3 ms·
There is literally a Doubt section there, the page isn't well-cited on the food bit.
by grenoire 5y ago
There is literally a Doubt section there, the page isn't well-cited on the food bit.
- wombatmobile 5y agoWhat do you make of this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlwOrdciEX8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlwOrdciEX8 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7sn42heQ2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7sn42heQ2w Have you ever been to the Champavat region of Uttarakhand?
- stinos 5y agoInteresting; don't speak the language but the first video showa a plant, and then a root/stem, without a link bewteen the two (i.e. harvesting). And the second shows just the stem. So still could go both ways?
- atombender 5y agoThe first video shows the leaves of some kind of shrub, with no evidence to link it to the thick, fleshy stem to that plant. The second video shows a food market selling the snack and displaying a web page printout about Maerua oblongifolia. Also not evidence. Clearly you did not read the article. The food vendors claim it is Maerua oblongifolia. The whole point is that it cannot possibly be, as Maerua does not have fleshy, edible roots or trunks, and DNA testing points to a different botanical family. Wikipedia is not a credible source here.