Talk:Berry (botany)

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Epigynous berry was copied or moved into Berry with this edit on 13 August 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of True berry was copied or moved into Berry with this edit on 13 August 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Berry was copied or moved into Berry (botany) with this edit on 12 August 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

History Section

Peppers last I checked were a botanical berry, as were gourds and grapes; most people do not consider peppers and gourds as berries under the common usage, unless you are saying the page is only about the definition itself and not the actual botanical berries, the section belongs.Falconjh (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, let's try a section called "History of use", which can later perhaps be a subsection of "Uses". The point is to distinguish it from the history of the use of the term in botany, as the main focus of the article is now on morphology and terminology. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the section does come from when there was a single article and I was trying to cover use cases of both terms, but the facts in it do fit here, rewording it may be appropriate. History of use makes sense as there are many other possible histories of berries. Falconjh (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Color and potential health benefits

The section "Color and potential health benefits" doesn't fit well here; it was from the Berry article. Fruit that have the structure of a berry are not necessarily colourful, e.g. bananas, sapotes such as Pouteria sapota, Podophyllum, avocados, and many other fragrant fruits. I propose deleting it from this page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

I think there does need to be a "Uses" section, including the current "History of use" and "Commercial production" sections as subsections. Bananas and citrus fruit being such important crops they need to be added to "History of use". Possibly a sentence about no evidence for health benefits could be here?

Peter coxhead (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made a start along the lines suggested above. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section title "Fruits not botanical berries"

The section title was recently changed to "Fruits mistakenly called botanical berries", but this isn't right because they aren't called "botanical berries" but "berries", so I changed it back. Changing to "Fruits mistakenly called berries" wouldn't be right either, since it asserts that the colloquial use of "berry" is mistaken and the botanical view correct, whereas they are simply different uses of language as reflected in the two articles, Berry and this one.

I'm not entirely happy with this section title, in particular because conifer "berries" aren't fruits, but I'm not sure what else it could be.

Also, note that there are links to the section title, so an anchor must be left if it is changed. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this just a suggestion: I've moved the conifers out of that fruit section. I was thinking that perhaps some other non-fruit could be listed. Wheat berries are one such item. I think it is a very rare usage, but I've heard corn smut described as a berry; that appears on this page but perhaps nowhere else. In old books one can also find "the cochineal berry, now known to be an insect", or perhaps that's too ancient. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the move is right; "Fruits not botanical berries" then covers that set of fruit classification categories in which at least some fruits are colloquially called "berries". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice "Persea species" (e.g. avocado) are defined as both drupe AND botanical berry!! Jonstammers (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonstammers: yes, and this is correct according to reliable sources. See Drupe#Terminology. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: So is an avocado a botanical berry or not? You're telling me it both is and isn't?? There must be some error somewhere if it would be a drupe ("not botanical berries" according to this section) and a botanical berry?

@Jonstammers: the task of Wikipedia is to reproduce faithfully information in appropriate reliable sources, without bias towards one or the other (see the introduction to WP:RS). Plants don't grow according to human definitions; there's no sharp boundary in nature between what everyone agrees is a "berry" at one extreme and what everyone agrees is a "drupe" at the other. Some sources (like the Flora of North America) use three categories: drupes, drupaceous berries, and berries. Others just use two categories: drupes and berries. However, different sources put the boundaries between the categories in different places. So according to some definitions and sources, avocados are drupes and according to others they are berries. That's just how it is in biology. (Botanists don't even agree on what "plant" means if you read the article.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annona example of an aggregate fruit

I removed the Annona example, but have now added it back. Sources differ considerably in how Annonaceae and Annona fruits are described, which is what bothered me at first.

Flora of North America – Annona: "fruits fleshy syncarps"; definition of "syncarp" in the glossary gives "multiple fruit" as a synonym, and vice versa, but "multiple fruit" is said to be derived from two or more adjacent flowers, whereas Annona fruit is described as "1 per flower", so it's not clear to me what the entry means.
Flora of China – Annona "Fruit syncarpous"; no glossary so it's not clear what is meant.
L. Watson and M. J. Dallwitz Annonaceae: "commonly an aggregate of berries"
European Garden Flora – Annonacae: "fruit a berry or more commonly an aggregate of berries"
Handbook of Fruit Science & Technology – Annonaceae: "fleshy syncarpium of berries"
Encyclopedia Britannica – Annonaceae: "berry"; the Encyclopedia Britannica is cited by other more popular sources for the use of "berry".
University of Hawaii Botany Department – Annonaceae: "multiple fruits like the custard apple"
ARS GRIN – Annonaceae: "Fruit pericarpium, or anthocarp; simple, or multiple; ..."

So although it's not totally clear, I think there is evidence that (1) Annona fruits can be called an "aggregate fruit", and (2) less botanically, are called berries. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judd says "Fruit an aggregate of berries, these becoming connate as they develop". ^[1]^: 232 Plantsurfer 09:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Enc. Britt., fount of all wisdom, says "The date is a one-seeded berry whose stone is hard nutritive tissue." Doesn't that make it a drupe? Plantsurfer 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Judd, WS; Campbell, CS; Kellogg, EA; Stevens, PF; Donoghue, MJ (2002). Plant Systematics: A phylogenetic approach, Second edition. Sunderland MA, USA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0878934030.

The more I've read about fruit classification and terminology, the more I've realized that there is little consistency in usage. All you can do is to quote a well-respected source, but accept that other sources will use different terminology. The "drupe-berry boundary" is particularly problematic as the endocarp becomes less thick and less hard. The Kew Plant Glossary attempts to put a maximum thickness on the endocarp of a berry (2 mm) but this is as arbitrary as any other definition. It's also relevant that Spjut and his followers have reversed the meaning of "multiple fruit" compared to "aggregate fruit". Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berry (botany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140707173920/http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss01/anthocyanin.html to http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss01/anthocyanin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked as ok. --Zefr (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berry (botany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120221956/http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fruitid1.htm to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fruitid1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Zefr (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Pepper" vs "Capsicum"

@Peter coxhead They are not called pepper in Australia. As I see it, if there is at least one place where they are known by the name capsicum (remember that is the name of the article that is being linked to), then that should be the primary name in the article and the nickname added for clarification. Junglenut |Talk 06:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglenut: however, "capsicum" is ambiguous – do you mean its use as an English word, or the genus Capsicum? The hatnote to Capsicum suggests that all members of the genus are not called "capsicum". Using the genus name (i.e. capitalized and italicized) may be better in the context. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I admit I didn't read the Capsicum article, and so didn't notice the hatnote pointing to the grocery variety. Junglenut |Talk 06:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Judd-1] Judd, WS; Campbell, CS; Kellogg, EA; Stevens, PF; Donoghue, MJ (2002). Plant Systematics: A phylogenetic approach, Second edition. Sunderland MA, USA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0878934030.

[1]