Can I divert the conversation by asking if anyone besides me knows what a “caryopsis” is?
Don’t know too much about flowers to be honest. All I know is my mother’s caryopsis grow extremely well and multiply rapidly. She ends up pulling some out every spring. Last year she lost her Asters but did not lose any caryopsis. She waters twice a week during summer and when she goes on vacation they don’t get watered at all. She does not water once it is fall as she gets too busy with school. The last few years she has gone on a lot of vacations for summer which is how I think she lost some plants but like I said the caryopsis continue to thrive. I know the black eyed Susan are in the sunflower family so maybe they are related?
Based on the definition I looked up I’ve consumed plenty of them.
Just looked in up. What you mentioned was a seed such as grain. I thought you were talking about the flower.
Elivings, you were bringing weapons of mass destruction into this conversation, i.e. a totally unrelated item.
The definition of caryopsis is not a good definition. It specifically refers to the pericarp around the seed which is known as the “caryopsis”. A kernel of sweet corn has a “skin” around the kernel. The skin is the caryopsis. It is a unique plant structure different from other plants. Beneath the caryopsis is the aleurone layer which in corn may contain anthocyanins turning the kernel black, blue, red, or purple. Beneath the aleurone is the endosperm which is normally either white or various shades of yellow/orange from carotenoids. Would you be surprised to learn that there are corn breeding lines that have very high levels of carotene which is a vitamin A precursor? Look up Nalo Orange corn for an example.
1 Like
Honestly from what I read on corn you can start an entire topic on. There is so many types and uses for it. Animal feed check, turning it into things like gas check from my understanding, decorations check, food for animals check. Apples are a pretty big debate and corn can be even bigger. There is certainly some fruit people grow for nutritional benefits. Seaberry is an example of a controversial berry because it has thorns galore but many people like it for the nutritional benefits and that it is a nitrogen fixer.
1 Like
Elderberry is another plant heavily grown for benefits. A few years ago a doctor actually recommended them.
1 Like
a couple more tidbits: if you eat corn, you are a fruit-eater. And if you eat coconut meat/drink coconut water you are a seed eater/drinker
2 Likes
Other than the oils of nuts, I can’t think of another American food where one would drink a nut other than “coconut water”.
1 Like
Almond milk and the alternative milks I suppose.
it is technically liquid endosperm(part of a seed). Coconut water has living cells in them-- sloshing about. Coconuts(and a few others of its edible tropical cousins in the palm family) are one-of-a-kind in this aspect for having liquid seed parts.
with young immature coconuts(green stage), the sugars in both the liquid and solid endosperm have yet to be condensed into fat, which makes green coconuts naturally sweet and so incomparably refreshing.
Brown(mature) coconuts will still have liquid endosperm but is no longer as sweet as a result
“young” green coconuts being sold in usa may already be borderline mature. If you shake a supposedly young coconut and can actually feel or hear the coconut water, that’s a sign it is on the brink of turning into a brown coconut. The flesh will be thicker, tougher, and more oily instead of sweet. And the water will also be less sweet.
conversely, if a green coconut is picked too soon, the flesh(solid endosperm /coconut flesh) will be too thin and while sweet, the liquid endosperm will be a bit bland and somewhat acrid.
much like a banana is already sweet and edible when already reached 90% yellow coloration, but will still be acrid
2 Likes
I have the freedom to create my own definitions.
Even the same fruit could be a vegetable. Plantains are a vegetable when eaten unripe and become a fruit when eaten over ripe.
1 Like
As a very botanically-minded person, the amount of public articles claiming “x is not really y” is actually a pet peeve of mine. To start with, the botanical identity of different fruits & plant parts are only relevant for the purposes of identification, comparative anatomy, and other specialized botanical endeavors… they’re almost useless to the average layman. Secondly, several of the botanical terms in question have a history of use in the gastronomic sector that far predates their use in the botanical sphere.
“Vegetable” has always been a gastronomic term for a gastronomic context, there’s no need for it to have a botanical counterpart. Hesperidium, Pepo, Aggregate Fruit and other such terms are botanical terms for botanical contexts, almost never used in common parlance.
And then there’s “berry”… As a term that dates back to at least Proto-Germanic, I think it’s safe to say its use as a gastronomic term far, far predates its use as a botanical term. So while there may be a botanical definition for a botanical context, – unless I speak in that context – you’ll never hear me refer to a pumpkin, a banana or a tomato as a berry, and you’ll never hear me refer to a blackberry or a strawberry as anything other than a berry. All the articles I come across claiming “strawberries aren’t berries” while tackling the remaining subject matter from a Layman’s perspective just make me sigh in mild frustration.
So that’s my two cents. If you have need to refer to the reproductive anatomy… call it a fruit. If you’re just talking about how you grow or cook with it, call it a vegetable (or whatever it may be). Anything else is just semantics.
6 Likes
That is how I feel too. It is a way to show off to your friend but it is something most will not be concerned with. There is a lot to math and science in general that you may be able to learn or know but never use. Most will never use algebra equations like 11 + X = 0 for example but it is something they teach in schools. I remember in physics there was an equation to determine which an item will land. That is important if you are a sniper in the military or a paid hitman that owns a sniper but not be very important to the average Joe. I remember in algebra two I learned how to calculate something if it gains or losses value at a set amount per year. I don’t remember the equation now because I never have tried to do that even though that was one of the more useful equations I could find.
1 Like
That is about the most relevant and perhaps the best argument for calling various vegetables “fruits” even if they are not actually the thing 99% of the population calls them.
That being said, from a scientific perspective, the record is regularly corrected for various species in regards to their genus and/or family as more genetics testing or other types of information is discovered to correct the record. So because “everyone does it” in my mind is never a good reason to do something. I’m not saying I’ll stop calling a strawberry a berry, but it is helpful to understand on a deeper level why it actually isn’t.
Another observation to note- the US government spent an untold amount of money and effort over many years, probably decades, creating the “Food Pyramid” which attempted to guide every man, woman, and child to consume a specified amount of fruits, vegetables, etc…
If one used the literal definition of a fruit or vegetable, it would drastically alter the categorization of many items in that pyramid. So words do matter and definitions are important.
1 Like
The food pyramid is not actually a true classification on what we should eat. There was a lot of lobbying that went into the food pyramid and as a result it is a flawed model. If you said I want some prunus avium or prunus domestica I would think not many would understand what you are saying either but if you said give me a sweet cherry or plum most would understand what you are saying. It is very important for breeding purposes (pluerry is a sweet cherry, asian plum and peach mix I believe for example). I don’t think that would apply to your average person not wanting to breed and just plant a tree though. Heck I wonder how many people know or understand these hybrids anyway for breeding. They can get very complicated. I think want caesar was talking about was the importance of identification in foraging. It would be good to know what an aggregate fruit is when foraging for something as you can easier classify berries in the raspberry/blackberry family/class for example. If you question why I say the food pyramid is flawed here is a link on it: Nutrition Diagnostics - The Food Pyramid is Killing You
1 Like
The five food groups of the old food pyramid don’t seem to have evolved with modern society.
Clearly, the modern five food groups are what you can find in almost every package that you pick up: Salt, Sugar, Starch, Fat, and… Preservatives…
If you look at the diet of someone who is super fit and healthy you find out a few things. They eat things like eggs, chicken, fish, vegetables etc. Breads turn into sugars which is a problem. My aunt was a model and she will not even eat red meats. What she has done is learned how to season foods so they become enjoyable. Sugars and carbs are hard to sell people on though. If you look at the keto diet which many people lose tons of weight on it recommends against fruit even as fruit is fairly high in sugars and carbs.
Context is everything. If people are talking about growing the plant and referencing its reproductive structures, then yes, calling the squash or the tomato a fruit makes sense. If they’re talking about post-harvest management, preparation and consumption, it makes little sense to refer to them as fruit. The context makes the conversation; both were layman’s conversations, but the the former example required botanical terms, and in the latter the gastronomic definition of fruit (a sweet/dessert-used fruiting structure) takes precedence as being more relevant.
Argumentum ad populum was never the intention. Language lies in the service of the people that use it, and only makes sense in that context. There is an element of consensus involved in linguistics that cannot be reduced to mere “ad populum”, and linguistics is as valid a discipline as botany, just for another context. The fact is that the terms in question (“fruit”, “nuts”, “berries”, etc.) have a history of consensus in the gastronomic sub-sphere of linguistics that gives their original non-botanical definitions equal validity and weight as their modern botanical definitions, just for a different context.
Gastronomy, like every discipline, benefits from having well-defined terms to refer to different concepts. So strawberries and brambles aren’t botanical berries like blueberries… So walnuts, hazelnuts, cashews and almonds have nothing in common, structurally… that doesn’t change the fact that these berries and nuts (in their respective categories) possess similar gastronomic (and nutritional) traits that result in them being processed, managed and consumed in a similar manner to each other; they have similar applications to each other. These concepts, these gastronomic similarities, require terms to refer to them concisely. And they have those terms, they’ve had them for a long time. Berries, and nuts. Terms whose original definitions, by linguistic consensus, predate their employment in the botanical sphere.
I don’t take issue with botany having made use of these terms, nor with these matters being made into teachable moments for the average layman. But I am a stickler for recognizing and respecting different contexts whenever they coincide or overlap, for the sake of clarity.
Saying “Did you know that there’s multiple definitions for the term berry, and whether a particular fruit counts as one depends on the context?” is a teachable moment that helps the other party gain botanical knowledge while acknowledging the validity of the more familiar gastronomic jargon.
For the articles to say “Strawberries aren’t really berries, almonds aren’t really nuts, and tomatoes are fruit, not vegetables” is, if perhaps unintentionally, disingenuous, and only serves to confuse the public. Furthermore, the – perhaps unintended – implication is that it is necessary to supplant the gastronomic definitions with botanical ones. Why? Who would benefit from this? If said terms were supplanted, their original gastronomic concepts would still need terms to represent them. Otherwise, you may have to be content receiving a pumpkin when you ask for a berry, or an acorn when you ask for a nut.
Words are very important, but so is the context in which they’re employed. A purely botanical food pyramid would be almost useless, as botanical “fruit” have a very wide range of nutritional combinations. That’s why gastronomic concepts are also important, as gastronomic “fruit” tend to be a little more nutritionally consistent with each other (sugary and vitamin rich; not overly starchy like breadfruit nor fatty like avocado, both excluded here from gastronomic “fruit“).
2 Likes
say it ain’t so!!
1 Like