| The Magazine of the CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES |
|
|
| Letters to the Editor Mushrooms While "The Way of the Wild Mushroom" (Fall 1999) is fascinating and informative, I am appalled that it does not mention the dangers of poisonous mushrooms. It does not even note that there are such things! Such an attractive article, with its beautiful illustrations, is likely to be seen by some people as the perfect guide to begin their own mushroom hunting. But there are many look-alikes that are highly dangerous, and no one should begin collecting mushrooms without the personal guidance of an expert. Every couple of years we read in the news about unfortunate amateurs who die from eating mushrooms. I think it is highly irresponsible of you to publish this article without a prominent warning. I urge you to send out a follow-up mailing immediately. David A. Frangquist David Arora responds: David Frangquist is absolutely right when he says that some wild mushrooms are poisonous and that inexperienced people should not pick them without guidance from a knowledgeable person. If the article had been about foraging for one's own food, I would certainly have included prominent warnings—what better way to plug my own field guides? But since the article was on the lives of professional mushroom pickers, I detect in Frangquist's requests a hint of fungophobia. Must an article profiling professional skiers or surfers (with beautiful pictures of waves and ski slopes) contain warnings about the dangers of those activities (both of which claim far more lives than mushroom hunting)? Or, turning to the natural world, must an overview of the economics of huckleberry or shellfish farming print prominent warnings that some berries are poisonous and that shellfish can be deadly under certain conditions? How Grueling In her article "The Riddle of the Ancient Mariners" (Summer 1999) Tabitha Powledge writes, "Ten thousand miles is a very long walk in a few hundred years. It's not an impossible trip: moving 20 miles south every year for 500 years would do it. But it would be grueling." [Emphasis mine.] Come on, folks. Twenty miles in a year doesn't begin to be grueling. The speed of travel cannot be used to reject the overland hypothesis, or support the coastal boating hypothesis. It's the other data that Powledge nicely presents that are crucial. Sandy Harcourt
Tabitha Powledge responds: Not an impossible trip, as the piece pointed out explicitly. But I'd hate to lose sight of one of the beauties of the boat hypothesis. It emphasizes how true migrations are carried out: by family groups. They come toting a certain amount of household impedimenta and looking for a nice place to live. Adventurers don't count. The Americas were settled first by small bands that included people of all ages. That implies a pretty elastic definition of what constitutes a leisurely stroll. Thank You, Sea Creatures It seems that oil and nature-themed publications have had a symbiotic relationship for many years: Shell ads in National Geographic, Phillips Petroleum ads in Smithsonian, Chevron ads in Outside. And I have come to expect Chevron's bi-page ad to welcome me into each issue of California Wild. But I did not skip over the two-page one in the Spring 1999 issue. I read and reread the ad's text about an oil rig abandoned in the Gulf of Mexico. I examined it closely, looking for the oil platform mentioned in the text. Why would the ocean's creatures need reefs made of discarded oil platforms for shelter unless the constant activity incurred by Chevron and others had stripped the ocean floor of its natural habitat in the first place? Did Chevron take care to protect the habitat that was already there? Did they even bother to document what creatures resided in the spot they squatted on? Perhaps their ad campaign should read: "www.creaturesdo.com. Thank you sea creatures for being so adaptable and saving us the trouble of removing our oil platform when we were done with it." Nanette Coulter
|
Winter 2000
|
