In article ,
[Cereoid-UR12-] wrote...

You pretty much answered you own question as to why a banana is actually a
pepo. The banana-like fruit of some Yucca would be considered a pepo also.

And a "pepo" is considered to be one particular type of "berry".

Why not try looking in botanical dictionaries for the definitions?

I've done that. Have you? The botanical dictionaries, etc. I've
checked all seem to agree with my usage, and not with yours.

Can you find a botanical dictionary or other botanical text that
actually agrees with your definitions of "berry" and "drupe" below
[the "presence or absence of a stone endocarp has nothing to do
with it" part]?

I know it
seems a radical thing to suggest but books in libraries are still far more
reliable as sources of info than the Internet.

Some of those cited links were for things such as the _Flora of
North America_, which is of course is also in book form. But sure,
books are great. Can you cite any books that agree with you on this
definitional question? See below for some you can skip, since
they don't.

You don't want to be like
Rinkytink and just make it all up off the top of your head, do you?

If a fleshy fruit has several seeds with a stone endocarp, they would still
be called berries not drupes.

By laymen, perhaps, not by botanists who know of the more strict
technical definitions given in those botanical dictionaries.

1 seed = drupe, several seeds = berry. That's
all there is to it. The presence or absence of a stone endocarp has nothing
to do with it.

Not according to the botanical dictionaries and glossaries in real
botany books. It's the seed number that really seems to have little
or nothing to do with it.

A fleshy or pulpy fruit with stony endocarp around the seed or seeds
= a drupe, a fleshy fruit without any stony endocarp = a berry. That's
about all there is to it.

Berries can have a single seed, and drupes can have several seeds
[commonly enclosed in several separate stones as in Ilex or Aralia].

For example, a famous, classic ref:

Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. Eighth ed. American Book
Co., NY.

From the glossary:

"Drupe: A fleshy or pulpy fruit with the inner portion of the pericarp
(1-locular and 1-seeded, or sometimes several-locular) hard or stony."

From its description of the genus _Ilex_:

"The berry-like drupe containing 4-9 nutlets."

From the description of _Ilex vomitoria_:

"drupes 5-8 mm in diameter; nutlets grooved on back."

From the description of the Araliaceae

"the fruit a few-several-locular drupe."

A couple of newer texts that happen to be at hand:

Hickey, M. and C. King. 2000. The Cambridge Illustrated Glossary of
Botanical Terms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

"drupe A fleshy fruit with one or more seeds, each enclosed within a
stony endocarp, as in species of the genus Prunus (Rosaceae).

"berry A fleshy indehiscent fruit with the seed or seeds immersed in
pulp."

"pepo A unilocular many seeded hard-walled berry that forms the fruit
of _Cucurbita pepo_ (Marrow), _Cucumis melo_ (Melon) and some other
members of the Cucurbitaceae."

and

Allaby, M. [ed.] 1998. A Dictionary of Plant Sciences. 2nd ed. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

"drupe A fleshy fruit such as a plum containing one or a few seeds,
each enclosed in a stony layer that is part of the fruit wall"

This dictionary's "berry" definition stresses "no hard parts other
than the seeds" [i.e., no stony endocarps], and lists 1-seeded dates
among its examples of "berries".

cheers

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

Obviously you have been doing too much pontificating and have not paying
attention, Melvin.
Are you aspiring to be Rinkytink's lap dog?

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

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.


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

You pretty much answered you own question as to why a banana is actually
a
pepo. The banana-like fruit of some Yucca would be considered a pepo
also.

And a "pepo" is considered to be one particular type of "berry".

Why not try looking in botanical dictionaries for the definitions?

I've done that. Have you? The botanical dictionaries, etc. I've
checked all seem to agree with my usage, and not with yours.

Can you find a botanical dictionary or other botanical text that
actually agrees with your definitions of "berry" and "drupe" below
[the "presence or absence of a stone endocarp has nothing to do
with it" part]?

I know it
seems a radical thing to suggest but books in libraries are still far
more
reliable as sources of info than the Internet.

Some of those cited links were for things such as the _Flora of
North America_, which is of course is also in book form. But sure,
books are great. Can you cite any books that agree with you on this
definitional question? See below for some you can skip, since
they don't.

You don't want to be like
Rinkytink and just make it all up off the top of your head, do you?

If a fleshy fruit has several seeds with a stone endocarp, they would
still
be called berries not drupes.

By laymen, perhaps, not by botanists who know of the more strict
technical definitions given in those botanical dictionaries.

1 seed = drupe, several seeds = berry. That's
all there is to it. The presence or absence of a stone endocarp has
nothing
to do with it.

Not according to the botanical dictionaries and glossaries in real
botany books. It's the seed number that really seems to have little
or nothing to do with it.

A fleshy or pulpy fruit with stony endocarp around the seed or seeds
= a drupe, a fleshy fruit without any stony endocarp = a berry. That's
about all there is to it.

Berries can have a single seed, and drupes can have several seeds
[commonly enclosed in several separate stones as in Ilex or Aralia].

For example, a famous, classic ref:

Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. Eighth ed. American Book
Co., NY.

From the glossary:

"Drupe: A fleshy or pulpy fruit with the inner portion of the pericarp
(1-locular and 1-seeded, or sometimes several-locular) hard or stony."

From its description of the genus _Ilex_:

"The berry-like drupe containing 4-9 nutlets."

From the description of _Ilex vomitoria_:

"drupes 5-8 mm in diameter; nutlets grooved on back."

From the description of the Araliaceae

"the fruit a few-several-locular drupe."

A couple of newer texts that happen to be at hand:

Hickey, M. and C. King. 2000. The Cambridge Illustrated Glossary of
Botanical Terms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

"drupe A fleshy fruit with one or more seeds, each enclosed within a
stony endocarp, as in species of the genus Prunus (Rosaceae).

"berry A fleshy indehiscent fruit with the seed or seeds immersed in
pulp."

"pepo A unilocular many seeded hard-walled berry that forms the fruit
of _Cucurbita pepo_ (Marrow), _Cucumis melo_ (Melon) and some other
members of the Cucurbitaceae."

and

Allaby, M. [ed.] 1998. A Dictionary of Plant Sciences. 2nd ed. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

"drupe A fleshy fruit such as a plum containing one or a few seeds,
each enclosed in a stony layer that is part of the fruit wall"

This dictionary's "berry" definition stresses "no hard parts other
than the seeds" [i.e., no stony endocarps], and lists 1-seeded dates
among its examples of "berries".

cheers

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

Now I know the real reason they tell you to avoid avocados! And you thought it
was the cholesterol.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

Iris Cohen schreef
Now I know the real reason they tell you to avoid avocados!
And you thought it was the cholesterol.

+ + +
On the other hand an apple a day keeps the doctor away.
What kind of fruits were apples again?
Oh yes, they were apples-in-French.
That makes life simpler, provided you like French.
At least they definitely are not berries.
Although come to think of it, they do not have a stony endocarp ...
PvR

I was replying to Melvin, not you, troll boy.

Just because you haven't read a book, that is no reason to reject it out of
hand.
At least I cite an actual reference. That's far more than you ever do.

Come to think of it, you never read any books so who cares what you think,
Rinkytink.
You only source of info is the Internet. That's not very good at all.

If a plant taxonomy coloring book ever comes out, I will let you know.
You will need to provide your own crayons, however.
Not sure if you could handle the challenge of staying within the lines.
Doubt your attention span is long enough to finish a page yet alone the
whole book.

P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
...
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. That is not to say it is generally
well-accepted.
PvR

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

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"?

[snip]

cheers

Cereoid-UR12- schreef
At least I cite an actual reference. That's far more than you ever do.

+ + +
I gave you this particular reference, so what you are doing here is just
mirroring
+ + +

If a plant taxonomy coloring book ever comes out, I will let you know.

+ + +
How much more behind the times can you get? Likely there have been enough of
these to fill shelves upon shelves. Would not be surprised if these go back
a long way indeed. A modern attempt in this direction is ISBN 0-06-500843-X
+ + +

Not sure if you could handle the challenge of staying within the lines.

+ + +
Voice of experience speaking? Maybe you are reliving your proudest moment,
when you finally managed this?
PvR

Should have known that you already have plant taxonomy coloring books,
Rinkytink.

Now we know what your source of information has been all along!!!!

We already know that you are too dyslexic to be able to stay within the
lines, yet alone understand what you are reading in the extra large print!!


P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
...
Cereoid-UR12- schreef
At least I cite an actual reference. That's far more than you ever do.

+ + +
I gave you this particular reference, so what you are doing here is just
mirroring
+ + +

If a plant taxonomy coloring book ever comes out, I will let you know.

+ + +
How much more behind the times can you get? Likely there have been enough
of
these to fill shelves upon shelves. Would not be surprised if these go
back
a long way indeed. A modern attempt in this direction is ISBN
0-06-500843-X
+ + +

Not sure if you could handle the challenge of staying within the lines.

+ + +
Voice of experience speaking? Maybe you are reliving your proudest moment,
when you finally managed this?
PvR

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

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

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

mel turner schreef
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]:

+ + +
Thank you. With the book out of reach at the moment (library is closed for a
few weeks) I did not have opportunity to recheck this. The book is
interesting and at least thought-provoking, which was why I referred to it
in the first place.

I should not be surprised to find Cereoid taking a position at variance with
the book he himself cites to support it, but apparently I am an incurable
optimist who always thinks better of people than they deserve ;-)
PvR