GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

12-11-2003, 12:03 AM

In article , [P
van Rijckevorsel] wrote...
Cereoid-UR12- schreef
Here is a more thoughtful and thoroughly researched reference on the
subject:

Spjut, R.W. (1994) A SYSTEMATIC TREATMENT OF FRUIT TYPES.
Memoires of the N. Y. Bot. Gard. vol. 70.

+ + +
Yes, I can remember providing you with this reference, on the thought you
might find it interesting.

It's indeed intereresting, if a bit idiosyncratic, with all the
Latinized names, citations of authorities and types, the many named
minor subtypes and whatnot.

Still, it's a pretty impressive, ambitious review of the diversity
of fruit types, from someone who seems to be largely a lichenologist.

I note that its definitions of both "berry" and "drupe" are
essentially what we've been saying all along [that's no surprise,
of course]:

"Bacca (berry) Linnaeus (1751). An indehiscent pericarpium, or simple
fruit, consisting of one or more seeds embedded in a solid fleshy mass
supported by epicarp less than 2 mm thick, the pericarp not
differentiated internally by a hardened endocarp or air-space."

"Notes. Gaertner (1788) recognized four subtypes of bacca: bacca
(typical), acinus, pomum, and pepo."

"Drupe (drupa, an over-ripe wrinkled olive) Linnaeus (1751). A fleshy
pericarpium or fruit, with one or more stones."

"Notes. Drupes may consist of one or more stones; a stone is the shell
that encloses one or more seeds. Drupes generallyare 1-5 stoned, in
contrast to berries that typically have numerous seeds, but there are
many berries that have relatively few seeds (e.g., _Vitis_, _Persea_)."

Check out the species chosen for the nice large illustration of a
typical drupe on p. 71. It's Ilex opaca, shown as having four separate
1-seeded stones in one fruit.

He also touches on "drupaceous":

"Fruits that are frequently described as being drupaceous suggest
a number of possibilities: (1) the author may not have determined
whether or not the seed is enclosed in a stone, (2) the endocarp may
not be a distinct stone as seen in some species of _Sabia_, (3) the
exocarp may be dry, (4) the fleshy layer may be formed partly or
wholly from an accrescent hypanthium, or (5) the stone may be
dehiscent."

That is not to say it is generally well-accepted.

One can see why it might not become widely used. It's a complex
system with lots of unfamiliar names. Are its more obscure or
possibly newly named fruit types and subtypes actually being adopted
elsewhere? A check of a science citation index does show that the
paper itself has since been cited in a substantial number of other
papers.

cheers