Sid

Hi all,

I've placed some photographs of English wildflowers on my Flickr
website. These are currently growing in my garden.

If any one can identify these, I'd be most grateful.
I've included in the photos the leaves as well as the
flowers, which may assist in identification.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adelaid...ora_and_fauna/

Sid
Adelaide
Australia

Larry Stoter

Sid <sidneysnot1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've placed some photographs of English wildflowers on my Flickr
> website. These are currently growing in my garden.
>
> If any one can identify these, I'd be most grateful.
> I've included in the photos the leaves as well as the
> flowers, which may assist in identification.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/adelaid...ora_and_fauna/
>
> Sid
> Adelaide
> Australia

1618
Hawk's-beard? Crepis

1680
Flower suggests Campion? Silene dioica, perhaps, but leaf edges look
serrated which is wrong .....

1669
Common Ragwort? Senecio jacobaea?

1668
A Mayweed or Chamomile? Do the leaves smell when crushed?

1667
A geranium or mallow?
--
Larry Stoter

Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message <1hot84l.c58c1x1xorvwgN%larry@newt.com>, Larry Stoter
<larry@newt.com> writes
>Sid <sidneysnot1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've placed some photographs of English wildflowers on my Flickr
>> website. These are currently growing in my garden.
>>
>> If any one can identify these, I'd be most grateful.
>> I've included in the photos the leaves as well as the
>> flowers, which may assist in identification.
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/adelaid...ora_and_fauna/
>>
>> Sid
>> Adelaide
>> Australia
>
>1618
>Hawk's-beard? Crepis
>
>1680
>Flower suggests Campion? Silene dioica, perhaps, but leaf edges look
>serrated which is wrong .....

Flower does look like a Silene. I can't even see the leaves (perhaps
because I don't have Flash running).
>
>1669
>Common Ragwort? Senecio jacobaea?

I wondered about Chyrsanthemum segetum (Corn Marigold).
>
>1668
>A Mayweed or Chamomile? Do the leaves smell when crushed?
>
>1667
>A geranium or mallow?

I thought it was another Silene, or at least something caryophyllaceous.
You can see the typical ring at the base of the petals. Definitely not a
mallow, which has a distinct staminal column and boss of stamens.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Sid

Thank you for your kind response of you and also Stewart Robert.

The flowers were grown as a result of me being sent a packet
of English Wildflower seeds from my nephew in the UK.

Your identification caused me to do a google search under images
and I came up with the following:

There were three pages of images for Hawks beard Crepis. None of
the pictures looked like my flower although the leaves looked
like those in the photo
http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflsei...&idx= 194&fm=

Unlike the photos I looked at, my plant is low, ground hugging
rather like a dandelion with similar shaped leaves.

No doubt about the Chamomile. The leaves when crushed had a pungent
aroma.

Regarding the Common Ragwort. Having done a search on it,
I discovered that it appears to have a bad reputation, causing
harm to livestock and humans and that handling the plant
is accredited with causing liver failure !

This leads me to believe that it wouldn't be included
in a packet of wildflower seeds.

A search on image of the corn marigold indicate that it is
identical to my plant.

A search on Selene indicated that my plant seemed identical
to Selene alba.

I've updated the Selene plants on my site.

Two more plant are currently in bud and I'll place them
on the site when they have opened up. At the risk of wearing
out my welcome, perhaps these could be identified.

Once again. Thanks for your help.

Sid.

Larry Stoter wrote:
> Sid <sidneysnot1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've placed some photographs of English wildflowers on my Flickr
>> website. These are currently growing in my garden.
>>
>> If any one can identify these, I'd be most grateful.
>> I've included in the photos the leaves as well as the
>> flowers, which may assist in identification.
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/adelaid...ora_and_fauna/
>>
>> Sid
>> Adelaide
>> Australia
>
> 1618
> Hawk's-beard? Crepis
>
> 1680
> Flower suggests Campion? Silene dioica, perhaps, but leaf edges look
> serrated which is wrong .....
>
> 1669
> Common Ragwort? Senecio jacobaea?
>
> 1668
> A Mayweed or Chamomile? Do the leaves smell when crushed?
>
> 1667
> A geranium or mallow?

Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message <eoN6h.66726$rP1.39946@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Sid
<sidneysnot1@hotmail.com> writes
>Thank you for your kind response of you and also Stewart Robert.
>
>The flowers were grown as a result of me being sent a packet
>of English Wildflower seeds from my nephew in the UK.
>
>Your identification caused me to do a google search under images
>and I came up with the following:
>
>There were three pages of images for Hawks beard Crepis. None of
>the pictures looked like my flower although the leaves looked
>like those in the photo
>http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflsei...caria&abs=pfll
>deA&idx=194&fm=
>
>Unlike the photos I looked at, my plant is low, ground hugging
>rather like a dandelion with similar shaped leaves.

I should have realised that it can't be Crepis. Crepis is one of a group
of genera (tribe Lactuceae) in which all the florets are ligulate. Your
plant has both disc and ray florets. It doesn't ring a bell with me as
any of the other yellow flowered British composites - I'd say Senecio is
the nearest - the leaves look quite reasonable for something in
Lactuceae, but it isn't one of them. What does come to mind is Arctotis,
which is South African in origin, but I don't recall that as having a
particularly dandelion like habit - dandelions have a single rosette,
and, if I recall correctly, Arctotis is a spreading plant.

>
>No doubt about the Chamomile. The leaves when crushed had a pungent
>aroma.

Several of the chamomiles and mayweeds have pungent odours, so I
wouldn't say that gives you a definite id to species.
>
>Regarding the Common Ragwort. Having done a search on it,
>I discovered that it appears to have a bad reputation, causing
>harm to livestock and humans and that handling the plant
>is accredited with causing liver failure !
>
>This leads me to believe that it wouldn't be included
>in a packet of wildflower seeds.
>
>A search on image of the corn marigold indicate that it is
>identical to my plant.
>
>A search on Selene indicated that my plant seemed identical
>to Selene alba.
>
>I've updated the Selene plants on my site.
>
>Two more plant are currently in bud and I'll place them
>on the site when they have opened up. At the risk of wearing
>out my welcome, perhaps these could be identified.
>
>Once again. Thanks for your help.
>
>Sid.
>
>Larry Stoter wrote:
>> Sid <sidneysnot1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've placed some photographs of English wildflowers on my Flickr
>>>website. These are currently growing in my garden.
>>>
>>> If any one can identify these, I'd be most grateful.
>>> I've included in the photos the leaves as well as the
>>> flowers, which may assist in identification.
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/adelaid...ora_and_fauna/
>>>
>>> Sid
>>> Adelaide
>>> Australia
>> 1618
>> Hawk's-beard? Crepis
>> 1680
>> Flower suggests Campion? Silene dioica, perhaps, but leaf edges look
>> serrated which is wrong .....
>> 1669
>> Common Ragwort? Senecio jacobaea?
>> 1668
>> A Mayweed or Chamomile? Do the leaves smell when crushed?
>> 1667
>> A geranium or mallow?

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Neil Jones

Sid wrote:

> Thank you for your kind response of you and also Stewart Robert.
>
> The flowers were grown as a result of me being sent a packet
> of English Wildflower seeds from my nephew in the UK.
>
> Your identification caused me to do a google search under images
> and I came up with the following:
>
> There were three pages of images for Hawks beard Crepis. None of
> the pictures looked like my flower although the leaves looked
> like those in the photo
> http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Crepi
+vesicaria&abs=pflldeA&idx=194&fm=
>
> Unlike the photos I looked at, my plant is low, ground hugging
> rather like a dandelion with similar shaped leaves.
>
> No doubt about the Chamomile. The leaves when crushed had a pungent
> aroma.
>
> Regarding the Common Ragwort. Having done a search on it,
> I discovered that it appears to have a bad reputation, causing
> harm to livestock and humans and that handling the plant
> is accredited with causing liver failure !
>

This is not true. There has been a hysterical campaign about this plant
which is only mildly poisonous. Livestock deaths do occur but only rarely.
You would have to eat about a stone in weight of the plant in order to be
poisononed and the poisons are not very well absorbed through the skin at
all. However saying that the plant is dangerous to handle is very useful
for those wishing to fuel hysteria.

For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/


Neil Jones
Neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk

Malcolm

In article <TeF7h.2458$0x.280@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
<neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>Sid wrote:
>
>> Thank you for your kind response of you and also Stewart Robert.
>>
>> The flowers were grown as a result of me being sent a packet
>> of English Wildflower seeds from my nephew in the UK.
>>
>> Your identification caused me to do a google search under images
>> and I came up with the following:
>>
>> There were three pages of images for Hawks beard Crepis. None of
>> the pictures looked like my flower although the leaves looked
>> like those in the photo
>> http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Crepi
>+vesicaria&abs=pflldeA&idx=194&fm=
>>
>> Unlike the photos I looked at, my plant is low, ground hugging
>> rather like a dandelion with similar shaped leaves.
>>
>> No doubt about the Chamomile. The leaves when crushed had a pungent
>> aroma.
>>
>> Regarding the Common Ragwort. Having done a search on it,
>> I discovered that it appears to have a bad reputation, causing
>> harm to livestock and humans and that handling the plant
>> is accredited with causing liver failure !
>>
>
>This is not true. There has been a hysterical campaign about this plant
>which is only mildly poisonous. Livestock deaths do occur but only rarely.
>You would have to eat about a stone in weight of the plant in order to be
>poisononed and the poisons are not very well absorbed through the skin at
>all. However saying that the plant is dangerous to handle is very useful
>for those wishing to fuel hysteria.
>
>For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/
>
>
Although this website doesn't seem to say who compiled it, my
understanding is that it is you did. Should you not admit to this when
recommending it? After all, not everyone agrees with what is claimed
there.

--
Malcolm

David Lee

Malcolm wrote...
>>For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/

> Although this website doesn't seem to say who compiled it, my
> understanding is that it is you did. Should you not admit to this when
> recommending it? After all, not everyone agrees with what is claimed
> there.

Anonymous websites such as this with only a very few biased references that
are generally unavailable to the ordinary reader are totally without any
authority whatsoever. I would strongly suspect that the author of the
ragwortfacts (sic) website, the originator of the material on the Buglife
website and the poster in this thread are likely to be one and the same
person, in which case the claimed corroboration would be entirely spurious.

My understanding is that there IS a serious risk to livestock where ragwort
concentration is high, although indeed the risk has been grossly
overstressed. Over the years we have carried out ragwort control on the
nature reserve where I do voluntary work, since the meadows are grazed
annually by cattle. We now have the plant under control at a level where we
are happy that we have sufficient of the plant to support the insect
population (particularly the healthy population of cinnabar moths) and the
grazier is (or was before he tragically died recently) perfectly happy that
the quantity remaining poses no danger to his livestock.

Total denial of ragwort toxicity can only lead to a predictable reaction
from concerned stockowners, often resulting in a religious determination to
completely eradicate the species. What is required is sensible discussion
about the real and perceived risks leading to a sustainable compromise such
as we have on our reserve.

David

Neil Jones

Malcolm wrote:

>
> In article <TeF7h.2458$0x.280@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
> <neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Sid wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for your kind response of you and also Stewart Robert.
>>>
>>> The flowers were grown as a result of me being sent a packet
>>> of English Wildflower seeds from my nephew in the UK.
>>>
>>> Your identification caused me to do a google search under images
>>> and I came up with the following:
>>>
>>> There were three pages of images for Hawks beard Crepis. None of
>>> the pictures looked like my flower although the leaves looked
>>> like those in the photo
>>> http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Crepi
>>+vesicaria&abs=pflldeA&idx=194&fm=
>>>
>>> Unlike the photos I looked at, my plant is low, ground hugging
>>> rather like a dandelion with similar shaped leaves.
>>>
>>> No doubt about the Chamomile. The leaves when crushed had a pungent
>>> aroma.
>>>
>>> Regarding the Common Ragwort. Having done a search on it,
>>> I discovered that it appears to have a bad reputation, causing
>>> harm to livestock and humans and that handling the plant
>>> is accredited with causing liver failure !
>>>
>>
>>This is not true. There has been a hysterical campaign about this plant
>>which is only mildly poisonous. Livestock deaths do occur but only rarely.
>>You would have to eat about a stone in weight of the plant in order to be
>>poisononed and the poisons are not very well absorbed through the skin at
>>all. However saying that the plant is dangerous to handle is very useful
>>for those wishing to fuel hysteria.
>>
>>For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/
>>
>>
> Although this website doesn't seem to say who compiled it, my
> understanding is that it is you did. Should you not admit to this when
> recommending it? After all, not everyone agrees with what is claimed
> there.
>

Malcolm please don't be disingenuous. You know, as you keep being told, that
the ownership of websites is usually extremely easly to find out. I am sure
that someone who is so forthcoming about his status has the intelligence to
find this out. I was contacted by an australian only this week to tell me
about a problem with the site. This happens fairly regularly.

I'd rather see the honest reaction to the site. I am honestly puzzled by the
confusion about authorship given the number of scientific references given.


I am getting a little fed up with reading what you keep saying about this
plant and its ecology. Particularly when you keep telling everyone that the
cinnabar moth can survive without ragwort.( It isn't true.) I don't presume
to inform you about birds don't do that to me about lepidoptera.


I wish I could make you stop "killing birds with words". That is how I
perceive your actions.

Neil Jones
Neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/

Neil Jones

David Lee wrote:

> Malcolm wrote...
>>>For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/
>
>> Although this website doesn't seem to say who compiled it, my
>> understanding is that it is you did. Should you not admit to this when
>> recommending it? After all, not everyone agrees with what is claimed
>> there.
>
> Anonymous websites such as this with only a very few biased references
> that are generally unavailable to the ordinary reader are totally without
> any
> authority whatsoever.

I am sorry but I must disagree on grounds of logic. First of all the author
of most of the content of the web is unknown at first glance. Much ss
written with noms de plume and you have no way of checking the identities.
You and I don't even really know that each other are using their real names.
Although if you are a lepidoperist you may have a clue.


Secondly, the site is not anonymous anyone can check the ownership in a
matter of seconds.

Thirdly you don't know if the references are biased at all. As you tacitly
admit you haven't read the papers concerned.
The references are available to anyone who wishes to get them through their
local library. They cannot be quoted in full because, unfortunately,
copyright prevents me. The question I CAN answer though is, as the compiler
of the information ( and the owner of one of the world's largest ecological
websites) is that it is accurate and does not give a misleading impression.
I have read almost the entirety of the available technical literature. I
have also followed the hysterical and unscientific claims that are in the
press.

For example, claims that animals cam be poisoned by breathing in the seeds,
when the lethal dose is somewhere between 5% and 20 % of Body weight and
the absurd claim to which I responded here that handling the plant is
dangerous to humans. This is utterly ridiculous and you would agree with me
I am sure if you had read the available literature.

What I suspect is that you, like a most other people don't spend days at a
time researching in the British Library hunting down journals in order to
be sure of their facts.


I would strongly suspect that the author of the
> ragwortfacts (sic) website, the originator of the material on the Buglife
> website and the poster in this thread are likely to be one and the same
> person, in which case the claimed corroboration would be entirely
> spurious.

Whilst I am the owner of the website I am not even a member of Buglife.
They and Wildlife Link big wildlife umbrella organisation in the UK
came to the same conclusions INDEPENDENTLY of me.

That is because this is what the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE says.

>
> My understanding is that there IS a serious risk to livestock where
> ragwort concentration is high, although indeed the risk has been grossly
> overstressed.

The ONLY documented examples I have found in the literature, where Ragwort
has been proved to be the cause of poisoning were because it was in hay.
The latest availble statistics on poisoning are available on the website.
Far from the thousands and thousands of deaths claimed they show very low
figures. ( They cannot be relied upon 100% because other wild plants and
even car exhausts contain substances with IDENTICAL effects.)


> Over the years we have carried out ragwort control on the
> nature reserve where I do voluntary work, since the meadows are grazed
> annually by cattle. We now have the plant under control at a level where
> we are happy that we have sufficient of the plant to support the insect
> population (particularly the healthy population of cinnabar moths) and the
> grazier is (or was before he tragically died recently) perfectly happy
> that the quantity remaining poses no danger to his livestock.

Fine. But let me tell you what the risk is. and I have been posting publicly
on the net about this for years before this example fo the general problem
became apparent.

Recently an attempt was made ,as a result of ragwort hysteria, to pass a
law in the Scottish Parliament. This law would have made it illegal for any
farmer to have his animals exposed to ANY plant that might be harmful. If
you know about botany just stop to think what plants could be affected and
what agricultural intensification could be stimulated. Already Buglife
document damage to an SSSI as a result.

THere is a growing tendency to intensify just to get rid of this plant.
Road verges are being sprayed where any yellow flower occurs. How does the
average road mainainance worker know the difference?



>
> Total denial of ragwort toxicity can only lead to a predictable reaction
> from concerned stockowners, often resulting in a religious determination
> to
> completely eradicate the species. What is required is sensible discussion
> about the real and perceived risks leading to a sustainable compromise
> such as we have on our reserve.


Yes, discussion needs to be sensible, but as a result of some appallingly
misleading campaigns the middle ground is being moved away from where
science says it should be. Landowners are already making claims that the
plant should not be allowed to grow within a KILOMETER of grazing land!
I kid you not!

You have been biased by the misleading information into condemning a fellow
conservationist's efforts to ensure that you're management of your precious
wildlife site is not compromised by extreme and silly hysteria about a
slightly poisonous wild flower.

No total denial of the plant's toxicity exists but already the integrity of
your reserve in the long term has been endangered a little.

Modern science, and I can give you chapter and verse, shows that we need to
conserve wildlife on a landscape scale.

This silly misinformation about ragwort is leading to more agriculturaly
intensification and unnecessarily heavy roadside verge managment ALL of
which compromises the landscape for wildlife and ulimately compromises your
reserve. It also helps create a social climate less conducive to your
reserve's long term survival.

Are you sure that, with all the silly things in the press, that you will be
able to find a grazier who is as tolerant of the "yellow peril"?

> David

Neil Jones
Neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk http:/www.butterflyguy.com/

Christina Websell

"Neil Jones" <neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xOJ7h.17907$Xh3.15039@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> Malcolm wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <TeF7h.2458$0x.280@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
>> <neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>
<snip>
> I am getting a little fed up with reading what you keep saying about this
> plant and its ecology. Particularly when you keep telling everyone that
> the
> cinnabar moth can survive without ragwort.( It isn't true.)

Isn't it? It's my understanding that they can feed on groundsel too.

Tina

Malcolm

In article <xOJ7h.17907$Xh3.15039@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
<neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>Malcolm wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <TeF7h.2458$0x.280@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
>> <neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Sid wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you for your kind response of you and also Stewart Robert.
>>>>
>>>> The flowers were grown as a result of me being sent a packet
>>>> of English Wildflower seeds from my nephew in the UK.
>>>>
>>>> Your identification caused me to do a google search under images
>>>> and I came up with the following:
>>>>
>>>> There were three pages of images for Hawks beard Crepis. None of
>>>> the pictures looked like my flower although the leaves looked
>>>> like those in the photo
>>>> http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Crepi
>>>+vesicaria&abs=pflldeA&idx=194&fm=
>>>>
>>>> Unlike the photos I looked at, my plant is low, ground hugging
>>>> rather like a dandelion with similar shaped leaves.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt about the Chamomile. The leaves when crushed had a pungent
>>>> aroma.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the Common Ragwort. Having done a search on it,
>>>> I discovered that it appears to have a bad reputation, causing
>>>> harm to livestock and humans and that handling the plant
>>>> is accredited with causing liver failure !
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is not true. There has been a hysterical campaign about this plant
>>>which is only mildly poisonous. Livestock deaths do occur but only rarely.
>>>You would have to eat about a stone in weight of the plant in order to be
>>>poisononed and the poisons are not very well absorbed through the skin at
>>>all. However saying that the plant is dangerous to handle is very useful
>>>for those wishing to fuel hysteria.
>>>
>>>For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/
>>>
>>>
>> Although this website doesn't seem to say who compiled it, my
>> understanding is that it is you did. Should you not admit to this when
>> recommending it? After all, not everyone agrees with what is claimed
>> there.
>>
>
>Malcolm please don't be disingenuous. You know, as you keep being told, that
>the ownership of websites is usually extremely easly to find out.

It's even easier for the person who compiled the website to be honest
and open enough to stick their name on it. What possible reason have you
for not doing so?

> I am sure
>that someone who is so forthcoming about his status has the intelligence to
>find this out. I was contacted by an australian only this week to tell me
>about a problem with the site. This happens fairly regularly.
>
So what? This Australian may have been able to find out whose site it
is, but that doesn't mean that every reader has the necessary know how.
You obviously believe in the statements you've made there, so why not
stick your name on it?

>I'd rather see the honest reaction to the site. I am honestly puzzled by the
>confusion about authorship given the number of scientific references given.
>
Then remove all puzzlement by putting your name on it.
>
> I am getting a little fed up with reading what you keep saying about this
>plant and its ecology. Particularly when you keep telling everyone that the
>cinnabar moth can survive without ragwort.( It isn't true.) I don't presume
>to inform you about birds don't do that to me about lepidoptera.
>
I'm not aware that I "keep telling" anyone anything about the cinnabar
moth, but as you seem to want to know the facts, here is what Paul
Waring and Martin Townsend have to say in their 'Field Guide to the
Moths of Britain and Ireland':
"Larval foodplants: Mainly Common Ragwort. Also found on other ragworts,
cultivated ragworts, groundsels and occasionally reported from
Colt's-foot".

And here's Bernard Skinner in his 'Colour Identification Guide to Moths
of the British Isles':
"Larva: July-August on common ragwort, groundsel, and other wild and
garden varieties of Senecio."

So, are you right or are they? I know who I believe.

>
>I wish I could make you stop "killing birds with words". That is how I
>perceive your actions.
>
Really? I suppose you understand what you mean by that, because I don't.

So when are you going to add your name to your website?

BTW, when you do so, you could think of completing the page on "Natural
enemies of ragwort" which has had "Coming soon" on it for over three
years now!

--
Malcolm

Neil Jones

Malcolm wrote:

>
> In article <xOJ7h.17907$Xh3.15039@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
> <neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In article <TeF7h.2458$0x.280@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
>>> <neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>Sid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your kind response of you and also Stewart Robert.
>>>>>
>>>>> The flowers were grown as a result of me being sent a packet
>>>>> of English Wildflower seeds from my nephew in the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your identification caused me to do a google search under images
>>>>> and I came up with the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> There were three pages of images for Hawks beard Crepis. None of
>>>>> the pictures looked like my flower although the leaves looked
>>>>> like those in the photo
>>>>> http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Crepi
>>>>+vesicaria&abs=pflldeA&idx=194&fm=
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike the photos I looked at, my plant is low, ground hugging
>>>>> rather like a dandelion with similar shaped leaves.
>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt about the Chamomile. The leaves when crushed had a pungent
>>>>> aroma.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the Common Ragwort. Having done a search on it,
>>>>> I discovered that it appears to have a bad reputation, causing
>>>>> harm to livestock and humans and that handling the plant
>>>>> is accredited with causing liver failure !
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is not true. There has been a hysterical campaign about this plant
>>>>which is only mildly poisonous. Livestock deaths do occur but only
>>>>rarely. You would have to eat about a stone in weight of the plant in
>>>>order to be poisononed and the poisons are not very well absorbed
>>>>through the skin at all. However saying that the plant is dangerous to
>>>>handle is very useful for those wishing to fuel hysteria.
>>>>
>>>>For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Although this website doesn't seem to say who compiled it, my
>>> understanding is that it is you did. Should you not admit to this when
>>> recommending it? After all, not everyone agrees with what is claimed
>>> there.
>>>
>>
>>Malcolm please don't be disingenuous. You know, as you keep being told,
>>that the ownership of websites is usually extremely easly to find out.
>
> It's even easier for the person who compiled the website to be honest
> and open enough to stick their name on it. What possible reason have you
> for not doing so?
>
>> I am sure
>>that someone who is so forthcoming about his status has the intelligence
>>to find this out. I was contacted by an australian only this week to tell
>>me about a problem with the site. This happens fairly regularly.
>>
> So what? This Australian may have been able to find out whose site it
> is, but that doesn't mean that every reader has the necessary know how.
> You obviously believe in the statements you've made there, so why not
> stick your name on it?
>
>>I'd rather see the honest reaction to the site. I am honestly puzzled by
>>the confusion about authorship given the number of scientific references
>>given.
>>
> Then remove all puzzlement by putting your name on it.
>>
>> I am getting a little fed up with reading what you keep saying about this
>>plant and its ecology. Particularly when you keep telling everyone that
>>the cinnabar moth can survive without ragwort.( It isn't true.) I don't
>>presume to inform you about birds don't do that to me about lepidoptera.
>>
> I'm not aware that I "keep telling" anyone anything about the cinnabar
> moth, but as you seem to want to know the facts, here is what Paul
> Waring and Martin Townsend have to say in their 'Field Guide to the
> Moths of Britain and Ireland':
> "Larval foodplants: Mainly Common Ragwort. Also found on other ragworts,
> cultivated ragworts, groundsels and occasionally reported from
> Colt's-foot".
>
> And here's Bernard Skinner in his 'Colour Identification Guide to Moths
> of the British Isles':
> "Larva: July-August on common ragwort, groundsel, and other wild and
> garden varieties of Senecio."
>
> So, are you right or are they? I know who I believe.
>

No you don't understand the subject because it isn't your area of
specialism. There is more to it than reading field guides which only have
room for short explanations. See my response to Tina. Which includes my
first of a number of responses to you from SEVEN YEARS ago which you don't
seem to have understood.

>>
>>I wish I could make you stop "killing birds with words". That is how I
>>perceive your actions.
>>
> Really? I suppose you understand what you mean by that, because I don't.

That is the whole point you don't understand what you are saying. You have
several times now "talked up" habitat destruction or at least "talked down"
habitat conservation which in the present social climate is the same thing.
Don't you think that wildlife dies when its habitat gets destroyed?

>
> So when are you going to add your name to your website?
>
> BTW, when you do so, you could think of completing the page on "Natural
> enemies of ragwort" which has had "Coming soon" on it for over three
> years now!

I have quite a few other things to add to the site.

I try to ensure that my scientific data is always correct and as accurate as
possible. I used to make fairly regular trips to the British Library It is
the only place where I seem to be able to find most of what I want
together. As it is over 200 miles from where I live I need to stay up in
London.

A few years ago I got ill. Not seriously ,although the condition does kill
people, but enough to necessitate me to take things easy as my doctors said
I should. So I put my visits on hold. I am much better now and at some
point I will organise a trip. It has been so long though that I will want
to spend longer there and I am also extremely busy.

The site is part of a planned network of sites. If my ideas work out we may
be talking about a million pages of ecological information at some point,
I have been as high as a hundred thousand already. So I have bigger fish to
fry than one page on Ragwort, and this is spare time stuff too.

However, what I do take exception to is your abusive behaviour towards me.
Because you disagree with me I find myself subjected to a barrage of
ad-hominem attacks. These are irrelevant to the matter being discussed.
I am sure that you can behave civily and debate the science but your
constant "playing the man not the ball" keeps bringing up an image in my
mind of a gruff, rough, ruffian, like a head-butting Zinadine Zadane
rather than someone whose views I can respect.

Neil Jones
Neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com

Neil Jones

Malcolm wrote:

>
> In article <xOJ7h.17907$Xh3.15039@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
> <neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In article <TeF7h.2458$0x.280@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
>>> <neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>Sid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your kind response of you and also Stewart Robert.
>>>>>
>>>>> The flowers were grown as a result of me being sent a packet
>>>>> of English Wildflower seeds from my nephew in the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your identification caused me to do a google search under images
>>>>> and I came up with the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> There were three pages of images for Hawks beard Crepis. None of
>>>>> the pictures looked like my flower although the leaves looked
>>>>> like those in the photo
>>>>> http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Crepi
>>>>+vesicaria&abs=pflldeA&idx=194&fm=
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike the photos I looked at, my plant is low, ground hugging
>>>>> rather like a dandelion with similar shaped leaves.
>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt about the Chamomile. The leaves when crushed had a pungent
>>>>> aroma.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the Common Ragwort. Having done a search on it,
>>>>> I discovered that it appears to have a bad reputation, causing
>>>>> harm to livestock and humans and that handling the plant
>>>>> is accredited with causing liver failure !
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is not true. There has been a hysterical campaign about this plant
>>>>which is only mildly poisonous. Livestock deaths do occur but only
>>>>rarely. You would have to eat about a stone in weight of the plant in
>>>>order to be poisononed and the poisons are not very well absorbed
>>>>through the skin at all. However saying that the plant is dangerous to
>>>>handle is very useful for those wishing to fuel hysteria.
>>>>
>>>>For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Although this website doesn't seem to say who compiled it, my
>>> understanding is that it is you did. Should you not admit to this when
>>> recommending it? After all, not everyone agrees with what is claimed
>>> there.
>>>
>>
>>Malcolm please don't be disingenuous. You know, as you keep being told,
>>that the ownership of websites is usually extremely easly to find out.
>
> It's even easier for the person who compiled the website to be honest
> and open enough to stick their name on it. What possible reason have you
> for not doing so?
>
>> I am sure
>>that someone who is so forthcoming about his status has the intelligence
>>to find this out. I was contacted by an australian only this week to tell
>>me about a problem with the site. This happens fairly regularly.
>>
> So what? This Australian may have been able to find out whose site it
> is, but that doesn't mean that every reader has the necessary know how.
> You obviously believe in the statements you've made there, so why not
> stick your name on it?
>
>>I'd rather see the honest reaction to the site. I am honestly puzzled by
>>the confusion about authorship given the number of scientific references
>>given.
>>
> Then remove all puzzlement by putting your name on it.
>>
>> I am getting a little fed up with reading what you keep saying about this
>>plant and its ecology. Particularly when you keep telling everyone that
>>the cinnabar moth can survive without ragwort.( It isn't true.) I don't
>>presume to inform you about birds don't do that to me about lepidoptera.
>>
> I'm not aware that I "keep telling" anyone anything about the cinnabar
> moth, but as you seem to want to know the facts, here is what Paul
> Waring and Martin Townsend have to say in their 'Field Guide to the
> Moths of Britain and Ireland':
> "Larval foodplants: Mainly Common Ragwort. Also found on other ragworts,
> cultivated ragworts, groundsels and occasionally reported from
> Colt's-foot".
>
> And here's Bernard Skinner in his 'Colour Identification Guide to Moths
> of the British Isles':
> "Larva: July-August on common ragwort, groundsel, and other wild and
> garden varieties of Senecio."
>
> So, are you right or are they? I know who I believe.
>

No you don't understand the subject because it isn't your area of
specialism. There is more to it than reading field guides which only have
room for short explanations. See my response to Tina. Which includes my
first of a number of responses to you from SEVEN YEARS ago which you don't
seem to have understood.

>>
>>I wish I could make you stop "killing birds with words". That is how I
>>perceive your actions.
>>
> Really? I suppose you understand what you mean by that, because I don't.

That is the whole point you don't understand what you are saying. You have
several times now "talked up" habitat destruction or at least "talked down"
habitat conservation which in the present social climate is the same thing.
Don't you think that wildlife dies when its habitat gets destroyed?

>
> So when are you going to add your name to your website?
>
> BTW, when you do so, you could think of completing the page on "Natural
> enemies of ragwort" which has had "Coming soon" on it for over three
> years now!

I have quite a few other things to add to the site.

I try to ensure that my scientific data is always correct and as accurate as
possible. I used to make fairly regular trips to the British Library It is
the only place where I seem to be able to find most of what I want
together. As it is over 200 miles from where I live I need to stay up in
London.

A few years ago I got ill. Not seriously ,although the condition does kill
people, but enough to necessitate me to take things easy as my doctors said
I should. So I put my visits on hold. I am much better now and at some
point I will organise a trip. It has been so long though that I will want
to spend longer there and I am also extremely busy.

The site is part of a planned network of sites. If my ideas work out we may
be talking about a million pages of ecological information at some point,
I have been as high as a hundred thousand already. So I have bigger fish to
fry than one page on Ragwort, and this is spare time stuff too.

However, what I do take exception to is your abusive behaviour towards me.
Because you disagree with me I find myself subjected to a barrage of
ad-hominem attacks. These are irrelevant to the matter being discussed.
I am sure that you can behave civily and debate the science but your
constant "playing the man not the ball" doesn't seem to represent someone
whose views I can respect.

Neil Jones
Neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com

Malcolm

In article <i8P7h.33735$TH3.16938@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
<neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>Malcolm wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <xOJ7h.17907$Xh3.15039@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
>> <neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In article <TeF7h.2458$0x.280@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Neil Jones
>>>> <neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>Sid wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your kind response of you and also Stewart Robert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The flowers were grown as a result of me being sent a packet
>>>>>> of English Wildflower seeds from my nephew in the UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your identification caused me to do a google search under images
>>>>>> and I came up with the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were three pages of images for Hawks beard Crepis. None of
>>>>>> the pictures looked like my flower although the leaves looked
>>>>>> like those in the photo
>>>>>> http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Crepi
>>>>>+vesicaria&abs=pflldeA&idx=194&fm=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike the photos I looked at, my plant is low, ground hugging
>>>>>> rather like a dandelion with similar shaped leaves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No doubt about the Chamomile. The leaves when crushed had a pungent
>>>>>> aroma.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding the Common Ragwort. Having done a search on it,
>>>>>> I discovered that it appears to have a bad reputation, causing
>>>>>> harm to livestock and humans and that handling the plant
>>>>>> is accredited with causing liver failure !
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This is not true. There has been a hysterical campaign about this plant
>>>>>which is only mildly poisonous. Livestock deaths do occur but only
>>>>>rarely. You would have to eat about a stone in weight of the plant in
>>>>>order to be poisononed and the poisons are not very well absorbed
>>>>>through the skin at all. However saying that the plant is dangerous to
>>>>>handle is very useful for those wishing to fuel hysteria.
>>>>>
>>>>>For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Although this website doesn't seem to say who compiled it, my
>>>> understanding is that it is you did. Should you not admit to this when
>>>> recommending it? After all, not everyone agrees with what is claimed
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Malcolm please don't be disingenuous. You know, as you keep being told,
>>>that the ownership of websites is usually extremely easly to find out.
>>
>> It's even easier for the person who compiled the website to be honest
>> and open enough to stick their name on it. What possible reason have you
>> for not doing so?
>>
>>> I am sure
>>>that someone who is so forthcoming about his status has the intelligence
>>>to find this out. I was contacted by an australian only this week to tell
>>>me about a problem with the site. This happens fairly regularly.
>>>
>> So what? This Australian may have been able to find out whose site it
>> is, but that doesn't mean that every reader has the necessary know how.
>> You obviously believe in the statements you've made there, so why not
>> stick your name on it?
>>
>>>I'd rather see the honest reaction to the site. I am honestly puzzled by
>>>the confusion about authorship given the number of scientific references
>>>given.
>>>
>> Then remove all puzzlement by putting your name on it.
>>>
>>> I am getting a little fed up with reading what you keep saying about this
>>>plant and its ecology. Particularly when you keep telling everyone that
>>>the cinnabar moth can survive without ragwort.( It isn't true.) I don't
>>>presume to inform you about birds don't do that to me about lepidoptera.
>>>
>> I'm not aware that I "keep telling" anyone anything about the cinnabar
>> moth, but as you seem to want to know the facts, here is what Paul
>> Waring and Martin Townsend have to say in their 'Field Guide to the
>> Moths of Britain and Ireland':
>> "Larval foodplants: Mainly Common Ragwort. Also found on other ragworts,
>> cultivated ragworts, groundsels and occasionally reported from
>> Colt's-foot".
>>
>> And here's Bernard Skinner in his 'Colour Identification Guide to Moths
>> of the British Isles':
>> "Larva: July-August on common ragwort, groundsel, and other wild and
>> garden varieties of Senecio."
>>
>> So, are you right or are they? I know who I believe.
>>
>
>No you don't understand the subject because it isn't your area of
>specialism. There is more to it than reading field guides which only have
>room for short explanations. See my response to Tina. Which includes my
>first of a number of responses to you from SEVEN YEARS ago which you don't
>seem to have understood.
>
On the contrary, I fully understood it, which isn't necessarily the same
as saying that I agreed with it.

>>>
>>>I wish I could make you stop "killing birds with words". That is how I
>>>perceive your actions.
>>>
>> Really? I suppose you understand what you mean by that, because I don't.
>
>That is the whole point you don't understand what you are saying. You have
>several times now "talked up" habitat destruction or at least "talked down"
>habitat conservation which in the present social climate is the same thing.
>Don't you think that wildlife dies when its habitat gets destroyed?
>
Could you please give some examples where I have "talked up" habitat
destruction or "talked down" habitat conservation? This is a genuine
request as I am not aware of having done so - why should I, after all?

>>
>> So when are you going to add your name to your website?
>>
>> BTW, when you do so, you could think of completing the page on "Natural
>> enemies of ragwort" which has had "Coming soon" on it for over three
>> years now!
>
>I have quite a few other things to add to the site.
>
>I try to ensure that my scientific data is always correct and as accurate as
>possible. I used to make fairly regular trips to the British Library It is
>the only place where I seem to be able to find most of what I want
>together. As it is over 200 miles from where I live I need to stay up in
>London.
>
>A few years ago I got ill. Not seriously ,although the condition does kill
>people, but enough to necessitate me to take things easy as my doctors said
>I should. So I put my visits on hold. I am much better now and at some
>point I will organise a trip. It has been so long though that I will want
>to spend longer there and I am also extremely busy.
>
>The site is part of a planned network of sites. If my ideas work out we may
>be talking about a million pages of ecological information at some point,
>I have been as high as a hundred thousand already. So I have bigger fish to
>fry than one page on Ragwort, and this is spare time stuff too.
>
Maybe you have, but you entered this thread recommending that particular
website, not any other so, naturally, I revisited it.

>However, what I do take exception to is your abusive behaviour towards me.
>Because you disagree with me I find myself subjected to a barrage of
>ad-hominem attacks. These are irrelevant to the matter being discussed.
>I am sure that you can behave civily and debate the science but your
>constant "playing the man not the ball" doesn't seem to represent someone
>whose views I can respect.
>
I have reviewed all I have written in this thread and cannot see
anything that I would describe as an "ad hominem" attack on you let
alone a "barrage". All I have done is to suggest that you put your name
to your website. That wasn't an attack, it was a suggestion and I note
that you still haven't answered my question why you choose not to put
your name on the site for *all* to see, not just those with the savvy to
find out. Anyway, once again, I would be grateful if you would post
examples from this thread which you regard as an ad hominem attack.

--
Malcolm

Robert Seago

In article <qOqdndr4ucmzzMLYRVnyjg@eclipse.net.uk>, David Lee
<davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Malcolm wrote...
> >>For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/

> > Although this website doesn't seem to say who compiled it, my
> > understanding is that it is you did. Should you not admit to this when
> > recommending it? After all, not everyone agrees with what is claimed
> > there.

> Anonymous websites such as this with only a very few biased references
> that are generally unavailable to the ordinary reader are totally
> without any authority whatsoever. I would strongly suspect that the
> author of the ragwortfacts (sic) website, the originator of the
> material on the Buglife website and the poster in this thread are
> likely to be one and the same person, in which case the claimed
> corroboration would be entirely spurious.

> My understanding is that there IS a serious risk to livestock where
> ragwort concentration is high, although indeed the risk has been
> grossly overstressed. Over the years we have carried out ragwort
> control on the nature reserve where I do voluntary work, since the
> meadows are grazed annually by cattle. We now have the plant under
> control at a level where we are happy that we have sufficient of the
> plant to support the insect population (particularly the healthy
> population of cinnabar moths) and the grazier is (or was before he
> tragically died recently) perfectly happy that the quantity remaining
> poses no danger to his livestock.

> Total denial of ragwort toxicity can only lead to a predictable reaction
> from concerned stockowners, often resulting in a religious
> determination to completely eradicate the species. What is required is
> sensible discussion about the real and perceived risks leading to a
> sustainable compromise such as we have on our reserve.

> David

Fair comments, but in my experience, ragwort is promoted by the type of
grazing done by horses, where in some years it becomes abundant on light
soils. It is avoided by livestock, including horses, so though it
displaces palatable plants they rarely if ever eat it.

It is however eaten if it is cut in a hay crop. Its repellant smell is
lost when it is dry, and therefore long lived animals usually horses can
get serious liver damage, leading to death.

I am not concerned about limited contact with skin, but have read at some
time that one of the Rothschild family, tried rubbing a little sap into a
cut as an experiment, and had extreme reaction by the heart which was
pretty alarming, though never proved fatal.

Remember that Common Ragwort is a good nectar plant and a food plant for
several invertebrates, including the Cinnabar Moth, whose orange and black
striped caterpillars often reduce the plants to skeletons. Some years the
plants numbers decline to a very low level naturally. They go in cycles.

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

David Lee

Robert Seago wrote...
> Fair comments, but in my experience, ragwort is promoted by the type of
> grazing done by horses, where in some years it becomes abundant on light
> soils. It is avoided by livestock, including horses, so though it
> displaces palatable plants they rarely if ever eat it.

That was the attitude of our previous grazier who was quite happy to accept
a reasonable amount of ragwort - once we had controlled it to the level
where the cattle could actually see the grass under the yellow stuff!

I would be a bit more concerned about the welsh mountain ponies that we have
been grazing this year. Much smaller animals and apparently will eat
anything. They were quite happily munching bracken at the edge of a
splendid hay meadow with plenty of aftermath grazing! Fortunately we have
never had any ragwort in that meadow so there's no potential issue with the
quality of the hay.

David

Robert Seago

In article <4s9au5Fu7df6U1@mid.individual.net>,
Christina Websell <spamfree@tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:


> > I am getting a little fed up with reading what you keep saying about
> > this plant and its ecology. Particularly when you keep telling
> > everyone that the cinnabar moth can survive without ragwort.( It
> > isn't true.)

> Isn't it? It's my understanding that they can feed on groundsel too.

> Tina

They rarely if ever lay eggs on it. It is true that in the years in which
they are common and defoliate the ragwort in a big way they crawl around
and will then consume Groundsel and other plants.

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

Christina Websell

Robert Seago wrote:
> In article <4s9au5Fu7df6U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Christina Websell <spamfree@tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> I am getting a little fed up with reading what you keep saying about
>>> this plant and its ecology. Particularly when you keep telling
>>> everyone that the cinnabar moth can survive without ragwort.( It
>>> isn't true.)
>
>> Isn't it? It's my understanding that they can feed on groundsel too.
>
>> Tina
>
> They rarely if ever lay eggs on it. It is true that in the years in
> which they are common and defoliate the ragwort in a big way they
> crawl around and will then consume Groundsel and other plants.


Hey, be careful with your attribution. I didn't write the post that starts
with "I am fed up with.."

Tina



Tina

Malcolm

In article <qOqdndr4ucmzzMLYRVnyjg@eclipse.net.uk>, David Lee
<davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> writes
>Malcolm wrote...
>>>For more details see http://www.ragwortfacts.com/
>
>> Although this website doesn't seem to say who compiled it, my
>> understanding is that it is you did. Should you not admit to this when
>> recommending it? After all, not everyone agrees with what is claimed
>> there.
>
>Anonymous websites such as this with only a very few biased references that
>are generally unavailable to the ordinary reader are totally without any
>authority whatsoever. I would strongly suspect that the author of the
>ragwortfacts (sic) website, the originator of the material on the Buglife
>website and the poster in this thread are likely to be one and the same
>person, in which case the claimed corroboration would be entirely spurious.
>
I don't know about the material on the Buglife website, but the person
posting here, Neil Jones, has admitted to being the author of the
ragwort(mis)facts website. I note he has yet to answer my question of
why on earth it is an anonymous site. Just saying that anyone with the
know how can find out he wrote it isn't an answer.

>My understanding is that there IS a serious risk to livestock where ragwort
>concentration is high, although indeed the risk has been grossly
>overstressed. Over the years we have carried out ragwort control on the
>nature reserve where I do voluntary work, since the meadows are grazed
>annually by cattle. We now have the plant under control at a level where we
>are happy that we have sufficient of the plant to support the insect
>population (particularly the healthy population of cinnabar moths) and the
>grazier is (or was before he tragically died recently) perfectly happy that
>the quantity remaining poses no danger to his livestock.
>
Which is a perfectly acceptable way to manage it. Neil Jones seems to
think that I, and presumably everyone else, wants to exterminate ragwort
completely - as if that would be remotely possible. But keeping it in
check in places where animals could be at risk, and certainly preventing
dried plants getting into hay fed to horses, is a long way short of
extermination. The fields around where I live are liberally sprinkled
with, in some cases massively overgrown with, ragwort. Perhaps that's
because the Cinnabar is extremely rare here:-) And always has been I
might add.

>Total denial of ragwort toxicity can only lead to a predictable reaction
>from concerned stockowners, often resulting in a religious determination to
>completely eradicate the species. What is required is sensible discussion
>about the real and perceived risks leading to a sustainable compromise such
>as we have on our reserve.
>
I couldn't agree more. Attempts to whitewash the plant in the face of
considerable evidence for the harm it can do to animals (including man)
is seriously counter-productive. Neil Jones claims to be an expert, or
at least his rubbishing of my knowledge on the subject conveys that
impression (!), b