The scientific definition of a berry is a fleshy fruit that came from a single ovary in the flower. Thats it. I don’t even know why they used the name berry on this term because it makes no sense and I tell you this as someone studying botany. Like none of the nuts you know are true nuts either. If a nuts shell opens on its own it’s not a nut so peanuts, walnuts and almonds are not nuts because if you plant these in fresh soil they will sprout and the shell opens. However if you plant a fresh hazelnut the shell stays on while the plant germinates from the seed, hence it’s a true nut. So stupid I know. This has use in botany but these botanical definitions have no use for normal people. That’s why we talk about “botanical definitions” and “culinary definitions”. In the common culinary definition a berry is a small freshy fruit which is the definition you know.
Bonus: in botany everything from a flower is a fruit. That means wheat is a fruit, rice is a fruit, beans are fruits, peas are fruits, all nuts are fruits, every seed is a fruit, a pine cone is a fruit, and it just goes on. But no one in their right mind would make a fruit asket with pine cones right? The botanical definition is useless outside the field of botany.
Huh… peanuts coming from underground is such an obvious memory for me I don’t recall where I learned it. It feels like something everyone just knows, like carrots, potatoes, and yams. It didn’t occur to me outside of today’s lucky 10000 that a lot wouldn’t know.
I wonder if its really aot of people or just some.
Just to add random info/trivia: it’s interesting to note that this mess between “botanical fruit” and “culinary fruit” is largely language-dependent. In Portuguese for example it doesn’t happen - because botanical fruit is “fruto” (with “o”) and culinary fruit is “fruta” (with “a”).
So for example, if you tell someone that cucumber is a “fruto”, that is not contentious; you’re just using a somewhat posh word if you aren’t in a botanical context. And if you tell the person that tomato is a “fruta”, you’re just being silly.
Berry has no direct equivalent. If you must specify that the fruit comes from a single ovary, you call it “fruto simples” (lit. simple botanical-fruit), as opposed to “fruto múltiplo” (multiple fruit - e.g. pineapple). Popularly people will call stuff like strawberries and mulberries by multiple names, like “frutinhas” (little fruits) and the likes.
In German, the fruits you would put in a fruit salat are called Obst, in contrast to Frucht (fruit) / Früchte (fruits) which can be ‘anything’ complying with the botanical definition. You’d refer to tomatoes and paprika as Frucht-Gemüse (fruit vegetables).
The scientific definition of a berry is a fleshy fruit that came from a single ovary in the flower. Thats it. I don’t even know why they used the name berry on this term because it makes no sense and I tell you this as someone studying botany. Like none of the nuts you know are true nuts either. If a nuts shell opens on its own it’s not a nut so peanuts, walnuts and almonds are not nuts because if you plant these in fresh soil they will sprout and the shell opens. However if you plant a fresh hazelnut the shell stays on while the plant germinates from the seed, hence it’s a true nut. So stupid I know. This has use in botany but these botanical definitions have no use for normal people. That’s why we talk about “botanical definitions” and “culinary definitions”. In the common culinary definition a berry is a small freshy fruit which is the definition you know.
Bonus: in botany everything from a flower is a fruit. That means wheat is a fruit, rice is a fruit, beans are fruits, peas are fruits, all nuts are fruits, every seed is a fruit, a pine cone is a fruit, and it just goes on. But no one in their right mind would make a fruit asket with pine cones right? The botanical definition is useless outside the field of botany.
we should be inventing new words. A fleshy fruit from a single ovary in a flower is now called a skibidi
Like none of the nuts you know are true nuts either.Found it funny that you then mentioned peanuts which grow in the ground contrary to all other things people think about when talking about nuts.
And yeah, I know I’ll just have blown some people’s mind with that info.
Huh… peanuts coming from underground is such an obvious memory for me I don’t recall where I learned it. It feels like something everyone just knows, like carrots, potatoes, and yams. It didn’t occur to me outside of today’s lucky 10000 that a lot wouldn’t know.
I wonder if its really aot of people or just some.
Just to add random info/trivia: it’s interesting to note that this mess between “botanical fruit” and “culinary fruit” is largely language-dependent. In Portuguese for example it doesn’t happen - because botanical fruit is “fruto” (with “o”) and culinary fruit is “fruta” (with “a”).
So for example, if you tell someone that cucumber is a “fruto”, that is not contentious; you’re just using a somewhat posh word if you aren’t in a botanical context. And if you tell the person that tomato is a “fruta”, you’re just being silly.
Berry has no direct equivalent. If you must specify that the fruit comes from a single ovary, you call it “fruto simples” (lit. simple botanical-fruit), as opposed to “fruto múltiplo” (multiple fruit - e.g. pineapple). Popularly people will call stuff like strawberries and mulberries by multiple names, like “frutinhas” (little fruits) and the likes.
In German, the fruits you would put in a fruit salat are called Obst, in contrast to Frucht (fruit) / Früchte (fruits) which can be ‘anything’ complying with the botanical definition. You’d refer to tomatoes and paprika as Frucht-Gemüse (fruit vegetables).