For another angle on this: the fact that the observations weren’t obscured meant that critical evidence was available to convict Erin Patterson.
5 Likes
You guide was either trolling you or didn’t know the plants all that well. Agarista buxifolia is toxic only if consumed, and even then not enormously so, although like rhododendrons (which contain the same compounds) it will make you sick if you eat it.
Agarista buxifolia is generally harmless enough that it’s a pretty common ornamental plant.
4 Likes
In Switzerland decades ago - you could take your harvest to your local pharmacy. With strict instructions to keep each variety separate (don’t want to contaminate the Yes Edible with the NO)
3 Likes
I live in a flat complex. I just need to go to the yard to see (, sometimes even lethally,) poisonous mushrooms and -plants. I’ve informed parents of small children who play in the yard about them. Last Summer I also informed the city greenery unit about poisonous plants spreading around an outdoor children’s pool at the local swim hall. They got removed in two days with thanks. I’m pretty sure doing that saves far more lives, as said.
5 Likes
Thank you, good to know !
Then, likely some South African onion lily on my window sill is more poisonous!
:-)
But just another twist of the discussion:
Amanita muscaria is in Europ THE prime example of poisonous mushroom, as it is very showy and was used to poison houseflies in the past.
Meanwhile, it is believed that it was also used as hallucinogen and for medication in the past. The content of active components can largely vary in between mushrooms and had to be tried somehow (taste?).
It seems there are so many variants and circumstances to be considered, that hiding information is probably worse than sharing it.
1 Like
I agree with other users who have said not to obscure and the reasons they have given. I would also note that hiding/obscuring these observations effectively removes/degrades a source of data about where they are present. I would personally guess that it is much more likely that users would look for toxic organisms to avoid them using iNat data than trying to find them for use as a murder weapon. Restricting information on their locations could actually make users less safe overall.
4 Likes
If we obscure poisonous mushrooms, shouldn’t we obscure venomous snakes? How about scorpions? Hemlock, baneberry, false hellebore? Bears, mountain lions, and wolves? The world is full of danger, and obscuring obs won’t help much IMO.
2 Likes
@oksanaetal Many herpetologists and reptile enthusiasts in Australia do obscure reptile observations to try prevent collectors motivated by the value of Aussie native reptiles on the illegal wildlife trade.
6 Likes
Yeah, and all observations of threatened species are obscured for the same reasons.
2 Likes
Should we then obscure all observations of Cicuta? Conium? Ricinus? One of the beauties of Inat is that we can all observe the amazing biodiversity our planet has to offer, and part of that is looking at other people’s observations with the coordinates.
Observations should be obscured for two and only two reasons only: the species is extraordinarily rare and threatened with extinction because of human causes, or the species is in decline due to poaching.
3 Likes
I can’t walk a block without tripping over more castor bean than I care to think about, and in perfect honesty my first actual memory of that name was it being used as a very sneaky murder weapon in a TV show. I was taken aback to discover it was a common weed, and one in Euphorbiaceae at that.
4 Likes
I moved this new discussion to this existing thread, since it’s basically asking the same question only now after a verdict has been reached. Please keep discussion focused on toxic organisms and iNat.
1 Like
If the locations were hidden, do you really think this murder would not have occurred? It seems likely the person would have simply found a different way to do it. On the contrary, it seems like it’s a good idea to have these locations open, so foragers know where they need to be more careful.
7 Likes
Sometimes I think iNat should obscure the locations of choice edible mushrooms – for the same reasons it obscures plant and animal species threatened by poaching.
5 Likes
However, there is no proof that collecting edible mushrooms impacts the survival of their population (with only a few exceptions like Ophiocordyceps sinensis and Inonotus obliquus)…
3 Likes
No, I don’t think the murder would have not been done. If people want to cause death, they will find a way. It’s horrible, and I do not endorse it, but Earth is a dangerous place with many causes of death.
Also, foragers should be careful everywhere.
4 Likes
Fully agree
1 Like
iNat already obscures observations of endangered taxa. Edible fungi that aren’t endangered do not need to be obscured.
Must agree Bayes factors should be considered
P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)
What is the probability wild toxic mushrooms are chosen/used as the weapon, given that locations could be found via internet information? P(A|B)?
Probability the weapon was obtained only via this specific internet information, given that it was chosen? P(B|A)?
Background probability that particular weapon being chosen? P(A)?
Background probability that the information for a weapon is on the internet? P(B)?
It seems common for premeditated murders to involve internet use. But it is hard to imagine that someone apparently this malicious would not do any harm, simply because the internet was unable to help them to precisely locate wild toxic mushrooms.
Would no lives have been at risk here, if the locations had been obscured? It sounds like most of us have a hard time believing that.
But some factors could be fixed at zero (rather than just very, very small) if the information were reasonably obscured.
3 Likes