In article , [P
van Rijckevorsel] wrote...
mel turner schreef
I'd hesitated at first because I'd vaguely remembered reading somewhere
that avocados actually varied as to whether there was an appreciable
development of a hard endocarp [possibly the same differences pointed
to above?], and thus would vary as to whether the fruit would be
classified as a drupe or as a 1-seeded berry. I then checked briefly,
and initially didn't find anyone calling the fruit a berry, but did
find several calling it a drupe:

http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/Wilson/pp/f97/fruits.htm or
http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/Wilso...u98/fruits.htm

+ + +
This is not very convincing, as these don't meet what you yourself said
about berries and drupes.

?? Oh. I get it. Yes, they incorrectly generalize that drupes are
always single-seeded and 1-carpellate, and that berries are multi-
seeded. Yes, that's a bad mistake.

I just cited them because they are examples of people calling avocados
"drupes" with ["_very_ thin"] stony endocarps].

This actually goes a long way in supporting
Cereoid!

I don't see how it could, other than the seed number
mistake that he also makes.

+ + +

http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/Wilso...g/laupage1.htm

The typical fruit type for the family - a drupe -

+ + +
This is a remarkable statement.
In his Flowering plants of the world, Heywood states that the fruit in
Lauraceae is a berry or drupaceous

And I've seen and cited similar statements. Of course they mean by
this that the fruit is a drupe in some species [= with stony endocarp
present] and a 1-seeded berry in others [i.e., endocarp not stony].

Also note:
http://biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/an...w/lauracea.htm

Good link. [The Families of Flowering Plants]
+ + +

http://flora.huh.harvard.edu:8080/fl...taxon_id=10479

+ + +
dead
+ + +

It still works for me. [It's just the _Flora of North America_
online page for Lauraceae, which calls the fruit "drupes"].

http://pas.byu.edu/AgHrt100/avocado.htm
"The fruit is a drupe, having a stony endocarp."

+ + +
? ? ? This is a remarkable statement, maybe unique?
+ + +

The preceding other sites would presumably also agree [but
incorrectly?] that a ["very thin"] stony endocarp is present.

http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~meicenrd/...logy/dln11.htm

+ + +
This site has interesting view of taxonomy:
" Artificial Group Floriferae Polypetalae Subclass Rosidae "
+ + +

A tad archaic or idiosyncratic, perhaps.

http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/bot...y/Persea/index
.html
"This berry is truly unusual, not only because it is oily, not sweet,
but also because it never softens while still on the tree, where it
remains hard and continues to grow.

+ + +
What I think noteworthy is that the Lauraceae expert at the Missouri Bot
Garden is avoiding the use of terms like "berry" and "drupe" when describing

new species.

Is their expert unable or unwilling to section the fruits to see if a
stony endocarp is present, or does he perhaps feel the whole
definitional issue is just too confusing?

cheers