4 ms·
But isn’t that what he said? To put it in your words: we eat dates, not date seeds, so we‘re cultivating varieties that are fleshier. Less seed, more date.
by derrasterpunkt 7y ago
But isn’t that what he said?
To put it in your words: we eat dates, not date seeds, so we‘re cultivating varieties that are fleshier.
Less seed, more date.
- thatcat 7y agoIt's possible larger varieties previously existed and fell dormant, then later the domestic varieties started with a smaller fruit and the genetics for larger fruit were no longer in the active gene pool of known varieties.
- OJFord 7y agoPerhaps I misread, but to me 'tends to go up' makes it sound like an observed incidental effect, rather than a deliberate action. Essentially I was saying 'sure, there's a correlation, isn't there also causation, aren't we the cause?' (which isn't the way around that's usually said!)
- logicallee 7y agoI think everyone misread, including me. Everyone thought he was saying "are you sure it suggests that? It seems an odd to me because flesh grows over time, so it is a really bizarre conclusion if true!" But OP didn't mean that. Instead this is what OP meant: ">> The successful seeds were all several centimeters long, 30% larger than modern date seeds, suggesting dates that were significantly larger than modern varieties. "Actually, maybe it's not that the flesh was larger - but rather, the seed was! The flesh could have remained the same size." OP then justified why he thought this was just as plausible, by mentioning wild bananas (Google image search "wild banana seed") as an example of large, ugly seeds in a same-sized plant.
- logicallee 7y agoi.e. the seeds could have been cultivated to be smaller over time.
- catalogia 7y agoIt was my suspicion that the change is a result of deliberate human action, but I am not a biologist or a farmer so that's not something I'm certain of. The trend, not the cause of the trend, is what seems more important in this case.