Talk:Berry/Archive 1

Blueberry contradiction

The introduction of this article describes the blueberry as a false berry, while the section on true berries includes the blueberry on a list of true berries. Similarly, the Blueberry page describes it as a false berry, while the True Berry page lists the blueberry as a true berry.

Can someone more familiar with botany correct this?

DasBrose (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fruit or not?

I'm confused by this first sentence under Botany: "First of all berries are not fruit. In botany, the berry is the most common type of simple fleshy fruit; ..." Apsedona 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Berry and true berry

This part seems unclear

"Examples of berries are grape and tomato, but many other common fruits are considered true berries: The fruit of a citrus, like orange and lemon, is a modified berry termed a hisperidium. Date, avocado, persimmon, eggplant, guava, and red pepper are all berries to a botanist."

So what is the distinction between a berry and a true berry? are those fruits on the list at the bottom (date, avocado, etc) true berries, or just regular berries. What about the tomato and the grape? are they true berries? the introduction of the notion of true berry is unclear here. does it have any relationship to the layman's berries? (strawberry, raspberry, etc..)

Because the layman's berry is so far from a berry in a botanical sense, it is necessary to differentiate between the two. Use of the terminology "true" preceding anything usually indicates the scientific definition (sort of arrogant, I know, but that is what it means). Thus, a "true berry" is a "berry" as defined by botanists, and a layman's berry is—well, just a term for certain other fruits. Maybe can be made clearer? - Marshman 02:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

one of the unclear parts is "many other fruits are berries: like the modified berry, the lemon" (paraphrased). the colon in that sentence makes it seem like the article is going to list more examples of true berries, but instead it starts talking about modified berries. then after the sentence on the modified berry it lists the true berries. is a modified berry considered a true berry? i think so, but it's not clear.

what if it looked something more like this:

"Examples of true berries are the grape and the tomato, as well as many other common fruits: date, avocado, persimmon, eggplant, guava, and red pepper. The fruit of a citrus, like the orange and the lemon, is a modified berry called a hisperidium."

Here i have changed the order of the list of true berries with the description of a citrus as a modified berry, and changed the wording a little bit to make it seem more clear (to me, at least).

Although I would not bold "modified berry" since it is not really a term but just an adjective and a noun, your version is much better.- Marshman 17:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and for the last paragraph:

"In common parlance and cuisine, the term "berry" refers to any small, sweet fruits; in this sense, a fruit which is not a berry at all in the botanical sense may be considered a culinary berry, such as the strawberry, whereas a botanists true berry need not be a culinary berry (for example, the tomato). Other culinary berries that are not botanical berries are blackberries, raspberries, gooseberries, blueberries, and boysenberries (some are false berries)"

or something that really makes clear that the strawberry is not a true berry nor even a false berry in the botanical sense. I would make the changes myself, but i'm not even sure if that is true. maybe the strawberry is a botanical false berry? maybe a modified berry really is a true berry?

what do you think?Lethe

Again, your version may be a bit wordy, but generally better than what is there now. I would leave out the parenthetical "some are false berries" as that is covered well in the 2nd paragraph. - Marshman 17:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cranberries

What about cranberries? Anyone know where they fit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.139 (talk • contribs) .

Cranberries are false berries because the fruit is derived from an inferior ovary. SCHZMO ✍ 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Presentation idea

What do people think about something like this table instead of the long lists within the article text?

		Botanical parlance
		True berry	False berry	Other
Common parlance	Berry	Grape	Currant, cranberry, blueberry, gooseberry	Strawberry, blackberry, raspberry, boysenberry
	Other	Tomato, date, avocado, persimmon, eggplant, guava, chile pepper	Banana, cucumber, squash, pumpkin, melon, watermelon	Apple, peach, green bean, sunflower seed

BTW, I'm not sure if I stand by the idea that the grape is a berry in common parlance, but surely that box of all of them shouldn't be empty! Right?

Pekinensis 17:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think your table is hot idea and should be used. Should the berry-true berry box be empty? Well, you've got a point that grape as "berry" is not common. But please go ahead with the table. Peace --Dpr 07:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dpr - Marshman 18:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The table looks great, but for botanical accuracy the "false berry" should be eliminated. There is botanically no such thing as a false berry. Berry is a broad category containing three subcategories: Hesperidium (*note spelling), Pepo, and True Berry. A "True Berry" is simply berry which does not fit into the specialized categories (i.e. Pepo & Hespiridium) - Botany103

So the fruits under the table listing as "false berry" are then what? - Marshman 04:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Could we say, "Other than a berry" or "Not a berry"? In botanical parlance, we would expect that should the item not be a Hesperidium, Pepo, or True Berry, then it could be accurately described as "not a berry." If you're searching for a single-word noun for this category, then we're outside of my circle of expertise (I'm not a botanist, but admire the field greatly).

If it is not a berry (and not a "false berry") then it need not be in the table in this article at all, an exception being fruits that are called berries but are not such by botanical definition (then I like your "Not a berry") - Marshman 18:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I know what a berry is, but I'm confused after seeing this table. What on earth are apples etc. doing in there? If it is a space for just any "Other" then why not have (say) fern spores and eggs there as well? Imc 22:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess they just wanted to fill in the empty space for fruits that are neither vernacularly nor technically "berries". That could include tons of other fruits... SCHZMO ✍ 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First, if you make any modifications to this table, make sure to modify it also at False berry. Second, I've used an Encarta article to try to answer some of the questions about what is and is not a true berry. This article has been added to external links. Accordingly, I've made the table into "True berry", "Pepos", "Hepsidiums" (hepsidiae?), "Not a berry". "Not a berry" is for fruit that might be considered a berry by some people, especially in common parlance, but is not botanically a berry. A few examples may be placed in the block for neither a berry in common parlance or botany, but this should be limited to a few examples (<3) and only of very common fruits. Using the same article, I was able to ascertain the classification of a few of these fruits, but not all. Ones I've ascertained: tomato, pepper, eggplant, grape, persimmon, cantaloupe, watermelon, pumpkin, cucumber, squash, orange, lemon, grapefruit, raspberry, strawberry, apple. Through other sources I also verified that cranberry, blueberry, and gooseberry are true berries (sources were sites ending in .gov or .edu, but were pretty obscure). Try Googling "true berry" site:.gov cranberry, or something similar. Also deleted all text regarding "false berries" from article. The article even referred to gooseberries as false berries, which was directly controverted by the linked reference. Bvbacon 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The table as it currently is seems confusing to novice readers; I object to the use of the word parlance, and the wording of the table. 24.62.9.250 00:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Berries and drupes, single and multiple seeds

This article says that avocados are considered berries, but I was under the impression that the biological definition of a berry required that the fruit have multiple seeds, and that fruits like avocados, with one big seed in the middle, were considered drupes. Several sources I've found also seem to agree, including this online glossary. [1] So what makes the avocado a berry even though it has one large pit in the middle like a drupe??? Blackcats 23:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have some problems with the definitions at that website; berries typically do have multiple seeds, but that is not a requirement under the definition. However, an avacado cannot be a drupe because it has a single seed but not a "pit" (= a hard interior covering around the seed). I'm not so sure that it fits the definition of a berry real well either, but many fruits are hard to place in the various classification systems in use. - Marshman 23:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • An Avacado would be a berry, since its stone is on the inside - A pear would also be a berry for the same reason.

Berry or not!

YOu say in your article that A cucumber is not a berry, this is wrong since Cucumbers are berries.

Also Watermelons are berries as are banana's, tomatoes, kiwi fruit, grapes, apples, anything that contains its seeds on the inside rather than the outside, which is why, as we all know, a stawberry is not a berry, because its seeds are on the outside.

I think you should correct this article

James Random 11:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like some of your mentions are botanically considered "false" berries. The distinguishing factor being an inferior versus a superior ovary. In the case of false berries, the fruit is not developed entirely from the tissues of the ovary. Strawberries, in-fact, are not considered berries because the true fruits of the strawberry plant in the botanical sense are the seeds, not because the seeds are on the outside.--Shadowdrak 06:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Who makes this distinction? None of the definitions of berries I've ever seen say that the fruit must be "entirely from the tissues of the ovary". "False berries" aren't a real category in any botanical reference I've ever seen; they're just berries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How about capers? --24.57.59.196 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Strawberries and Blackberries

The article says 'In this sense, the tomato is a berry and the strawberry is not' yet it places the strawberry as a true berry on the table. Also, below the picture it says 'Several types of "berries" from the market, but of those shown, only blueberries are true berries.' The picture include stawberries and blackberries, both of which are listed as true berries on the table.

Which of these pieces of information is correct?--Jcvamp 13:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody screwed up the table a few days ago, either by accident or as vandalism--I've reverted the page to fix it so hopefully it will make more sense now. I would question the value of such tables, as they are a bit hard to interpret and are so easily messed up by uncareful editing (this is not the first time I've had to fix one). MrDarwin 14:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks better. The issue seems to be a bit complicated, and the pages on pepos and hesperidiums, as well as the List of fruits page just add to the confusion.--Jcvamp 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

white berry

Isn't there a white. I mean, I dont think it edible , I think poison ivy has white berries. "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

GREYBERRIES The bottom section about greyberries is hardly what I would call unbiased. I will change it.

pepo

the berry chart here and at the article on pepoes don't match. I don't know enough to fix them, just pointing that out.--66.102.196.43 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cherry

Can cherry please be added in the table (in either the "berry" or "not a berry" category)? Badagnani 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cherry should be easy, it's a drupe, so "not a berry" in either parlance. Added. Meggar 05:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Guavaberry

Can guavaberry please be added in the table (in either the "berry" or "not a berry" category)? Badagnani 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Split

The article mix botanical sense (berry: tomato, grapes...) with cuisine (fruits of the forest: cherries, strawberries...). Both concepts are really different and shouldn't be mixed.

I think that if the article is to be split, it should be split into 'Berry (botanical)' and 'Berry (cullinary)'. I wouldn't class all of the cullinary berries as 'fruits of the forest'.--Jcvamp (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Botanical definition

I'm not too keen on the use of this sentence: "In botanical language, a berry or true berry is a simple fruit having seeds and pulp produced from a single ovary"

Whilst berries are simple fruits produced from a single ovary, the sentence implies that any fruit produced from a single ovary is a berry, which is of course not the case. The first sentence of a botanical definition should aim to be a diagnostic statement surely? Phytologist (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

article needs thorough makeover

Even after several years, this article needs a very substantial overhaul. The logical flow of the information is appallingly mixed up, and definitions of main terms are all over the place.

For example,

1. It uses the term “simple fruit” but does not define it

2. The definition below is a copybook example of how NOT to define a term.

True berries are distinguishable from false berries like blueberries and cranberries in which the fruit flesh is formed from other parts of the flower and not just the ovary. Also not true berries, aggregate fruits like raspberries are collections of small fruits, and accessory fruits like strawberries are formed from parts of the plant other than the flower.”

The definition wanders off into a discussion of what true berries are NOT. It is backwards writing. First tell us what a true berry is, THEN tell us what a false berry is.

3. Consider the text:

…family Ericaceae, many of which are hardy in the subarctic.”

Firstly, there should be some brief explanation as to what Ericaceae is, and secondly, it is not good policy to stick in little bits of data such as “hardy in the subarctic” which is true but off topic, and may lead the reader to surmise that being hardy in the subarctic has something to do with the being a true berry.

4. Consider text: ‘’Other berries not in the Rosaceae or Ericaceae…’’ This is a more serious failing. Ericaceae is not defined, and now Rosaceae comes from nowhere. Why have berries from Rosaceae been omitted without explanation? the reader wants to know.

5. At the end of the ‘’’Not a berry’’’ list, comes the telegraphic “Eagleberry- berry native to Cambodia…” Why is this not bulleted as are the ones above it. Is it part of that list?

6. I don’t know but I assume that the terms “Compound fruit” and “Aggregate Fruit” should both have the word “berries” in them.

7. The use of bulleted lists WITHIN bulleted lists when they are as brief as the ones in ‘Not a Berry” is confusing and messy.

8. Getting even messier is the introduction of a new term ‘’’bramble fruits’’’ which is presented in lower case bold, unlike any other heading. These are described as “compound fruit” but there is nothing to indicate why they were not then included in the section just above and in which “Compound fruit” was discussed.

9. Consider the text:

Berry pigments are usually antioxidants and thus have oxygen radical absorbance capacity ("ORAC") that is high among plant foods.[3] Together with good nutrient content, ORAC distinguishes several berries within a new category of functional foods called "superfruits" and is identified by DataMonitor as one of the top 10 food categories for growth in 2008[4].

This really needs serious surgery. Pigments are not “usually antioxidants”, they CONTAIN them. I have no idea what ORAC is, nor how ORAC can distinguish between berries, nor what a food has to do to become “functional” nor in what sense a food category is subject to “growth”. All of this looks like it was bower-birded from somewhere, and could well be deleted.

From looking at this talk page, it appears that references to tomatoes have been excluded. Why? The question as to whether or not they are berries is one that is raised very frequently.

The whole article needs to be thoroughly reworked for style and clarity, and expanded. My main complaint is that the definitions of berry, true berry and false berry, and the scientific and vernacular meanings of the terms are all very confusing. And yet in the case of berry, it is the definitions of those things that most people will want to learn. Myles325a (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had this on my watchlist for a while (can't even remember how it got here), and there don't seem to be any "regular editors" of this article. So I'd say if you were holding off on a rewrite for fear that your efforts would be met with resistance, you need not do so. Go for it! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Errors in this article

This article was linked to True Berry as "main article". Both were completely riddled with errors, that were repeated almost verbatim in each article. I have begun to correct many of the errors in Berry (though there may be work to do yet). I propose that Berry should be corrected and True Berry should be reduced to a redirect with Berry as the main article. If there is substantial opposition to this move, please say so below. And please help with the correction and improvement of this article. Many thanks. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I liked the suggestion above of splitting into two articles, Berry (botanical) and Berry (culinary). Except that there remains a problem in that there are berryish things that are poisonous to people but are eaten by birds, etc. I don't know how many of them fit in the botanical definition, but they wouldn't fit in the culinary article. So that might point to making this article be about the lay use of the term, with a link to True berry. Berry (botanical) could be a redirect to True berry or vice versa.

So in summary, I'm suggesting that the corrected content here about true berries should be moved that that article, and mostly deleted from here.--Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the berry/epigynous fruits distinction coming from???

Who the heck is making the distinction between true berries and false berries??? I'm a botanist, and besides Wikipedia, I've never come across a definition of berry that says that it has to be from a superior ovary. This article (and the epigynous fruit) article really need a reference if this distinction is being made. It seems like this distinction is confusing a lot of people who don't have a background in botany, and frankly I've never known any botanists to make this distinction. I posted a comment on the epigynous fruit talk page a couple years back; all the floras I looked through at the time referred to the fruits of Vaccinium (i.e., blueberries/cranberries) as berries.

References I have in front of me include: Walters & Keil, "Vascular Plant Taxonomy 4th ed", which treats pepos (e.g. cucumbers) as a subtype of berries (no mention of epigynous fruits)

Harris & Harris "Plant Identification Terminology" which defines berries as "fleshy fruit developing from a single pistil with several or many seeds" (no mention of inferior/superior ovary)

Raven, Evert and Eichhorn "Biology of Plants" defines berry as "a simple fleshy fruit fruit that includes a fleshy ovary wall and one or more carpels and seeds" and mentions bananas as an example of a berry (bananas develop from inferior ovaries)

Judd "Plant Systematics" defines a berry as "Indehiscent, fleshy fruit with (one or) a few to many seeds"; again, no mention of inferior/superior ovary

These are the major textbooks in the field, none of which treat epigynous fruits as non-berries.

Additionally, on the web: http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fruitid1.htm has pepos defined as "berry with a hard thick rind..."

http://www.mobot.org/mobot/Research/APWeb/top/glossarya_h.html#B defines berry as "strictly speaking, a usually fleshy or pulpy indehiscent fruit s. str. with the seed(s) surrounded by the more or less fleshy tissue of the pericarp". This definition perhaps comes closest to distinguishing berries from epigynous fruits. However, even in epigynous fruits, the seeds are "surrounded by [...] tissue of the pericarp", it just happens that there is a layer of tissue surrounding the pericarp as well. I don't think this definition actually rules out epigynous fruits as being berries.

Note also that table in this article shows pepos as distinct from epigynous fruits (and pepos are not mentioned elsewhere in the article). If the "false berry" distinction is being made, than pepos fall under false berries.

My suggestion: scrap any mention of inferior/superior ovaries. As far as I'm aware, this isn't a distinction that anybody makes with regard to what defines a berry. Keep the article on [[[epigynous fruits]], but make it clear that this is an extremely technical distinction. If the distinction is made, there MUST BE A REFERENCE that actually says that epigynous fruits are not berries. 192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has defended maintaining the distinction between "false berries" and berries. This distinction first appeared with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berry&action=historysubmit&diff=1397364&oldid=1393961. I plan on revising this article over the holidays to de-emphasize "false berries" as being categorically distinct from true berries. If anybody thinks this is an important distinction, please speak up (and help track down a reference that makes this distinction). I'd also like to note that the page currently lists "Epigynous Fruits" as falling under "Not a Botanical Berry". At the least, this should be changed to "Epigynous Berries", as there are epigynous fruits (e.g. pomes) that nobody (botanist or layperson) would consider berries. Should all non-berry fruit types (e.g. capsules, samaras, etc.) be listed under "Not a Botanical Berry"? Oh, one more point. If berries are restricted to fruits derived only from the tissue of the ovary, where does that leave berries with persistent peduncles or calyces. Is the persimmon not a berry since it abcisses from the tree with the calyx attached to the fruit? 192.104.39.2 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I heartily endorse the suggestion to remove the epigynous/false berry material from Wikipedia entirely, and I too am a botanist. Good speed with that project. As a small beginning, and because I think it might make things easier for you, I've removed the berrychart from this page. It was full of errors (green bean an accessory fruit, Maclura an aggregate fruit ... and that's just a small fraction of the errors). I've no idea how to fix the chart, but in any case its purpose seemed to be to blow hot air into the "false berry" false concept. Ugh! Nadiatalent (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed a link about berry production in Iran

I've removed an edit that inserted the following into the header of this page: Iran is the world's largest producer of berries. It was out-of-place there and the FAO site is inscrutable anyway. What does "Berries Nes" mean? Nadiatalent (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sea buckthorn fruit

It was recently asserted that "seabuckthorn is not a single seed fruit; each fruit has multiple seeds and is a typical berry". It is easy to see from a google search that there is only one ovule in the ovary of Hippophae, but for or a more detailed quote, Mabberley, D.J. 1997. The plant book: A portable dictionary of the vascular plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, says for all Elaeagnaceae "[Inferior ovary] 1 with style & 1 basal, anatropous, bitegmic ovule with funicular obturator. Fr. drupe- or berry-like, the achene enveloped by, but free from, persistent hypanthium which becomes fleshy often with a bony inner layer; seed with straight embryo and 2 fleshy oily and proteinaceous cotyledons and ± endosperm." It is clearly not a multi-seeded berry, more of a weird drupe-like structure. Nadiatalent (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The entry was my error, with apologies for not confirming the information. I have consulted a grower who says seabuckthorn "contains one seed approximately the size of a flax seed or an apple seed."

In other Wikipedia pages today, Nadiatalent has stated the similarity between wolfberry (goji) and seabuckthorn, which are not botanically related but may be confused by their similarity in leaf and berry appearance. I have dissected a wolfberry and, by internal chambers and seed count, it looks like the cross-section of a roma tomato to which wolfberry is closely related in botanical origin. There were 42 seeds in the one berry I dissected.

See the berry cross-section here -- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Illustration_Lycium_barbarum0.jpg -- use the magnification feature to display numerous seeds in one berry.--Zefr (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A friend suggested the similarity of wolfberry and sea-buckthorn, mostly because of the woody habit and the thorns on the plants. They are both rather invasive medicinals that might be planted by the same person. That's a lot of seeds in one little wolfberry! Nadiatalent (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hippophae does sound weird and hard to classify (but the quoted text does call it an achene with an accessory fruit). However, are we using a definition of berry that excludes single seeded fruits? I see Avocado listed as another "drupe-like" fruit. The Avocado page calls them berries. I've seen berries defined as being multiple seeded, as well as definitions that admit single seeded fruits as berries (although it's usually noted that most berries are multiple seeded). If single seeded fruit can't be berries, what are they? I don't think there's a term for them. It seems like the berries and drupes represent r vs K strategies; drupes have a high investment in protecting the (usually single) seed with an stony endocarp so it makes it through the digestive tract unscathed or doesn't get eaten in the first place. Berries contain (usually) many poorly protected seeds at least a few of which will hopefully not be digested. There's nothing that keeps a drupe from having multiple seeds (Rhamnus fruits are multiple seeded drupes), but it's unusual and maybe not an optimal reproductive strategy. Similarly, I think berries can be single seeded (drupe like, but lacking an hard endocarp) although it's also pretty unusual.192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed Nadiatalent took out somebodies (not mine) contribution about Passiflora having pepos. Richard Spjut seems to have been the only person recently to consider fruit types comprehensively (his work really should be more widely cited in the fruit type articles on Wikipedia). He considers Passiflora fruits to be pepos, so I added his website (http://www.worldbotanical.com/fruit_types.htm) as a reference and readded the Passiflora under pepos. Anyway, Spjut groups avocados with Vaccinium and Lycium under the fruit type "bacca". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That all seems fine. It is certainly a minority point of view that Passiflora and Carica are pepos, but the alternative would be to call them pepo-like. Fine distinctions tend to get in the way of clarity, but there's no reason not to include single-seeded berries. Multi-seeded drupes also no problem. As the Hippophae example shows, there's just about an infinite variety of fruit types. I'm very happy to see the false berries removed, I had expected a lot of flaming to come from doing that. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

this is so not reall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.229.242 (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Strawberry tree?

Why is the strawberry tree listed as a true berry? On that page it says that it's an aggregate drupe. Jumper4677 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! I've fixed the strawberry tree page, and also added a statement, with citation, to the Arbutus page. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Avocado Contradiction

The page on avocado states that the organism is a large berry and links to the berry page. The berry page then lists the avocado under the "not a botanical berry" section. Which is it? That needs to be cleared up, I'd think. Jvanhoy (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly :) Jvanhoy (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential references

Moved from Further reading section:

• Basu, A. et al. “Berries: emerging impact on cardiovascular health”, Nutrition Reviews (2010),68(3):168-177.
• Joseph, J.A. et al. ”Grape Juice, Berries, and Walnuts Affect Brain Aging and Behavior”, Journal of Nutrition (2009),139(9):1813S-1817S.
• Paredes-López, O. et al. ”Berries: improving human health and healthy aging, and promoting quality life – a review”, Plant Foods for Human Nutrition (2010),65(3):299-308.
• Szajdek, A. / Borowska, E.J. “Bioactive compounds and health-promoting properties of berry fruits: a review”, Plant Foods for Human Nutrition (2008),63(4):147-156.

--Ronz (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and suggestion.

These reviews are meant for readers who would like to delve deeper into the subject.

The reviews are placed in the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section read: “… publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The Further reading section (…) should normally not duplicate the content of the References section” (WP:FURTHER).

The Wikipedia content guideline for “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” (WP:MEDRS) read: “It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible.”

The reviews in question reflect the latest research (last 10 years) in the field, they are scholarly and peer-reviewed, and they are published in academic journals. Granateple (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this page a broad-concept article, or what?

Do I understand correctly that this article is attempting to be a broad-concept article, in the sense of WP:CONCEPTDAB? So it should be covering, broadly-speaking, the different things that people mean when they say "Berry", right? If that's the case, then there is obviously a considerable amount of undue weight given to the botanical definition of a berry - something that most people couldn't care less about! To me, the botanical definition clashes with what most people are looking for when they come to a page titled "Berry". I think the Simple English article, though short, strikes a much better balance than this article does! 24.84.9.97 (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Berries containing anthocyanin = less myocardial infarction

A study of women in USA 1991 - 2009 suggest that a substance in red and blue berries gives protection from myocardial infarction. And indicate this stem from anthocyanin-rich foods which include blueberries, strawberries, eggplants, blackberries, and blackcurrants, without necessarily reflecting the effects of an overall diet high in fruit and vegetables.

Electron9 (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The study supposedly linking berry anthocyanins to reduced incidence of heart attack cannot be specifically isolated as due to anthocyanins. These berries are also rich in dietary fiber, manganese, vitamin K and/or vitamin C,[2] any one of which could be supposed to contribute importantly to heart health. It is an outrageous exaggeration by the authors of the study and scientifically invalid to assume polyphenols in general or anthocyanins specifically have this anti-disease effect; because scientific evidence for anthocyanin bioactivity in vivo is so scant, it is also illegal for a manufacturer to make such a statement on product labels in the USA and EU.[3] --Zefr (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"It is an outrageous exaggeration by the authors of the study and scientifically invalid to assume polyphenols in general or anthocyanins specifically have this anti-disease effect" the authors didn't say that.

They used phrasing similar to "anthocyanin-rich foods are associated with reduced risk of myocardial infarction", without stating that the anthocyanins are the cause. Any number of associated substances, or a particular combination of substances, or even some non-food factor to do with the eating of a particular anthocyanin-rich food might have the effect. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This report, however, citing author Cassidy,[4] would lead the typical consumer -- unaware of what an anthocyanin is -- to believe that anthocyanins, rather than fiber or accepted nutrients, lower risk of MI. The science team had the chance to keep the record straight yet chose to exaggerate plus mislead the story's author by emphasizing the anthocyanin story.--Zefr (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you should blame the interviewee for what the interviewer chose to write. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The table from the faostat page

The table [5] is about berries nes, which is a category of "other berries", [6]. It does not represent the total berry production of 2012 but only of blackberry, loganberry, white, red mulberry (M. alba; M. rubra); myrtle berry (Myrtus communis) huckleberry, dangleberry (Gaylussacia spp.) BoraHorza 08:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Adding in all the other figures mentioned in the caption would be quite a lot of work. I'd favour taking the table out entirely, because there is a certain class of vandal in wikipedia who like to change numbers wherever they find them. The rest of us then work to restore correct information. In this particular case, correctly restoring the information would be too error prone and too much work (those FAO tables are a pain to access even for a single figure). I vote for removal. (I've suggested that members of Wikiproject Agriculture might be interested in this discussion.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The table is further misleading in that some types of grape are included (those that make currants) and others are not.SovalValtos (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that berries NES may include all the berries listed in the table, but may also be restricted to the ones that you point out. Did you check that it was just berries nes and not the aggregate of what is listed, including berries NES? Falconjh (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Culinary berry?

I see this definition being thrown around, but noone has even tried to explain what it means. Nightshade is a colloquial berry and in not edible, so I don't think we need to specify that:

Many botanical berries, such as the tomato, are edible, but others in the same family, such as the fruits of the potato and the deadly nightshade, are poisonous to humans.

I think the following text is better

Many berries are edible, but others in the same family, such as the fruits of the potato and the deadly nightshade, are poisonous to humans.

See this revert [7]

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So in common usage and as used in horticulture as with EUberry, Cornell University, Land Grant Extension system in the US, so forth the British Soft Fruit == American Berry, but Soft Fruit is used for just edible varieties, while berries aren't as there is still both the botanical definition floating around and the American dictionary definition of berry not botany doesn't have the distinction 'edible'; making the exclusive edibility of soft fruit a subset of American common usage berry; likewise Cornell and the land-grant extensions in the US include fruits that fall under British Soft Fruit as Berries but in American common usage no one would call the American PawPaw a berry. If someone could create a Venn-Diagram it would be helpful: All edible American common berries are British soft fruit, All Horticultural berries are British soft fruit, but American common berries, including the coverage of edible and non-edible wild berries by American land grant extensions in the US, includes what would otherwise be soft fruit except that it is non-edible; Not all American Horticultural berries and British Soft Fruit are American common berries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconjh (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the article as it is now (e.g. Berry#Culinary significance) you'll see repeated attempts to make a distinction between "Merriam-Webster (1) berry" and "botanical berry". The Merriam-Webster definition of "berry" with which the article opens isn't very clear; I wouldn't call the fruits of redcurrants, for example, particularly "pulpy". So I think it's necessary to be clear here too.

Many berries are edible, but others in the same family, such as the fruits of the potato and the deadly nightshade, are poisonous to humans – this doesn't make sense without the tomato example – what "family"? You could just say "Many berries are edible, but others, such as the fruits of the potato and the deadly nightshade, are poisonous to humans."

The problem with all such statements in the present state of the article is that it doesn't make clear the sense of "berry" intended. I agree with Falconjh that it would be helpful if we could try to sort out more carefully what kinds of fruit are colloquially called "berries" and in what countries. Here's a first attempt:

1. Edible fruits whose name contains the word "berry" are colloquially called "berries" everywhere. (Are there any inedible fruits whose name contains the word "berry"? If so, there should be another category.)

There are multiple inedible 'berries' that might be used for nonculinary purposes such as dying cloth or drying for decorative use. They probably are more often referred to as 'the berries of the x plant' rather than 'xberries,' but they could certainly be referred to that way. Yew berries, for instance, are poisonous. valereee (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Other small edible fruits whose name does not contain the word "berry" (such as blackcurrants), but which are called "soft fruits" in the UK, are also called "berries" in the US and in the FAO statistics.
2. Non-edible (and sometimes toxic) fruits superficially resembling (1) and/or (2) are also called "berries", not entirely consistently – and often very oddly from a botanical point of view, such as "yew berries".

Note that in the UK, colloquial "berry" is largely confined to 1+3, whereas in the US it extends to 1+2+3, although colloquial usage is never consistent anywhere. When I read the article, I constantly have to remind myself that colloquial "berry" does not mean what I expect it to mean, since the US usage is intended. Unless great care is taken, the result will be very confusing to British gardeners. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think care should be taken not to create our own definitions of what berry should be, you need dictionary definitions. I am also doubtful about the assertion that British soft fruits = US berries which I don't think is true. As for the three categories you mention, I'm not sure what you mean by No. 1. The assumption is that it would be edible, but I don't think that is necessarily its definition. Berry is used to refer to a fruiting body that is small, roundish, juicy and without stones (e.g. juniper berry), and according to the definition here, can also be used to refer to something like coffee bean. I think we should start by collecting dictionary definitions rather than creating our own. Hzh (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

When discussing the Global Berry Congress (2015) http://www.berrycongress.com/ and the size of the US berry market this site: http://www.freshplaza.com/article/137286/Retail-revenue-soft-fruit-in-US-bigger-than-bananas-or-apples reports it in terms of 'soft fruit' "In the United States, around 6 million dollars’ worth of soft fruit is sold, which is about 19% of total revenues in supermarkets. With these figures, berries have surpassed the traditionally popular products, like bananas and apples. Apples account for about 14% of revenue, bananas 11%. “The health argument brings the consumer to the berries, but the taste makes sure the consumer comes back." " see also http://www.fruitnet.com/eurofruit/topic/global-berry-congress-2015 further suggesting that Soft Fruit == Berry in industry usage, including international industry usage. Falconjh (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Attempt at Venn diagram

My attempt to draw a Venn diagram ended up with 10 relevant regions, some of which may be empty so may simplify the diagram. If the category is empty, please add examples here if you can think of them. ("Edible/non-edible" here means "normally eaten/not eaten".)

1. non-edible botanical berries that are not colloquially called berries anywhere – fruit of Musa ornata
2. edible botanical berries that are not colloquially called berries anywhere – banana
3. non-edible botanical berries that are colloquially called berries everywhere – fruit of Coffea (seeds are edible as coffee, but the berries are not)
4. edible botanical berries that are colloquially called berries everywhere – cranberry
5. edible botanical berries that are colloquially called berries only in the US sense – blackcurrant
6. non-edible botanical berries that are colloquially called berries only in the US sense – none??
7. non-edible non-botanical berries that are colloquially called berries everywhere – fruit of some Crataegus species, called "haws" or "hawberries"
8. edible non-botanical berries that are colloquially called berries everywhere – raspberry
9. edible non-botanical berries that are colloquially called berries only in the US sense – none??
10. non-edible non-botanical berries that are colloquially called berries only in the US sense – none??

So there are at least 7 different kinds of "berry", maybe more, making it very difficult to make generalizations. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless we can find dictionary definitions of berry that state that it must be edible, I'm not sure why we are making the distinction. Hzh (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Because some information relates only to edible berries, e.g. the United States National Berry Crops Initiative and the FAO statistics, so although edibility is not definitional, it is of considerable importance. Also the difference between the UK and US colloquial sense of "berry" seems (from the table above) only relevant to edible berries. If this is correct, it needs to be explained in the article to avoid confusing UK readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to what berry is or is not. If an agricultural organization only looks at edible plant, it doesn't mean that plant must be edible, edibility has got nothing to do with its definition. Its edibility can be discussed, but it is not its definition. Hzh (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hzh: I've just explained that it has to do with definition if the table above is correct, since the difference between the UK and US colloquial senses of "berry" seems to be to do with edibility. Only edible small fruits are added to UK "berries" to form UK "soft fruit" ≈ US "berries". Being clear as to the usage in different ENGVARs is vital in an international encyclopedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You really need a dictionary definition to make assertion like that. It seems like we are in danger of doing original research. Merriam-Webster says "usually edible" (that implies some of them are inedible), and I have no reason to dispute that. I also don't think berries = soft fruit - berry (or perhaps only some berries) may well be a subset of soft fruit, but that doesn't make them equivalent. Hzh (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hzh: a dictionary definition is not an essential in writing about a topic. There are definitions by listing; no OR is involved. What is meant by a "berry fruit" or by a "soft fruit" can be determined by looking at the list of fruits included under this name in reliable sources. In any case, all we are trying to do on the talk page is to understand; WP:OR isn't an issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The danger of using a list to guage what something is is that you might come up with the wrong answer. If you use a list from a food organisation which only lists edible food, then claim that according to them, berry must be edible, then you are drawing the wrong conclusion. Also that per WP:SYNTH, we should not combine two different sources and then make a statement not explicitly stated by either of them (meaning that you should not compare two lists A and B, however reliable they are, and then say that A = B if neither of them say that this is so). Hzh (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hzh: no, read WP:SYNTHNOT, in particular "SYNTH is not just any synthesis" and "SYNTH is not unpublishably unoriginal". There's nothing original in describing the overlap between two lists, which is all that is required. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the point. WP:SYNTH is meant to stop people coming up with their own unwarranted and possible false conclusion based on two different sources. You are not just describing overlap, you are saying A = B simply because lists A and B contain similar items. There are a numbers of ways how it could be logically false, for example coincidence, differing criteria used, or the lists are incomplete, etc. Hzh (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

See my comment above on the coverage of the Berry Congress; in the international setting it seems clear that Soft fruit == berries as far as industry is concerned. Falconjh (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect the confusion is caused by looking at how the term is used by the food industry. Food industry would look only at something edible, that is what they do, it doesn't mean that something must be edible outside of food industry. Edibility is not a definition of plant even if the food industry only considers edible plant. Contrast with "grain" where being edible is part of its definition according to dictionaries - [8], [9], I don't see anything like that for the definitions of berry. We should also not make assumption how the food industry defined it unless they specifically stated its definition. Hzh (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

How about someone from the UK using soft fruit to refer to something non-edible?: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/8135035/Holly-berries-suggest-harsh-winter-on-the-way.html if a holly berry counts as a soft fruit then the dictionary is not necessarily correct based on descriptive rather than proscriptive usage, and without the strict requirement of edibility, the way that US extensions use the term 'berry' to include the identification of poisonous vs edible wild ones is the same as soft fruit, including UK type soft fruits as being berries, even if you may personally disagree with there strict assessment as being a 'berry'. If we split along those lines then what the Berry Congress, what is a UK Soft Fruit, what FAOSTAT, Cornell, says is a berry/soft fruit all gets included in with what most people agree is a berry, even if there may be slight variations, while what is a botanical berry remains separate which there is pretty universal agreement that a pumpkin, banana, cucumber, and a pepper are not berries, except in the technical domain where they are and much of what everyone generally agrees is a berry isn't technically a berry. Falconjh (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Would Juniper, Holly, Cotoneaster, Ivy, and Jerusalem Cherries all be considered as berries? In terms of poison. http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/poison-control-center/poisonous-berries#.VcoIJzYw-Ak In terms of edible Prickly Pear, and Pacific crabapple? http://northernbushcraft.com/topic.php?name=prickly-pear+cactus&region=pnw&ctgy=edible_berries http://northernbushcraft.com/topic.php?name=pacific+crabapple&region=pnw&ctgy=edible_berries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconjh (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd certainly call the fruits of Juniper, Holly, Cotoneaster and Ivy "berries" in the colloquial sense. I wouldn't myself call the normally eaten fruits of Opuntia species colloquial berries – they are too big. But it just shows how vague the usage is! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As entertaining as it is to read and write the article currently in its technically correct but nearly completely confusing and unhelpful manner; I would be much happier with a slight vagueness over the overlap of soft fruit and berry rather than amusing dread that I am currently expecting getting from reading the next Huffington Post article which claims that Pumpkin and Key Lime Pies (or cucumber or tomato eggplant) are berry pies. Falconjh (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

For No. 10 Red mulberries (Morus rubra) are poisonous. That article currently says they are "edible and very sweet with a good flavor". That isn't mentioned at all in the citation and could possibly be vandalism, but I didn't want to change it for now. See Red mulberry poisoning about edibility. Even poison ivy has berries (Mayoclinic calls them berries) which are not botanically berries (but drupes). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Poison ivy berries (botanically drupes) are poisonous and inedible.

It's not in the reference given after the statement, but it is in another reference in the article, namely this one. Not an issue for this article, but it needs sorting. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As for #10 above, any fruit with "berry" in the name is called a "berry" colloquially in all English-speaking countries, I think. The difference in usage relates to blackcurrants, white currants, redcurrants, etc. which don't have "berry" in the name, and tend not to be called "berries" in the UK, at least by those who grow them. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you had included the botanical definition. But that surprises mes because they also have the name wineberries. [10]

[...] the Red Currant is still known in the northern counties of England and of Scotland as "Wine-berry," and the Black Currant is also called in northern Scotland "Wine-berry." And as far south as Geneva, where the Red Currant was possibly introduced from the North, it retains a suggestion of its old confusion with the Grape in its colloquial name, Raisin de mare.

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. So the question is whether in a British source, say a gardening book, there is a section or chapter headed "Berries" which includes redcurrants and blackcurrants. I can only say that all such books I have looked at use "soft fruit" to cover the list of fruits called "berry crops" in US publications. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You'd want a reliable source, but from a quick google, ripe fruits of red mulberry are edible and unripe ones are poisonous - it wouldn't be the only species where the fruits are poisonous when unripe. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Culinary Section

With the split so that there is Berry (botany) the culinary section is a mess and makes no sense as it is; almost all the examples are focused on botanical berries which are not what is the current focus of the article or what is generally thought of as a berry. I don't know if that section should mostly be copied over to botanical berry or not, but in this article the current examples need to be removed and everything be reworded so as to not be confusing and leave someone unfamiliar with both berries and english thinking that Pumpkin Pie is a berry pie in common usage. Falconjh (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)