Talk:Drupe

message: This article says Avocados are drupes. But the berry article, as well as the fruit article, says that Avocados are berries. Which is it? Or could it possibly be both? Solemnavalanche 23:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what Avocados you're familiar with, but the ones we get here have a stony pit. Also, this article here and also this article both confirm that they are indeed drupes... --Rebroad 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "stony pit" of avocados is just a hard seed coat that is not derived from the ovary wall. SCHZMO ✍ 11:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avocados 

message: According to the Coffea arabica article, the fruits of the coffe plant are berries. But here it says drupes. What is correct? /Greger
:According to , the fruit of coffee is a false berry because it derives from an inferior ovary (a characteristic of its family, Rubiaceae) and lacks a single central pit (the fruit contains two seeds). SCHZMO ✍ 12:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee 

message: The opening paragraph speaks of other fruits with stones that are not drupes, and the avacado is cited as an example in the talk page.  Could somenone with more knowledge about this add a couple of examples of non-drupe stone fruits?  Stubblyhead 19:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of avocados, the "stone" is not a true stone; it is just a hard seed coat that is not derived from the ovary wall, therefore avocados are not drupes. SCHZMO ✍ 23:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-drupes 

message: Drupelet redirects here, but there is no mention of "drupelet" in the article. Can someone clarify? Stevage 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just missed the relevant section. I've filled it out by translating that paragraph from :fr:drupe. Stevage 18:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drupelets 

message: In the introduction, the paragraph citing several drupes reads as follows:
Some flowering plants which produce drupes are coffee, jujube, mango, olive, most palms (including date, coconut and oil palms), pistachio and all members of the genus Prunus, including the almond (in which the mesocarp is somewhat leathery), apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach, and plum.
However, the genus Prunus includes (but not limited to) plums, cherries, peaches, apricots and almonds -> couldn't the paragraph be rewritten to convey this?  The way it currently reads suggests that the the later fruit come from disparate genera. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingerik (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: clarification please

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: The Corking (stone fruit) is one sentence long. Unless it is expanded, I don't see any reason to not have it merged in. If it is expanded, it should be moved to it's own article. —mako๛ 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The single sentence could use some additional information. Not necessarily enough to warrant its own article, but something about what corking is and a description of any effects it has on the fruit would be helpful.205.166.218.66 (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Corking (stone fruit)]] 

message: I've removed the statement that "Many stone fruits contain sorbitol, which can exacerbate conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome and fructose malabsorption." which was tagged since 2008 as needing a citation. This is a more general issue with fruits, and sorbitol is not the only chemical. Emodin is another that is often mentioned as a likely suspect for a laxative effect in bird-dispersed fruits. I think links to IBS and fructose malabsorption belong in more general fruit areas than at Drupe. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorbitol statement removed 

message: WIkipedia is unusual in requiring a single carpel in the definition of a drupe. White sapote (Casimiroa edulis) has just been added as an example, but it has polypyrenous drupes. This needs cleaning up. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  One carpel?

message: This article uses a definition which appears to be disconnected from taxonomy. It includes as drupes fruits from plants as diverse as Prunus (order Rosales) and palms (order Arecales) - plants which apart from the "drupe", have little in common. If indeed "stone fruits" and palm nuts are both drupes, it should be very clear in the article that drupe is a descriptive term for a fruit under a definition that is unrelated to taxonomy. It seems to me that the inclusion of coconuts - with a liquid centre to the shell - as a drupe is rather ludicrous... Ptilinopus (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems strange, but this is botanically correct. The liquid part of the coconut is the endosperm, a part of the seed that in most familiar seeds is solid. The part of the coconut that structurally corresponds to the flesh of a plum is the fibrous husk, but in other palm fruit such as dates, that part is much more similar to a plum, and those are called drupes. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion: description versus taxonomy 

message: There has been some good discussion over at Talk:Nut (fruit) about whether walnuts and hickory nuts should be classified botanically as drupes or nuts (see Is a Walnut/Pecan a nut? and Walnuts revisited and the definition of nuts.). Lots of good information, drawing on multiple sources, was advanced that the botanical issue is actually quite unclear/unsettled, and that state of uncertainty is reflected in the article (see the final paragraph of Nut (fruit)#Botanical definition). This article, however, states categorically that walnuts and hickory nuts are drupes and not true nuts. I suggest that this article ought to be edited to reflect the same uncertainty.
I know it happens, but I don't consider it a particularly good recommendation for Wikipedia when different articles contradict each other. I would make the suggested edit myself, but I am confident others with more formal experience in science writing could state the nuances better than me. — Ipoellet (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest that you go ahead with the changes, if you are so inclined, and we can critique your work. The botanists of my acquaintance would not be inclined to get into what is potentially a battle with people who hold firmly to one or other view and refuse to accept that nature isn't clear-cut. It tends to be quite a battle in here, particularly when science intersects with common experience of things such as edible nuts. Best wishes, and I hope that you don't get caught in the cross-fire. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drupes vs. Nuts 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Drupe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120221956/http://waynesword.palomar.edu:80/fruitid1.htm to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fruitid1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017013207/http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=82831 to http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=82831
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120221956/http://waynesword.palomar.edu:80/fruitid1.htm to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fruitid1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: They are fruits, so why the scare-quotes in the cut-line?  Why "drupe-like"?  Aren't they drupes?  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ginkgos are gymnosperms. Only angiosperms have true fruits. A fruit is formed from the ovary of a flowering plant which encloses the ovules. Ginkgos don't have ovaries but free (non-enclosed) ovules. Peter coxhead (talk)
In connection with this thread and the one before, botanists use precise definitions of terms like "fruit", "berry", "drupe", which often don't coincide with ordinary language usage. "Berry" is a good example, which is why we have two articles, Berry and Berry (botany). In the scientific name of the common yew, Taxus baccata, baccata means 'berry', but as yews are gymnosperms, they don't have fruits and hence don't have berries in the modern botanical sense. But informally, "yew berry" is widely used. As the opening of the Terminology section of the Drupe article explains, it's hard to make some of the distinctions really tight: evolution doesn't produce neat categories to suit botanists! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scare-quotes on ginkgo "fruits".