Quoted:
one of the few internet debates I have had was on this very topic. Very well known member here. I proposed that some dangerous phenotypes can look startlingly like the edible ones. Not calling anyone out but I basically got the "I've been doign this for X years and I'm still kicking" arguments. of course we did the gentlemenly thing and agree dto disagree, but I was concerned a new member may try his hand at discerning safe ones to eat. I hope the folks heal up ok.
Normally, when one speaks of phenotypic variation, it is within a species, no?
Now, if you mean that different species of mushrooms may have similar appearences––yes, that is something you should definately be aware of! Like the edible (and choice!) chanterelle and the not-so-edible Jack O Lantern. Or how young Destroying Angels can look like puffballs.
I'm a firm believer that you have to do your homework and invest time and effort into educating yourself before you harvest and eat your first wild mushroom.
With the possible exception of sticking with morels, you've got to be a good amateur mycologist to be a good amateur wild mushroom eater. You've got to have decent field guides, identified poisonous and non-poisonous mushrooms, made spore prints and generally take things slow and easy.
Back to the reloading analogy: Do people with experience blow up their guns with their reloads? It happens. Do people with no clue blow up their guns with their reloads? It happens. Do people manage to do everything right, everytime and enjoy years of blasting with no ill-effects? Of course.
Does this fact scare off many people from reloading? Yes, and that may be a good thing.