In article ,
[i] wrote...
In article ,
wrote...

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
+ + +

How so? I don't see how "berry or drupaceous" could mean anything
different from "a berry or a drupe". I'm pretty sure fruits that
are "drupaceous" are just drupes. AFAICS, it's simply the
adjectival form.

Or are there any fruits other than drupes that are "drupaceous"?

Nevermind. I've since seen some indications that "drupaceous" is
often used [but incorrectly?] to mean "drupelike [in what ways?],
but not a true drupe". For example:

http://www.anbg.gov.au/glossary/fl-aust.html

drupe: a succulent fruit formed from one carpel [mt: not part
of the definition, AFAIK] , having the seed(s) enclosed in an
inner stony layer of the fruit wall. adj. drupaceous (which is
often used to mean drupe-like but not strictly adrupe). cf.
berry, pyrene.

cheers