|I’d Call It That||3.0||16.53||3||(darv,shroomydan)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
is an isomer of naphthalene, which is decidedly nasty.
I like the fact that people are using my photos in other places on the web, but it’s important that they link back to the original observation. Otherwise, the scientific merit of the photo is diminished and MO does not get the press it deserves.
I found another of my photos posted on a website promoting a Spanish town last night. It was posted along with other mushrooms as part of the natural beauty of the town. That one was just plain fraudulent. I sent an email and the photo was removed this morning.
When a website is in a language that I can’t read, it’s difficult to determine whether somebody just made a mistake or if they are stealing the photo. Thanks for the translation. I sent a copyright violation report to googleblogs. Hopefully the person who re-posted the photo will link it back here instead of removing it.
The one time I tried this mushroom it made me sick, not real sick but the experience was unpleasant for sure. I wonder if the blue pigment is also the ‘toxin’. I’m not well versed in organic chemistry, but the molecular structure of Azulene looks kind of scary.
but there does seem to be differing opinions on its edibility. I tried this one last summer in the SE…and it was delicious (way, way better than the equally beautiful Amanita jacksonii)! Maybe there are regional differences in flavor, or maybe it’s just individual taste preference/sensitivites?
Means “blue to eat”… the description of the blog is something like “beautiful things”, so although I doubt he or she is trying to claim it, there was no attribution, which is a minimum requirement for usage.
Somebody copied this photo here:
He named it Azul para comer
Is he trying to pass off the photo as his own?
… for the compliment. Speaking of compliments, a shout out to Alan Rockefeller whose Mexican indigo shots make up the other 3 pics in the article!
This picture is one of my favorites. Thank you for nominating it!
Some of those comments are funny:
“I thought it was a satellite dish at first. Heh. How big is this thing? "
The maple sapling in the background does make the mushroom look bigger than it is. The tree is only about four or five inches tall. It was growing from a very thin layer of soil on a moss covered rock . The lack of soil stunted its growth, like a bonsai. The mushroom itself was about three or four inches in diameter. It was growing under a thick layer of leaves a few yards from where this photo was shot. I moved the mushroom into the location shown for a gill shot because the light was good there.
I see somebody put this photo into the wiki article for Blue:
This makes me happy. It’s neat to have a mushroom photo in a non-mushroom article.
Thanks again for the nomination Robert, and thank you for writing such informative articles. Your work on Wikipedia is always top notch :)
of different ecological and geographical races? It is well known that Siberian A. muscaria has much less poison than Central European … could be analogous case… I know that L.indigo fruits in France too if it is the same so …
I have eaten quite a few in Mexico and have not had any problems. Its not the most flavorful mushroom, nor the best texture but its fun to cook and looks cool.
I almost stepped on this blue beauty, which was completely covered by leaves. It was growing by itself on a ridge-top under oak and other hardwoods. I usually only find them under pine.
In my opinion this mushroom is not edible. I tried some a few years ago and found the flavor and texture to be poor. The disappointing culinary experience was soon followed by mild nausea and not so mild diarrhea. This beautiful mushroom is best photographed and left in the woods.
Created: 2009-06-28 22:24:44 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2009-06-28 22:24:44 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 826 times, last viewed: 2017-06-21 15:00:45 CDT (-0400)