| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
| | ''to which many vegetables that we eat belong'' speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure neither tomato nor potato is Brassica oleracea. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC) | | ''to which many vegetables that we eat belong'' speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure neither tomato nor potato is Brassica oleracea. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
| | :But what about the tomahto and potahto? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.143|172.70.90.143]] 05:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | | :But what about the tomahto and potahto? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.143|172.70.90.143]] 05:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | '''One of the issues with defining which plants are what is the definition of a ''tree'''''. It's disputed a lot, one of those "I know one when I see one" type issues, but it's relevant here because the decision of what is a tree and what isn't is fluid and changes country to country (and even state to state https://www.rgc.net.au/post/what-is-a-tree) and depends on legal definitions rather than phylogenetic ones. https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/. Brassica, on the other hand, IS a genetic definition. I tried to point out the differences and similarities but someone edited it away again, so I figured I’d add it in here. If anyone would like to re-add, I see it as relevant that although we can randomly redefine various large plants as trees, we cannot randomly redefine various broccoli-like plants as brassica. [[User:Thisfox|Thisfox]] ([[User talk:Thisfox|talk]]) 07:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Redwoods contain no resin. They do contain tanins, as does red wine. I am reluctant to edit the article but someone with that skill might want to change the line:
| |
| − | " "Resinous" is probably a more apt adjective than "delicious", and they're probably woody...."
| |
| − | to something like
| |
| − | ""Delicious" might be an apt adjective as Sequoias, like red wine, have a high content of tannins, including polyphenols, but unlike wine this variety of brussels spounts would probably still be quite woody. Because of their height, the taste, like a Zinfandel, might have a long finish"
| |
| − |
| |
| − | (reference to lack of resins in redwoods:
| |
| − | "Redwoods, however, contain neither pitch nor resin...".
| |
| − | and
| |
| − | "The Redwoods have a high percentage of tannin, and this gives both the bark and the heartwood a reddish color during the life of the tree...."
| |
| − | both from from https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/shirley/sec6.htm)
| |
| − | [[User:WWCODY|WWCODY]] ([[User talk:WWCODY|talk]]) 21:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Presumably that article is correct as to redwoods’ lack of resin, but it inspires *very* little confidence with “Fungi are colorless plants … .” [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 22:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The statement is backed up by articles such as this: https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr095/psw_gtr095_piirto.pdf. "There is little ether-soluble material (less than 1 percent) in
| |
| − | coast redwood indicating the absence of fats, waxes, oils, and
| |
| − | resinous substances. However, terpenoids (e.g., alpha pinene
| |
| − | and various resin acids) have been reported (Anderson and others 1968a,b) within a sticky viscous resin found in open pockets of
| |
| − | coast redwood. Similarly, a resinous, sticky material has been
| |
| − | observed on the fire scars of giant sequoia (Piirto 1977). "[[User:WWCODY|WWCODY]] ([[User talk:WWCODY|talk]]) 21:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
| |
