What I am trying to explain here is that mushrooms coloration (and now even their toxicity) has nothing to do with darwinistic "survival strategies".
No, that is what you are claiming, you haven't actually
explained anything.
Yet they confirmed what I stated from the beginning:
Do they consider the distinction between non-lethal and lethal toxins? If not then the article doesn't address the point I made. Instead it relates to the side poin I made that visual perception in fungivores might be a question and the idea that aposematic signalling is done by olfaction instead is no problem for neodarwinism, but there is no reason it can't be done by both in distinct situations.
If you like scientific link supporting my claim more precisely
The previous link didn't support your claim imprecisely, it didn't support it at all and neither does your new one. 9 days still isn't after 3 weeks, and neither is 17 days which is the later time for the onset of symptoms that your new paper gives.
Can't you just admit that your 'after 3 weeks' claim was wrong?
Again - I do not see any darwinistic "survival strategy" of poison that take effect after so many days that animal cannot remember what could be the source of its nuisance.
Once again, if the form that 'nuisance' takes is 'possible fatal kidney damage', as your site suggests, then it hardly matters if the animal remembers what it ate or not.
Care to address the point, or do you have some more links which have nothing to do with it to bring up?
TTFN,
WK