There is hope for you after all, Mel.

You actually took the effort to check out the book.

That's far more than that lackadaisical Rinkytink would ever do.

There is still much confusion over the proper application of the terminology
of fruit types.
At least the book brings all of that together into one volume.

Until there is a day when there is some international group making an effort
to standardize them, they will always remain a degree of confusion and
disagreement over their proper terminology. That is something that should
have occurred long ago.


mel turner wrote in message
...
In article ,
[Cereoid-UR12-] wrote...

Obviously you have been doing too much pontificating and have not paying
attention, Melvin.

Pontificating, moi?

Are you aspiring to be Rinkytink's lap dog?

Arf.

I gave a much better reference than the one you cite with out-dated

Old references are bad? Are you sure you like plant taxonomy?

second-hand vague definitions. It is a almost a crime that some
references
books have such lousy poorly conceived definitions. It really doesn't
matter
that someone like you is under the mistaken impression that what they say
is
gospel.

Not "gospel" but as examples of actual usage of the terms in
question.

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.

So, you like that treatment's definitions better? I've got it right
here. But if you look, it actually agrees with those other books I'd
cited, at least in regards to the basic definitions of "berry" and
drupe". It even uses a diagram of a 4-seeded Ilex fruit to illustrate
"Drupe", and cites Persea as an example of a 1-seeded berry

[snip of previous]

cheers