[NatureNS] Mystery plant (picture)

Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:44:21 -0300
From: David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010726 Netscape6/6.1 (CPQCA3C01)
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
References: <BAY114-F38436ACA7698BFC9BECA9AC75C0@phx.gbl>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
Hi Mary & All,                Aug 13, 2006
    I finally remembered to bring some berries home today for a taste 
test. One was enough; very soapy and too foul to swallow. It is safe to 
assume that the author did not test these berries. Also I wonder about 
healthy plant tissue containing a significant amount of acetic acid.

    Some compendia of edible/medicinal plants are loaded with 
misinformation and I wonder if this applies here.

    The young rolled leaves of Clintonia, when they are <5 cm long, are 
a pleasant nibble with a cucumber flavor [young leaves cooked are 
reputed to make a good potherb but I have never tried this]. With age 
the leaves become bitter and, if I recall correctly, the leaves are 
seldom fed upon by insects so I suspect latex [it is odd but such 
thoughts surface when one is typing an e-mail and not when one has a 
plant within reach].

   Yours truly, Dave Webster, Kentville


Mary Macaulay wrote:

>
> Hi Rick,
> According to one of my references (Use of Plants for the past 500 
> years by Charlotte Erichesen-Brown - p346-347). The native people used 
> this plant (probably the roots as they contain diosgenin) for 
> treatment of tumours.  The berries are said to be sweetish and edible 
> containing dextrose, levulose (fructose), tartaric and acetic acid and 
> fatty oil (not defined).
> Mary
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Rick Ballard" <RBallard@NL.Rogers.Com>
> Reply-To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Mystery plant (picture)
> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:08:28 -0230
>
> Interestingly, although the berries of Clintonia borealis are widely 
> regarded and reported as
> being poisonous ( even commonly called Poisonberry in NF ), I have 
> been unable to find a
> reference that tells exactly what the poison is, or its effects. After 
> an hour with Google I
> turned up nothing specific.
>
> It is not listed in "A Field Guide to Poisonous Plants and Mushrooms 
> of North America". The
> book has a reference for Corn Lily, but it is a different plant 
> altogether.
>
> Some quotes from the web:
>
> "POISONOUS PARTS: Berries suspect, caution. No known cases. Toxic 
> Principle:
> Unknown; suspected due to relation to toxic plants. "
>
> "The fruits' toxicity hasn't been confirmed, but a Mi'kmaq tale 
> suggests that the whole might
> be toxic."
>
> Wikipedia says:
> "The rhizome contains diosgenin, a saponin steroid with estrogenic 
> effects."
> "According to a Mi'kmaq tale, when a grass snake eats a poisonous 
> toad, it slithers in rapid
> circles around a shoot of blue-bead lily to transfer the poison to the 
> plant."
>
> Does anyone have any more definite information ?
>
> Date sent:          Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:15:23 -0300
> From:               Ken MacAulay <kenmacaulay@eastlink.ca>
> Subject:            Re: [NatureNS] Mystery plant (picture)
> To:                 naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> Send reply to:      naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
>
> > Jeannie.  This looks like Clintonia or blue bead lily.  Those pretty
> > blue berries are poisonous.
> > Ken MacAulay
> > Port Mouton
> >
>
>
> -- 
> Rick Ballard
> Torbay, Newfoundland, Canada
> http://www.ideaphore.com
>
>
>


next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects