From email@example.com on behalf of Dr AF Bourbeau
An edibility test, to be logical, has to work with the most poisonous plants on the planet. This means you don't want to die from testing the plants, nor be seriously ill. I think this test answers these criteria. Before I go on, though, I would like to inform you of the circumstances which would warrant using this test- of which I can only think of one. The only time you would need this test is when there is a very abundant plant available which could provide you with sustenance if it was edible, and you did not have access to information, such as on a lenghty trip. For example, on a month-long walkabout I did in the far north, I wanted to know if a very abundant weird looking orange berry was edible or not- looked to me like it was from the Rubus genus, so I decided to test it over a period of a few days. It ended up being delicious and comprised a great many of my deserts from then on. But if the berry had been extremely poisonous, I would not have been harmed by the following test suggested by William E. Harmon.
WARNING! DO THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK!
I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS UNLESS YOU ARE AWARE OF COMMON POISONOUS PLANTS AND ESPECIALLY COMMON POISONOUS MUSHROOMS.
However, some plants, such as gyromitra spp. mushrooms, contain cumulative poisons, ie, eat a little it's OK but after eating a lot, you get sick. Again, this test is useful once you already know at least some characteristics of the plant in question. I have used this test successfully on several occasions, but I always tested plants I knew at least something about botanically. For example, I successfully tested unknown species of Russula mushrooms, Hypomeces mushrooms, Clavaria mushrooms, several unknown berries from the some known families, but I sure as hell wouldn't try anything from the potato family (Solonaceae), which contains deadly nightshade, or from the amanita mushroom genus, which contains the death angel etc.