Subject: RE: Fruit? Vegetable? Herb?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 16:40:44 GMT

According to my understanding, the strict definition of "fruit" is
the ovary wall surrounding the seed(s), which may, depending on the
type of plant involved, be dry, fleshy, woody, etc.

Another type of fruit is what is known as an "accessory" fruit -- a
fruit derived from nonovarian tissue.  Examples:
 The enlarged stem tip of Fragaria, studded with the true fruits -- you
call this a strawberry;
 The fig, in which the fruit we eat is a modified fleshy receptacle --
the plant part on which individual elements of the inflorescence are
arranged.  This is the same plant part as the "pad" underneath
dandelion "seeds" (which are actually dry fruits called achenes).  In
the case of the fig, the receptacle is enlarged and curls upward to
enclose the inflorescence.  This type of fruit is called a syconium.

A fruit may be what in common parlance is often termed a "vegetable" --
things like green beans (the pod is the fruit, which encloses the
seeds) or tomatoes or eggplants (berries).

Fruit morphology is a fascinating subject; if you're interested in
pursuing it you should look up some books on the subject -- there
should be something out there, though nothing specific springs to my
mind (if you find one, let me know!).  Best part about studying
fruit morphology is, you get to eat your lab specimens!

//Jan.

---

From: [email-masked] (Thomas Bjorkman)
Date: 9 Mar 1995 22:17:30 GMT

> type of plant involved, be dry, fleshy, woody, etc.
[snip]

I would modify this statement to start, "The botanical definition..."
Another strict definition is the trade (or legal) definition.  
For both "fruit" and "herb" there is much confusion between the botanical
definition and the trade definition.  Both systems are internally
consistent, but there is enough overlap that there is a lot of confusion. 

The trade definitions are legally defined in most states by listing the
products.  For instance, in New York, strawberries are vegetables
according to the Dept. of Ag and Markets.  That seems preposterous from
both a botanical and consumer perspective, but becasue it is an annual,
high value field crop it fits more logically as a vegetable to the
economists.  If it is useful to them, I won't argue.

-- 
Thomas Bjorkman    Dept. of Horticultural Sciences   Cornell University