In his Flowering plants of the world, Heywood states that the fruit in
Lauraceae is a berry or drupaceous

mel turner schreef
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].

+ + +
It is always dangerous to assume too much. If Heywood intended "berry or
drupe" he would have said so. What exactly he means is a little uncertain,
but it is clear he perceives a problem
+ + +


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"].

+ + +
Still dead. However I circumnavigated it and this is a description by the
same expert from the Miss. Bot. Gard., who elsewhere goes to great lengths
to avoid committing himself as to fruit type. Maybe the editor made up his
mind for him?

Anyway quite remarkable, since almost everybody agrees that at least some
Lauraceae have berries.
+ + +

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

A tad archaic or idiosyncratic, perhaps.

+ + +
A pretty big tad!
+ + +

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?

+ + +
He goes to great length on other details, so I doubt it is laziness.
PvR