you're kind of overreacting.
I probably wouldn't have posted a reply if I didn't make the same mistake myself years ago. In my first five years of foraging I was less careful than I was after the incident I mentioned. I have never misidentified any mushroom I've ever consumed and have eaten many dozens of species. However, after getting very ill that one time (violent vomiting and diarrhea) I have become a lot more cautious when consuming new wild mushrooms (heeding to Arora's advice to try small amounts first). In light of my personal experience I found the article to be a bit light on words of caution, especially for novices.
There is no such thing as "overreacting" with foraged mushrooms. The bar for "competent" identification is far too high, and the downside of being not-quite-competent-enough includes spending 72 hours knowing that you and your friends are going to die with no hope of a cure.
I know strong opinions tend to be popular online, but I hope comments like this don't discourage people from learning and going out there. The books and internet are more than enough to stay safe.
This is one of the times people need to be discouraged. They should know they're risking their lives if they get into foraging, specifically because they can be easily fooled into thinking it's safe.
As a random aside, a crap-ton of flowers are toxic. Flowers. If somebody hadn't told me that, I'd be eating random ones I find on hikes, because I heard of edible flowers and for some dumb reason I thought they all were.
It's true. It wasn't mushrooms that almost killed me, but what I thought was a carrot. It was poison hemlock. You really can die out there.
It depends on the intentions of the site. If the author is advertising it as a complete guide, then I agree with you: it's incomplete as a guide. If he's advertising it as a starting point -- start with these mushrooms which have a very low risk of harm -- then it's fine in my view.
fwiw the intention of my criticism of the article wasn't to discourage people from learning about and appreciating fungi. My issue with this article is that it simplifies things too much to the point of harm.
> Arora's remarks can be applied to any new food, not just mushrooms
Sure, but if I buy food from a store or a farmers market, I can at least assume the food was sourced properly, and they aren’t mushrooms that grew on something bad.
One of the advantages of growing instead of hunting is that you can harvest the first flush, stuff it in a bag in the fridge and then come back a couple days later to check that the full sized mushrooms look right. King stropharia is pretty distinct when it’s old, but you eat before the gills fully open.
I think the problem is not stupidity so much that it says too little about which factors matters for identification.
If you pay attention to everything in the article you're probably fine. But if your eyes glaze over and you latch on to a couple of the things mentioned for a given mushroom, less so.
Some of the tastiest mushrooms are also the most recognizable, like morels. If you want them foraging is the only option for most people. Morels have no reliable farming methods as far as I know
Foraging for mushrooms is an awful lot of fun. In many European cities, you are often able to bring all your mushrooms to the local food market mushroom expert and have them identified. It's a great service.
I have no problem with that. What you are outlining is procedural and it's been culturally regularized over time, essentially it's self-checking as everyone knows the rules and what to do.
The problem comes when neophyte beginners decide to go hunting for mushrooms. They may think they've a good understanding of what's safe and often they do but it's the odd slipup or mistake that can turn fatal.
With mushrooms there is no margin for error, you're either right and enjoy a lovely meal or you die by a lingering death. It only takes one error for disaster to occur.
Take this story for instance: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-06/fatal-mushroom-meal-c.... Unfortunately, it's often a change of circumstance, or an unusual set of events that catches people out. I remember this accident happening, tragically similar scenarios have happened all too frequently in many countries.
Have a look at [1]. One is edible without special considerations, the other is potentially lethal if you don't corrently boil it in a well-ventilated room first (and take care not to breathe in too much of what you're boiling off). People are regularly hospitalised for doing stupid stuff like standing over the pot. Most advice I've seen tell people to not eat even properly prepared gyromitra too often (at least one book on foraging tells people to avoid more than one meal a year of it).
If you're experienced and aware of the existence of gyromitra, you'll probably do just fine. But I totally understand if people don't feel confident that they'd make the right call. The colours looks obviously different on those pictures, but try looking at some other pictures to get an idea of the colour variations.
I don't want to put people off foraging for mushrooms, because I absolutely agree with you that many of the tastiest kinds are rarely available without foraging (more often available at markets than in stores, but inconsistently certainly; even gyromitra can be bought at markets in some countries), but better that people are well aware of the potential for misidentification so they seek proper advice and learn how to distinguish them first (and are aware that the risk factors varies greatly between regions depending on which similar mushrooms exists there).
I grew up with an extremely severe allergy (think ambulance helicopters getting involved), yet my mum is a complete mushroom nerd.. not sure if it was out of ignorance, but she never policed mushrooms anywhere near the way she did other common, possible allergens..
Or maybe she just stuck to easily identifiable as edible mushrooms, like chanterelles, funnel chanterelles, penny buns and hedgehog mushroom..
I've found there's really only one way to permanently move on, and that's by "letting go". Conceptually it's a simple technique, but challenging to put into practice. David Hawkins's "Letting Go | The Pathway of Surrender" was really useful to me when I needed to move on from a challenging period of my life. Brief passage from the book:
"Letting go involves being aware of a feeling, letting it come up, staying with it and letting it run its course without wanting to make it different or do anything about it. It means simply to let the feeling be there and to focus on letting out the energy behind it. The first step is to allow yourself to have the feeling without resisting it, fearing it...It means to drop judgement and to see that it's _just_ a feeling. The technique is to be with the feeling and surrender all efforts to modify it any way. Let go of wanting to resist the feeling. _It is resistance that keeps the feeling going._"
Beware of running away from your past experiences - they'll eventually catch up with you emotionally.
The most shocking thing about this new preference is not the obvious fact that Verizon is blatantly trying to collect even more data about their users in creepy ways (or that it was "opt in" by default, which should probably be illegal), but rather how badly their announcement was written. Sample below from their email. The shocking part is that there is absolutely zero benefit to the user.
"Introducing Verizon Custom Experience. It’s your experience, tailored to your interests. The program uses information about websites you visit and apps you use on your mobile device to help us better understand your interests. This helps us personalize our communications with you, give you more relevant product and service recommendations, and develop plans, services and offers that are more appealing to you."
