Talk:Brazil nut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In Brazil[edit]

What are Brazil nuts called in Brazil? Kent Wang 21:28, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They are called "Castanha do Pará". Pará is a state in Northern Brazil. PMLF 21:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can the title of article be changed? I'm from Pará and we consider it offensive to call them "Brazil" nuts. Its like Açai, which is not brazilian - its paraense. Most of the country doesn't feature it. - F. Augusto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Nigger toes" slang term[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can confirm that (sad to say) the racist term for these nuts, deleted by MPF as "unverified", has in fact been in use in the U.S.A. although I don't know just how widespread it may be. Do we pretend it doesn't exist out of ethnic/cultural sensitivity or political correctness? (I have always found this term to be extremely offensive and won't be the one to put it back in.) MrDarwin 16:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

there is even a redirect from nigger toes to Barzil nut - how can you say it is unsubstantiated. BTW, see also "Nigger in popular culture" in the wikipedia article on nigger. As an African American, I can appreciate your sensitivity but racism should not be hidden as if it never existed - that's dangerous. (unsigned comment by User:Butros)

Butros, do you see any way the term could be put back into the article while maintaining some measure of sensitivity? MrDarwin 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd want to see two things if it is going back in:

  • a citation (a redirect is not a citation)
  • some discussion of what it adds to the article. - Csari 01:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What it adds to the article is factual information, and it's standard for Wikipedia articles on plant species to include common (vernacular) names. Facts are sometimes unpleasant. MrDarwin 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OED 2nd ed. offers this:

6. attrib. (passing into adj.) ... c. In special uses ... nigger toe U.S., a Brazil nut

  • 1896 Dialect Notes I. 421 *Nigger toes: for Brazil nuts.
  • 1958 J. M. Lacy in A. Dundes Mother Wit (1973) 597/2 He buys..nuts called 'nigger toes'.
  • 1973 Times 27 Aug. 5/8 In Virginia brazil nuts are called nigger-toes and chewed with great relish.

Worded as a nonjudgmental statement of fact it appears encyclopedic enough to me. Femto 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced information doesn't belong in Wikipedia (WP:CITE). Even if it were sourced, I'd still delete it. Wikipedia is NOT "an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Some information can disappear; I will not mourn its loss.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (Preceeding comment was copied from User talk:MPF.) That said, Butros' point is a good one. But, I don't think it should go back in without providing some context for younger and/or non-American readers, e.g., nigger, Jim Crow laws, etc. I wouldn't want people using Nigger toes for Brazil nuts citing Wikipedia as justification. My preference would be to treat racism in context, however, not in articles where it isn't germane to the subject. Of course, its presence here is evidence of its ubiquity.
During a 1966 telescope meeting, in a talk on the history of the construction of the 200 inch telescope on Mount Palomar, an astronomer described moving large parts up "Nigger Grade". (This is from memory.) Crawford, David Livingstone, ed. (1966). The Construction of large telescopes (International Astronomical Union. Symposium no. 27 ed.). London, New York: Academic Press. p. 234.  I suppose you could make the argument for including that information in articles on the 200 inch telescope or on telescope design and construction. It was published by a reputable publisher. But it is really not relevant there, nor is it here, in my judgement. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Walter. Berton 00:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's face it. This debate would not be occurring at all if the former colloquial term for a brown-skinned Brazil nut was "gorilla toe" or "chocolate toe" or was even something brown and unpleasant that deserves to be elided from the lexicon, such as "feces toe" (all hypothetical/rhetorical to demonstrate my point). The article would just matter-of-factly state: "The term “feces toe” has fallen into disuse during the latter 20th century, as the more erudite and polite term “Brazil nut” has risen in frequency of usage in the American dialect of English." (Can that sentence be any more encyclopedic? Perhaps only by giving an empircal linguistic reference too.) The opposition to even mentioning that the antiquated term has fallen into disuse in the article is in itself predicated on racism or race-consciousness revisionism of factual history, whichever one wants to call it. —optikos 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Opitikos, i have edited to article to reflect this but have used less complex language. Even though i believe that the term is objectionable, the simple fact is that the truth, no matter how terrible or objectionable, should be always be conveyed. Let the readers make their own judgments, don't simply use censorship to achieve your own benevolent ends. -- 09:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have lived in the United States and that term has never been used. If it has it has been used it definitely is not common. I have never heard it. You are not from the US yet you insist on readding it the description with no proof it has ever been used. Perhaps you are thinking of the UK. How many other message boards or wikipedia entries have you vandalized with you juvenile pranks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
It's in the OED, for one, and there are several online accounts. So what, you can live in the US and never hear soda called pop. Yes, I'm neither from the US or UK and don't want historically relevant slang terms get swept under the carpet. Your unilateral removal is disruptive. Groundless accusations of vandalism do not strengthen your point. Do not repeat this. Femto 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have an encyclopedia set from the 1950s and it uses that term as well as a whole bunch of other things. (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Femto. I have heard it used a number of times in the Midwest. It is a part of the American colloquial lexicon. The current phrasing is acceptable and the entry should be left alone.Spikey 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear soda called pop everyday... I lived on both coasts, north and south. This is your juvenile prank which is simply proven by your insistence that it be displayed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

This article is missing an image of an deshelled brazil nut. When one sees the brown skin that an deshelled brazil nut has, it is obviously in the shape of an oversized human (or generally mammalian) toe and with a brown skin, it is obvious how the widespread unfortunate use of "nigger toe" in the USA occurred (as opposed to calling it a Swedish toe or a British toe). I grew up during the 1970s in the Great Lakes region of the USA (well outside of The South) just a mile away from a house that was on the Underground Railroad and everyone that I know called them nigger toes (including black people) until approximately the 1970s or 1980s when parents were trying to break their next-generation children of the habit. In fact the term was so widespread that many people who wanted to stop calling them nigger toes did not know any other term for them. Having grown up in a family that did not tolerate racism, we still used the term "nigger toes" for brazil nuts, as it was the first name that I learned for them at age 3 or so and was the only name for them that I knew until age 7 or 8. I remember each and every holiday season this coming up for debate every time a can of mixed nuts was present in a room with multiple people in it. The desire to avoid calling them by their derogatory name was so strong that I remember people explicitly shopping for cans of mixed nuts that omitted brazil nuts to avoid the entire perennial debate; their viewpoint was to strike the term from the lexicon by striking the nut from the household. This article should respectfully state that the former term "nigger toe" for these nuts has fallen into disuse during the latter 20th century (without further explanation or embellishment). But most importantly this article needs an image of an deshelled brazil nut (with its brown skin left on as is the customary serving practice), even if the text "nigger toes" is forever considered off-limits in this article. To strike the term by striking the image is as silly as my aforementioned striking of the term by striking the nut from the Holiday season. —optikos 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't look like toes at all.

I'm opposed to racial insensitivity like most others, but this is ridiculous. The mention of the "nigger toes" term in the current version of the article is loaded with a sense of politically correct hesitation and moral bias. It's as if the writer was so uncomfortable with the existence of this historical fact that they felt the need to announce their disapproval of it.

The sentence reads: "An old pejorative slang term in the United States was 'nigger toes'." However, not only is the term poorly mentioned (along with an ambiguous reference to its purported antiquity), its label isn't even accurate. Going by the Wikipedia article for "pejorative" that it linked to: "A word or phrase is pejorative if it implies contempt or disapproval." Yet the term "nigger toes" is not a pejorative term for the Brazil Nut, given that it does not aim to disparage or belittle the nut itself. Yes, it was a slang term; yes, it was a term based on another term that was often (but not always) used pejoratively; but, no, it was not a pejorative term in itself. Furthermore, I doubt that many people who referred to Brazil Nuts as "nigger toes" meant it in a disrespectful way, regardless of the insensitivity (or silliness) many of us may personally find in it today. Either way, however, the 'properness' of its usage is not relevant to its inclusion—it was a common and widespread term (which I can also personally attest to, though I've never used it myself), and thus bears mentioning as a fact of history, regrettable or not.

Afterall, Wikipedia is a source of encyclopedic information; it should not be a place to espouse personal views. Removing or censoring any facts that might be deemed offensible by some would be to misunderstand its purpose and to misrepresent its content. You are doing no service to its readers by making moral judgments for them, or by deciding which information they should have access to.

That being said, I have modified the sentence to state the following: "Though it has largely fallen into disuse since the latter 20th century, a common slang term for the nuts in some regions of the United States was "nigger toes", due to some finding a similarity in appearance between the unshelled nuts and the toes of African Americans." --— Poga — 08:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As of this post (more than a year after the preceding one), there still seems to be occasional controversy concerning the inclusion of the term in the nomenclature section. This is understandable, but I still think that the term's notability and widespread prevalence during a significant period of history (and even today in some regions) warrants its inclusion. The sentence in question has been revised a few times, and currently reads as follows:

And, though it has largely fallen into disuse since the latter part of the 20th century, a common slang term for the nuts in some regions of the United States (especially the South) was "nigger toes".

--— Poga — (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know that the term is still used, at least, in the Midwest. My MIL used it casually at Christmas, prompting outrage from the rest of the family (in part due to the fact that I am African American), but she insisted, "There's nothing offensive about it; that's just what they are called!" Ain't life innerestin'? Carlaclaws 16:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I live in Virgina and my dad always used this term. In our house the "nigger toes" were fought over in the mixed nuts can. I guess it is racist to say nigger. But we are talking about a nut here people. Get over yourselves. I do not hate black people because I was taught to use the term in this manner.

I live in Michigan and have heard my grandmother use the term casually as well.

I was raised with this being called a "nigger toe". It wasn't until I was in college that I learned it's true name, and have called it a Brazil Nut ever since. In all my childhood, I never heard it referred to as anything but a "nigger toe". It's not a nice word, and I no longer use it. (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am from LA and used the term until I went to junior high and learned better. My father used the term (he was from PA). I don't care if the reference is in here or not, but it is absurd to ask for a citation for it. I dont think using the term "nigger toe" is necessarily racist, especially if the user does not know of this seed by any other name. Naerhu (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The above debate is yet another example of political correctness gone wild: The word "nigger" may be considered pejorative today, but a hundred (or so) years ago, it was the standard phrase to use for black people. That the brasil nut, at that time, went by "nigger toe" is not in anyway pejorative. If true (as appears to be the case) it is a historical fact that cannot be excluded from the article on such grounds. The OP's claim that it is a "racist term" is equally unfounded---unless it can be shown that modern day (white) racists use it to belittle black people. (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • use of term when I was a kid, my family from central Texas used the term to describe the nut. I grew up in north central Kansas, where a friend of mine was sent to the principal's office in sixth grade for using the term. I'd say that's two samples of YES at least once upon a time it was a widely used term, and therefore (once sourced) should be properly included.-- (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know what a brazil nut was growing up. Everyone referred to them as nigger toes. And those chocolate covered cream things father called those nigger toes. It wasn't really racist to me, just the only terminology that I knew them as. And yes i'd agree that covering up racism and the racial issues of the past is very dangerous. Unverified? No, it's definitely verified, and has been used in our culture for decades.

Archived discussion that has become a list of WP:OR; please review the guidance of WP:TALK.Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Is there any reason why the second word of the title is capitalized? On wiki articles with multiple word titles, the first letter of the other words are left lower case (unless it is the title of a book, or movie, etc.) I was just curious if there was a specific reason, or if it should be changed. cøøkiə Ξ (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, at least some of the biology WikiProjects have guidelines to treat names like this as proper nouns (it's not "nut, Brazilian" but a compound term "Brazil Nut"). Similar, Bottlenose Dolphin, there may be further pointers buried in its talk page. I'd say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Femto 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In accordance with WP naming conventions, I'm pretty sure that it should be located at Brazil nut. DWaterson 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Only shelled nuts available to buy?[edit]

I vaguely remember that it became illegal to buy / import Brazil nuts in a unshelled state in the UK for some health reason. Can anyone confirm this? Markb 12:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reason added for UK and Europe Glanarfor (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that UK shops were as full as usual of unshelled (ie complete with shell) Brazil nuts in December 2007. This looks like misinformation or a wrong vague memory. I've added a cite tag to the statement in the article. (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following content. Please see the discussion above, WP:RS and WP:FN before returning it the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically the nuts cannot be imported into europe in their shells, as the shells have been found to contain high levels of Aflatoxins, which can lead to liver cancer.

Butt Nut?[edit]

Is there any reason the main photo is captionned "butt Nut" or is that grafitti?

Vandalism that wasn't caught previously. Fixed. MrDarwin 19:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that this page be moved to Brazil nut in accordance with WP:NAMING. The whole term is not a proper noun. --Hnsampat 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Move. This article was originally there [1]; the change appears to have been an act of vandalism. -- Smjg 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Move. There are other potential capitalisation issues in the body of the article. In my view the name of the nut should be written "brazil nut", not "Brazil nut". I am not sure about the name of the tree. Should it be "Brazil nut" or "brazil nut". Thoughts? Matt 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Move - proper capitalization. Although I wouldn't call the first move vandalism The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • According to WP:PLANT, this should be moved to the scientific name, not a lowercase one. Dekimasuよ! 14:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that the article should be titled "Bertholletia excelsa"? I doubt that's what most people would want or expect. Anyway, it seems not to have been done in other similar cases, where there is only one species to contend with (see e.g. almond, coconut, cashew, pistachio). Matt 18:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


"Sapucaia" is not really an alternate name for Bertholletia excelsa. It's the name of related species Lecythis pisonis. See the entry in the Portuguese Wikipedia: pt:Sapucaia. Sapucaia seeds are also edible, but different from Brazil nuts. MCBastos (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal unsubstantiated health claims[edit]

I removed the sentence "Selenium has also been cited as strongly benefitting various other conditions, such as HIV, lung cancer, colon cancer, and dandruff, as well as boosting a healthy thyroid." for a number of reasons:

  1. the results of both epidemiological and toxicological research on the health implications of selenium intake are objectively inconclusive and currently ambiguous;
  2. no large-scale systematic reviews are available on the associations between selenium intake and these health outcomes, only individual studies, the methods behind some of which are quite poor;
  3. the "boosting a healthy thyroid" comment simply does not make sense; and
  4. there are no citations provided.

Jimjamjak (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, selenium is not required by plants, therefore there is no selenium in plants which grow in soils which are selenium-deficient. Such soils are common in rain-forest areas. Claims which state that Brazil nuts "contain selenium" are therefore sometimes false. Brazil nuts can "sometimes contain selenium" is more correct. Landroo (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed this sentence: "Brazil nut oil is rich in magnesium and has the highest known concentration of selenium of any nut oil.[20]" Because that is not what the citation says at all. It is talking about the nut meat, not the nut oil. NO culinary oil is a nutritionally significant source of a mineral. If it were a source of say, magnesium, it would be combined with the oil in the form of a stearate or oleate salt, like magnesium stearate, which would have a nasty, soapy taste, or astringent sensation in the mouth. In preparing culinary oils, every effort is made to keep such compounds out of the finished product. Ramblersyndicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramblersyndicate (talkcontribs) 18:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

1180% of the USRDV- for how much?[edit]

Nutritionally, Brazil nuts are perhaps the richest source of selenium, containing as much as 1180% of the USRDV. Please include the weight for which this percentage has been given (per nut? per average dose? or per 100g maybe? ) Thanks, (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, what does USDRV stand for? I am assuming it means United States Daily Recommended Value. The definition should be added to the article (see nutrition section). Acronyms should always be spelled out in articles. (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Brazil nut allergy[edit]

'After peanuts, Brazil nuts are the most common trigger of "nut-related" allergies in the UK.' from the following website: it goes on to talk about an interesting study about the allergens195.92.40.49 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The ifr link above was found dead on 22 Dec 2011

UK TV program "QI" broadcast 23 Dec 2011 cited that Brazil nuts are the only nut whose allergens can be sexually transmitted. The sexual transmission aspect is indicated in a study available here:, here: and in other locations. I have not followed up as to whether this is unique amongst Brazil nuts, but is it worthy of being included in the main article? --Timnicebutt (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

orchids involved in reproduction ?[edit]

The reproduction section mentions orchids (as well as 'orchid bees'). "The Brazil nut tree's yellow flowers contain very sweet nectar and can only be pollinated by an insect strong enough to lift the coiled hood on the flower and with tongues long enough to negotiate the complex coiled flower. The orchids..." Which orchids, there is no previous mention of orchids ? This should be reworded and the relevant specie of orchid identified if possible. (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Comment copied here from my edit summary so that "discuss" link will work:

There may be radioactive isotopes of selenium (there are of virtually every element), but is "ordinary" selenium radioactive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the content that was not supported by footnote and removed dubious tag. Please sign your comments on talk pages by ending them with "~~~~". Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nigger toes[edit]

Tbone2001 (talk · contribs) added "In some parts of the U. S., they are colloquially known as "nigger toes", though it has fallen out of favor in recent years."[2] The cited source ("Actually, My Hair Isn't Red", Matt Brazil, The Wall Street Journal, Friday, July 14, 2000) reads as follows.

Hearing angmo so often took me back to my childhood, when my friends and I used the words Jew and Gyp (the latter short for Gypsy) as verbs, meaning to cheat. At that time, in the 1960's, other racial epithets, these based on physical appearance, were commonly heard: cracker, slant-eye, bongo lips, knit-head. To digress to the ludicrous, Brazil nuts were called "nigger toes."

While it provides a source for the usage, it does not support the other content. I could not verify that Mr. Brazil spent his childhood in the United States. The source does not indicate that it has fallen out of favor. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the edit the way I did by combining the sourced material with the discussion above that's been going on for over 2 years. The source is the Wall Street Journal which I thought was pretty reliable and American. And though I understand the concern about the content, I think what I added was, at minimum, encyclopedic, and words like "ludicrous" are subjective and show an unnecessary bias. Pejorative may be a better term. The way I worded it was to prevent an uproar. But at the same, being African American, when I looked at this article I wondered how it was not mentioned, as much as I don't like it. I know many people here in Texas that honestly did not know what they were really called or learned later in life. τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 05:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says "[a]rticle content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view." I used the word "ludicrous" because it is used by a reliable source. Other points of view may be included, if they are well-sourced. However, WP:UNDO limits the space available for such a discussion.
A scholarly work on racial pejoratives may do a better job of providing context, history, distribution, etc., but the WSJ article provides some of that. That is why I quoted the article at some length (but consistent with my reading of fair use).
The WSJ has international distribution. Mr. Brazil is said to live in Australia and may have spent his childhood there. My guess is that the term diffused throughout much of the English speaking world.
Previously, in this article, the term was included without context and source and it violated my reading of WP:NOT and WP:RS. With the footnote, source link and interwiki link, that context and source provided, I agree that it is encyclopedaic, but still think that it is best covered in articles like nigger that provide more context, history, etc. Please see my 2006 comment also. However, I defer to the wisdom of my fellow editors on this point.
Thank you for tracking down a source. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I cannot review your source without registering, but it sounds like an editorial. The term is not ludicrous. It may be offensive and politically incorrect but applying the term ludicrous is POV even if its in the Wall Street Journal.--Weetoddid (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I quoted the context in the footnote and on the talk page. I'm sure that the full article is available in many libraries since the Wall Street Journal is a major global newspaper. "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'." (Wikipedia:NPOV#Neutral_point_of_view} Isn't this what you are attempting to do (in violation of a core policy of Wikipedia)? What am I missing? The source does not support "offensive and politically incorrect". If you can find a source supporting your assertion that it is not "ludicrous", please do so. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The last two comments above were copied from User_talk:Wsiegmund.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pic of tree, please[edit]

IceDragon64 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nut or tree?[edit]

Currently, the article takes the view that the tree, too, is called Brazil nut. This is illogical and seems highly dubious to me. More likely, this is colloquial use to save time, as is the case with hazel nut instead of hazel nut bush, and similar. Unless this use can be verified as the truly correct, which seems unlikely, I suggest that the article is rephrased. (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically it is considered a seed, not a nut...

However, more baffling is why there is an insistence on keeping a paragraph containing complete nonsense about the tree belonging to the order Ericales

"The Brazil nut family is in the order Ericales, as are other well known plants such as: blueberries, cranberries, sapote, gutta-percha, tea, kiwi fruit, phlox, and persimmons."

If you don't like the way I edited the information, then go ahead and change it to your hearts desire, but why would you keep putting the incorrect info back in?

Here is the correct info, as taken from the USDA plant database...


Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl.

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Lecythidales

Family Lecythidaceae – Brazil-nut family

Genus Bertholletia Humb. & Bonpl. – bertholletia

Species Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl. – brazilnut

The order Ericales is as follows...

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Ericales

Contains 7 Families and 422 accepted taxa overall

Family Clethraceae – Clethra family

Family Cyrillaceae – Cyrilla family

Family Empetraceae – Crowberry family

Family Epacridaceae – Epacris family

Family Ericaceae – Heath family

Family Monotropaceae – Indian Pipe family

Family Pyrolaceae – Shinleaf family

As for the order Ericales, blueberry , cranberry... yes


Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Rosidae

Order Sapindales

Family Rutaceae – Rue family

Genus Casimiroa Llave & Lex. – sapote

Gutta-percha (palaquium)

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Ebenales

Family Sapotaceae – Sapodilla family

Genus Palaquium Blanco – palaquium


Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Theales

Family Theaceae – Tea family

Genus Camellia L. – camellia

Species Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze – tea


Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Theales

Family Actinidiaceae – Chinese Gooseberry family

Genus Actinidia Lindl. – actinidia

Species Actinidia chinensis Planch. – kiwi


Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Asteridae

Order Solanales

Family Polemoniaceae – Phlox family

Genus Phlox L. – phlox


Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Ebenales

Family Ebenaceae – Ebony family

Genus Diospyros L. – diospyros

Species Diospyros virginiana L. – common persimmon

So as you can see that one little paragraph about the Ericales is full of numerous errors, all of which can easily be verified and should have been, BEFORE putting it into a wikipedia page. Just because several thousand lazy people copy and paste the same lie over and over again into their web-pages does not make it true...

It took me five minutes to find the correct info, and that's already too much time wasted on this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Unfortunately USDA PLANTS taxonomy is often badly out of date. Many of our articles are edited by experts who try to keep the information current. Consequently, the taxonomy on Wikipedia may not be consistent with USDA PLANTS. Instead, content should be based on WP:RS. That may include USDA PLANTS, but also other databases as well as the scholarly literature. In APGII, Lecythidaceae is placed in Ericales. [4] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have relied on USDA for years... disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Storage conditions?[edit]

Lots of fats means probably that they should be kept in cold. How cold exactly? (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bertholletia excelsa and carnitine content......[edit]

-- (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


The Brazil nut tree is the only species in the monotypic type genus Bertholletia. Is not a monotypic genus one which has only one species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


They are widely referred to as nigger toes in the midwest. There is a ridiculous excess of wiki-lawyering to keep it off the page. I'm putting it back. Other users have sourced it and had it removed on technicalities. I'm not wasting my time. It's a fact that is important to the topic. It belongs in the article, period. (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Not without a reliable, verifiable source, anyway. Besides which, based on the commentary above, this matter has been closed for quite some time, with WP:CONSENSUS established NOT to include that phrase. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, the consensus of the earlier discussions seems to have been that the information about the colloquial name should be left in the article (albeit sensitively worded) and in fact if you examine the history of the article, this information was included continuously for several years until being deleted in April of this year, by an anonymous editor, without any discussion whatsoever. It's an unfortunate but significant fact about the history of this nut that they were once widely (and to some extent still are) known in the USA as "nigger toes" and were listed unapologetically with this name in numerous botanical and horticultural references. As unpleasant as it is, this is something that needs to be addressed rather than swept under the rug. In case anybody needs a scholarly reference, see p. 228 of this article in the respected botanical journal Botanical Gazette: W.J. Young 1911, "The Brazil Nut", Bot. Gaz. 52(3): 226-231 (free pdf, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:22, 2011 September 29
This usage is discussed in Nigger#Popular_culture wherein the history, context, and other usages are covered. The word "nigger" appears in almost 1200 articles.[5] If there is an attempt to sweep such usages "under the rug", it isn't succeeding. Most occurrences are in articles on music, theatre and film, literature, politics and history, and related biographies. Biota articles with the term are rare. Nigger toe and its variants redirect to this article.[6] Similarly, nigger daisy and niggerhead are redirected to Rudbeckia hirta.[7] However, those terms do not appear in that article. Niggerhead (disambiguation) lists Carex secta, Echinocactus polycephalus and Echinacea, also. Among animals, nigger butterfly is redirected to Orsotriaena which mentions the term. Apart from the above, I found several examples among place-names including California County Routes in zone S and Negro Bill Canyon. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The fact remains that the text was deleted in April without notification or discussion of any kind, and by an anonymous editor. Can you point me to any discussion among Wikipedia editors that resulted in anything near a consensus to remove this historical information? (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
A previous discussion at Talk:Brazil_nut#Nigger_toes led to inclusion of content discussing this term in July 2009.[8] It stood until September.[9] Subsequently, it was restored, but latter trimmed by several editors to the point that I felt it no longer provided adequate context for inclusion. It was removed altogether in June 2011 by an anon with an unhelpful edit summary.[10] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Random wikipedia user here. I've always heard them called nigger toes, and am surprised this was removed from the article. You might think the term is 'not nice' but it's still used, and I think wikipedia is more about documenting what 'is' not what 'is nice' -- at least I've heard it quite a bit, I live in the Midwestern US. I'd add it back in myself but I don't want to start an "edit war" over it. I'll instead just urge you to put it back, as it is relevant to the article.

I have never the term until last night at a bar here in Indianapolis. I have no idea how the subject came up, but they used the term "Nigger Nuts". I was absolutely stunned. They did clarify it to mean Brazilian Nuts and were obviously embarrassed that they used to use the term. Most likely they never knew the real name growing up in their households. MPA 23:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I grew up in central Illinois in the 1980s and '90s, and "nigger toes" is most certainly used there. My grandfather (born 1929) still uses it. This term should be added back to the article. Wikipedia should not be censoring the truth, no matter how offensive it is to some or even many people. There was no consensus to remove the information, so I will add it back. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition Table[edit]

100 grams of brazil nuts contain 130 grams of fat? Something about that doesn't feel right... Could someone, who knows better, correct that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the information was per 200grammes. I followed the link provided in the article and found a list of nutritional info per 100g, and typed that in here Superomelette (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, ftlom, why not make it 65 per 100? That sounds suspiciously high, but incredibly, it seems to be about right; I checked with a few sites, including USDA and the like. Got figures between 60% and 67%. Zap it, say I. Oh. Already done... JonRichfield (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Could the content of testosterone (yes) in brazil nuts be verified? I think has this information with a suggestion of 1-2 pieces daily for those who may need it. Also, I wonder what the biological availability of such fito hormone would be? ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Brazil nut effect[edit]

I agree with removal from where it appears, but suggest taht it should be linked in "See also". It was not my entry, but unless someone provides a sound objection, I'll put it in when I remember. JonRichfield (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I had considered doing that, but its relevance to the article seemed a bit remote except for the name of the effect. After double checking the MOS it appears my thinking was toward relevance for a Further Reading section as opposed to for a See Also section, so if you think that the article would benefit from its re-addition by all means add it back. HMman (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC).

Good, thanks. I always get very itchy about removing valid links or info, but you were undoubtedly correct about the irrelevance of the item to the article as it stood. I have inserted the link into See also and I think this format will be harmless even if no one ever uses the link. Mind you, though I was aware of the effect, I had never heard that name for it and had to look it up myself to see what it was about, so there certainly is a possibility that someone, sometime will benefit!  :-) JonRichfield (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

i read that this link speak about planting of trees (I can not add becuase i don't read that languege)[edit] (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)