4 ms·

This is one of those articles where the author claims to have experience in the area and then states something so wrong you have to wonder what else they're inc

This is one of those articles where the author claims to have experience in the area and then states something so wrong you have to wonder what else they're incorrect about. "...although the word “fruit” is deceptive because figs are anatomically not really fruits but a cluster of hundreds of flowers enclosed in a smooth skin." Figs are a fruit. It's basically the definition of a fruit. If you want to say figs aren't fruits because they're made up of multiple flowers, then what are mulberries? Pineapples? Breadfruit?

bin_bash 5y ago
A true fruit is only from the ovary[0] so it doesn't meat the strict definition as it includes the entire flower(s). As I understand there is debate about this but my dad is a botanist and I've heard him call figs "false fruits". You may disagree on that point but I don't think it's sufficient to discredit the author. [0] https://www.britannica.com/science/ovary-plant https://www.britannica.com/science/ovary-plant
- msrenee 5y ago
  I suppose if you want to narrowly define it in that way. But again, if figs are not fruits, then neither are the closely related mulberries. Pineapple is also not a fruit when defined like that. I've definitely heard it as a tongue-in-cheek thing the way arborists complain about palm trees and call them "glorified grasses". That actually makes more sense to me though, as they're monocots. -They're not fruit. -What are they? -They're a multiple fruit. I'm not sure when it would be helpful to only consider fruits as coming from the ovary. There's other words for that and I don't understand why some like to define fruit in that way. Is there maybe a historical reason for it? Edit: Wrote that they were aggregate fruits for some reason. Changed it to multiple fruits.
  - bin_bash 5y ago
    Right, my dad would say none of those are "true fruits" I'm pretty sure. Also, some botanists say apples aren't technically fruits because they come from a different part of the flower. Also, did I really misspell "meet" as "meat" in my other comment? Ugh.
    - msrenee 5y ago
      I think I didn't do a great job of explaining what bothered me about the author's statement. There's botanical definitions and by some of those, a fig is not a fruit. What they wrote is that it's deceptive to call a fig a fruit when there's basically no situations outside of academia and propagation where that distinction matters.
BenjiWiebe 5y ago
Botanically-speaking, it is a "multiple fruit", as are pineapples and mulberries.

bin_bash 5y ago

A true fruit is only from the ovary[0] so it doesn't meat the strict definition as it includes the entire flower(s). As I understand there is debate about this but my dad is a botanist and I've heard him call figs "false fruits". You may disagree on that point but I don't think it's sufficient to discredit the author. [0] https://www.britannica.com/science/ovary-plant https://www.britannica.com/science/ovary-plant

msrenee 5y ago
I suppose if you want to narrowly define it in that way. But again, if figs are not fruits, then neither are the closely related mulberries. Pineapple is also not a fruit when defined like that. I've definitely heard it as a tongue-in-cheek thing the way arborists complain about palm trees and call them "glorified grasses". That actually makes more sense to me though, as they're monocots. -They're not fruit. -What are they? -They're a multiple fruit. I'm not sure when it would be helpful to only consider fruits as coming from the ovary. There's other words for that and I don't understand why some like to define fruit in that way. Is there maybe a historical reason for it? Edit: Wrote that they were aggregate fruits for some reason. Changed it to multiple fruits.
- bin_bash 5y ago
  Right, my dad would say none of those are "true fruits" I'm pretty sure. Also, some botanists say apples aren't technically fruits because they come from a different part of the flower. Also, did I really misspell "meet" as "meat" in my other comment? Ugh.
  - msrenee 5y ago
    I think I didn't do a great job of explaining what bothered me about the author's statement. There's botanical definitions and by some of those, a fig is not a fruit. What they wrote is that it's deceptive to call a fig a fruit when there's basically no situations outside of academia and propagation where that distinction matters.

BenjiWiebe 5y ago

Botanically-speaking, it is a "multiple fruit", as are pineapples and mulberries.