How we read the evidence

Every animal verdict requires an explicit sourced claim. ASPCA’s “Toxic to” and “Non-Toxic to” strings apply only to the animal named. Missing coverage means this database has not collected evidence; it does not mean the plant is safe or that no evidence exists. Missing mentions become No evidence collected in this database yet, never safe. We do not infer suitability from absence.

Toxic and non-toxic claims for the same animal produce “Conflicting sources”; all claims remain visible. Otherwise toxic takes precedence, then caution, then non-toxic. Caution means a source describes possible harm or uncertain evidence.

These lists are not exhaustive. “Not listed” never means safe. A genus listing is not evidence for every species or cultivar; read scientific names and claim scope notes. A general bird claim is not a claim about each bird species. Photos illustrate the credited specimen and do not identify your plant.

ASPCA signs keyword groupings

“Serious signs listed by ASPCA” is our keyword flag, only for ASPCA toxic claims for cats and dogs. It does not predict an individual outcome. The matched keywords appear on the plant page.

These groupings predict nothing about an individual animal and are not a clinical severity scale. The existing browsing URLs use substring matches in clinical signs: severe = death, kidney failure, liver, coagulopathy, cardiac, seizure, coma; moderate = difficulty swallowing, swelling, incoordination, depression, blood, burning; mild = other explicit toxic claims. The serious-sounding keyword group takes priority. Non-toxic requires an explicit non-toxic claim; absent evidence is excluded.

What each source can and cannot tell you

Poison-control listings describe named animals and plants, not an individual prognosis. Veterinary references describe exposure effects and plant parts; genus-level listings need care. University lists may cover livestock or broader genera. Rescue education and specialist charities use their own classification systems. Care guides describe feeding and husbandry and do not establish whole-plant toxicity verdicts.

Peer-reviewed studies

For peer-reviewed papers (found through PubMed) we read the title and abstract only, and each excerpt is quoted verbatim from the abstract with its PMID or DOI. A study applies only to the plant and animal it tested: we never carry a result from one animal to another (a rat result says nothing about hamsters unless the paper says so). When the species tested differs from the plant listed here (for example a different member of the genus), or the paper tested only skin or eye exposure, the verdict is shown as caution and the note says why. Laboratory dosing with extracts and single case reports are labelled as such in the basis column.

Corrections

We corrected ASPCA text that had been cut off, clarified source-specific labels and plant parts, and distinguished missing database coverage from evidence of safety. Family synonyms and search aliases improve browsing without changing claims.

Verification

Build validation checks source IDs, verbatim excerpts against local caches (ASPCA excerpts against the plant record), animal claims, photo credits, and links. Plant facts reproduce the ASPCA record or sourced extras. Inspect our sources.

My pets and overall badges

Overall badges use only your selected animals. If any selected animal has a toxic, conflicting or caution verdict, the badge shows that hazard first and also names any selected animal with no evidence collected yet. If none does, a missing animal is named instead of a reassuring verdict. Otherwise the result is non-toxic. An overall badge is a browsing aid, not an additional source claim.

“Safe-listed for ALL my pets” requires an explicit non-toxic verdict for every selected animal, with no conflicts or caution verdicts. It does not guarantee safety for an individual animal.