[Groop]Oh no! I'm Nut-picking!

[Kevin Hall]

"Sudilovsky, Ariel" wrote:

> misinformed.  First of, as I understand it, the peanut is actually a member
> of the family "Fabaceae", not family "Leguminosae".  A third definition I

Whew!! :) Thanks for all the info, Ariel. Actually, 2 of the sources I
checked showed that peanuts ARE a member of Leguminosae. :) (see: below)

> characteristic.  My understanding is that the peanut's classification is
> disputed, with the majority of botanists holding that it is a legume.  I
> have had this discussion with botanists stating that the peanut is a legume.

However, as you pointed out, folks are in great disputes over important
facts like this!! :) My wife was a zoology major in college. As I
learned from her, zoologists (& botanists) agree on almost NOTHING when
it comes to taxonomy. There's still folks arguing whether there are 2
kingdoms, 3 kingdoms, or 5 kingdoms (or more!!), forget whether a
particular organism belongs to one family or another! :)

> ------>The tomato is in fact a fruit.  This is beyond debate.  It is also a
> vegetable.  The definition for a fruit is: the seed bearing part of a plant.

Scientifically speaking, I'd have to agree. However, to get back to my
grocery store analysis, I seem to find tomatoes with lettuce, cucumbers
& carrots rather than with oranges, grapes and melons. :)

> -------->I can explain why this is.  Somewhen around the mid 1800s (I forget
> the exact date) the supreme court of the United States heard a case which
> oddly enough hinged on whether the tomato is a fruit or vegetable.  I forget

Hmmm...sounds like we need to take the legume vs. nut case to the
highest court as well!! Or at least have it featured on Law & Order.

> objective facts.  Gotta be wary of common usage or you will be seeing black
> where there is white and feeling cold when it is hot.  While it is correct
> to call a tomato a vegetable, if you want to describe it more accurately and
> in a more precise manner you should call it a fruit.  Otherwise you are just
> subscribing to blind sloppy foolish consistency.

Which is why we are all Groopers & not Groopies!! Except of course for
the Midnight Tokers whom refuse to be classified as anything unless it's
very late, there's good music on, and their pipe is full...in which case
they'll agree to just about anything! ;)
(Amazingly, we were able to bring this back to Groo!).

> PS Mark, we REALLY need some new Groo & soon!!!!
> 
> ------>Yup!

And an extra yup. Just think, at the rate we're going, this Groop could
cause world-wide havoc if they aren't distracted by more Groo issues
soon. :)

Kevin