From a typo to a challenge
It’s a lesson every writer will learn sooner or later.
Leave a typo anywhere and it will be noticed.
The Legal Genealogist is resigned to that fact, but is turning the tables on readers with one today.
Yesterday, when I posted a link on Facebook to yesterday’s blog post about names that can be found in law books,1 fumble fingers here began the post by saying: “There’s morel than just laws in law books.”
At least nobody questioned whether there were recipes in the law books.
But that set me wondering: were there laws about mushrooms?
So here’s the challenge, dear readers.
Can you find a law about mushrooms somewhere in the United States?
The rules are:
1. It has to be a reference to mushrooms in the text of the law itself. A comment in the footnotes or annotations to the law doesn’t count. Yeah, I’ll accept fungi as a synonym but only if it really refers to something edible and not something like yeast or molds.
2. It can be any law from any jurisdiction.
3. It can be any law about any topic, not just agriculture or the like, as long as it mentions mushrooms.
4. It can be from any time frame — but in case of multiple answers, the earliest-adopted law wins.4
So while your intrepid blogger is off sightseeing in Arizona (and getting ready for tomorrow’s sold-out 2019 seminar of the West Valley Genealogical Society), you can hit the books.
Mushrooms in law books should be fun.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Mushrooms in law books,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 15 Feb 2019).
- Judy G. Russell, “Naming names in Arizona,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 14 Feb 2019 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 15 Feb 2019). ↩
- Comment, Charlotte Sellers, on Judy G. Russell Facebook status, 14 Feb 2019. ↩
- Ibid., comment by Matthew Cross. ↩
- Wins what, you ask? Why, the admiration of all your colleagues, and a mention of your research prowess online. What more could a genealogist ask for? ↩