Kirt:
>> Hmmm...I don't, at least not as much as I'd hope I could. We have both
>> Vonderplanitz and Burger anecdotes about their taste failing to prevent
>> them from mushroom poisoning.

Jean-Louis:
>Burger tells in his book that some instinctos have been poisoned by
>mushrooms that didn't taste particularly ugly, but that an experienced
>instincto eating mushrooms when only attractive shouldn't be
>endangered. Indeed, he proved himself in a public appearance that
>instinct worked on mushrooms.

My impression from the english translation of Burger's Manger Vrai was that
he did eat some "poison" mushrooms at that test that were only OK and that
there were some consequences which he didn't detail. He seemed to be kind
of apologizing for the event, not really boasting of his success. I'll have
to take another look at it...

Thanks for sharing your fuller view of the event! I am at a great
disadvantage trying to peice together the instincto scene and its myriad
tales from far away and value every clarification, every utterance
actually, from those in Europe with more direct experience. I still say
that _every_ dangerous food may not have a dangerous taste. Probably as a
general rule, yes, but there are surely fuzzy areas. Natural selection is
not a perfect mechanism for honing animal attribrutes. It works is all, but
we can't expect perfection.

Any instincto ready to take the "fuji" challange? The infamous toxic liver
of the puffer fish? Or has this already been done? Or is the puffer fish
liver toxin an old wive's tale spread by denatured monds? ;) I don't think
_I_ would until maybe a dozen instinctos tried it before me, and even then,
hmmm...;)

>> Futher, just because a certain parasite does no great damage doesn't mean
>> it is particularily useful.

>Why not classify parasites (or microbes) in three categories:
>-harmful
>-indifferent
>-useful?

This sounds like useful nomenclature! Yet there remains the problem that
what is indifferent to one person may be useful or harmful to another, or
even to the same person at a different time...

<snip interesting SJG stuff>

>This is to say that nature may not be as harmonious as we wish, and to
>state that humans have no predators, no harmful parasites and no
>dangerous microbes seems a bit anthropocentrist to me: it reminds me
>of some old speculations about the fact that the world was designed by
>God for humans, and all the evil in Nature has a hidden meaning we
>have to decipher because God, being perfect, cannot be cruel...

I agree whole-heartedly! A very insightful post...

Cheers,
Kirt