4 ms·
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
by 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 agoRight, 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 agoI 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.