Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
1.1k

TIL: In the world of botany there's no such thing as vegetables. It's a culinary term so there are no plants that are actually classified as vegetables.

105 comments
91% Upvoted
This thread is archived
New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast
level 1

So... As a vegetarian. Do I exist?

level 2
Original Poster88 points · 3 years ago

How did you leave a blank comment like that?

level 3

What did the comment say? It looks like it got deleted.

level 4

hunter2

level 4
-70 points · 3 years ago(2 children)
level 5

Wooosh

level 5

Oh he gets it....

level 3

level 4
Original Poster25 points · 3 years ago

Why wouldn't you exist?

level 4
[deleted]
1 point · 3 years ago · edited 1 year ago

[deleted]
0.0156

What is this?

level 5

I think I know why you can't see any comments.

level 2

How can Vegetarians be real if vegetables aren't?

level 3

Capitalize Every Word For The Full Jaden Smith Effect.

level 4

You never go full Jaden Smith.

level 4

you forgot #Money

level 2

Why are they called vegetarians when they still eat other things?

level 3

Vegetarian my ass. Don't lie to me motherfucker I saw you eat that apple

level 2
[deleted]
1 point · 3 years ago

Omnivore?

level 2

I think the scientific term is fruit.

level 2

What's your point?

level 2

I think you're anorexic.

level 1
Comment deleted3 years ago(2 children)
level 2

What on earth do you mean? How hard can it be to know what a fucking vegetable is...

level 3

Vegetable? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about.

level 1

Which is why it is so irritating when I hear someone correct me by saying, "Actually, a tomato is a fruit, not a vegetable."

level 2

Well it is a fruit, but I guess it can be a veggie too?

level 3

In a culinary context it's a vegetable. In a botanical context it's a fruit (it has seeds). Many flowers are considered fruits in a botanical context - certainly not in a culinary context.

Much like an insect is an animal in terms of scientific classification but not in terms of "oh hey I think I heard an animal over there in that bush."

level 4

It can be eaten as a fruit too. Some types of tomato are bred specifically for their sugar content. I don't think it really fits the vegetable classification either. Though obviously that's all culture dependent.

level 5

I can eat a potato as fruit, don't make it one.

level 4

I've always wondered is culinary context the same as nutritional context? Like if you needed 2 servings of vegetables a day does a tomato count?

level 5

Well, potatoes are definitely vegetables in a culinary sense, but are usually excluded from "serving of vegetables" definition.

level 3

yes. it's both. in fact, all edible fruits are vegetables.

level 3

The way I see it all roots, tubers, stalks, fruits, leaves, and other various plant parts are all vegetables.

level 4

You think all fruits are vegetables? I agree with the other bits but I don't think ALL fruits are veggies, like cherries and such.

level 5

They are just sweet veggies.

level 5

a vegetable is an edible plant part. all edible fruits are vegetables.

level 2

Then you look at them and say "What's a carrot? NUH UH! IT'S A ROOT, YA DINGUS!!!!"

level 2
[deleted]
5 points · 3 years ago

how dare people use common language?!!?

Let's face it, most people don't care and don't know about the technical terms. A vegetable is a plant you eat that isn't a fruit.

level 3

Yeah, like wheat!

level 2
Original Poster0 points · 3 years ago

To be fair some species of tomatoes are sweet.

level 3

Maybe this is pedantic, but it might interest you. All the tomatoes that we eat are one species. They are just different varieties/cultivars. This is true for a lot (I'd say most) of domesticated organisms. Dogs and cats are an example. Another good example is Brassica oleracea. That species has the varieties that we know as cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts and collard greens, among others. It is all one species. We just bred it into different forms.

level 2
Comment deleted3 years ago(24 children)
level 3

Because a tomato is a fruit AND a vegetable. The two are not mutually exclusive. Fruit is a botanical term referring to part of certain plants' reproductive system while vegetable is a culinary/dietary term. Did you not read the TIL?

level 4

The fruit definition of tomato started as a legal not a botanical or culinary definition. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

level 5

Non-mobile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

That's why I'm here, I don't judge you. PM /u/xl0 if I'm causing any trouble. ^WUT?

level 4
Comment deleted3 years ago(0 children)
level 5
Original Poster6 points · 3 years ago

The culinary part is actually only in the title. I didn't find out from this video, it's just the most cohesive source I could find. So yeah, he read it. You can't watch that part.

level 4
Comment deleted3 years ago(0 children)
level 5

They carry precisely the same amount of validity in their respective fields, if you are referring how things are cooked and other culinary issues calling a tomato a fruit would be incorrect.

level 3

Because they are wrong. While a tomato is a fruit, it can also be classified as a vegetable.

level 4
Comment deleted3 years ago(0 children)
level 5
2 points · 3 years ago

You're silly. Can you name me something that's scientifically a vegetable?

level 5

The classification 'vegetable' is not scientific at all, and on top of that not mutually exclusive to fruit, so you're flat out wrong.

level 6
Comment deleted3 years ago(0 children)
level 7

The term 'vegetable' is not a scientific term. That implies there's no scientifically correct or incorrect way to use it. Vegetable is just any piece of plant that is not a culinary fruit (note that this is not a botanical fruit). Obviously, this definition is rather vague, and since it's rather common that tomatoes, bell peppers and the like, as well as legumes and many other botanical fruits are classified as vegetables, it's not incorrect to do so.

You should learn how to read English.

If we're going to throw personal attacks around, well, lets go. You should learn how to write English. Also you should learn what the term 'scientific' means. Besides, you should learn what fallacies are, and to avoid them in a discussion.

level 8
Comment deleted3 years ago(0 children)
level 9

It's not not scientifically correct, because in order for something to be not scientifically correct it has to have a scientifically correct definition, which vegetables do not have.

And now we've reached a new low by throwing silly insults around. Way to go, plonker.

level 3

Because they're not right.

Stop being this dense.

level 3

Alright, go put tomatoes and bell peppers in your fruit salad.

level 4
Comment deleted3 years ago(0 children)
level 5

You're right, but my point is, it would be silly to call rice, legumes and many other botanical fruits fruits in the culinary sense. They are fruits, but that doesn't exclude them from being vegetables.

level 6

Are you trying to say rice is a vegetable?

level 7

Usually starchy foods are not classified as such, no. Would you say it's a fruit, though?

level 8

I think it's a seed. Closer to nuts than to fruits or vegetables. Don't they have their own group, together with potatoes and such?

level 6
Comment deleted3 years ago(0 children)
level 7

Now you're being hypocritical. Your first comment in this thread was you wrongly correcting someone on whether something is a fruit or a vegetable.

level 1

In Swedish, vegetables is "grönsaker", literally "green stuff". That'd be a stupid botanical classification.

level 2

We have a similar sounding term in English, "greens".

level 1

First they came for Pluto...Then the Apatasaurus...Now vegetables?

What is this world coming to?!

level 2

What happened to asparagus?

level 1

Fruits are fruiting bodies ripened ovaries. Vegetative parts non-reproductive parts, like roots leaves and stems are vegetables, eg spinach leaves are vegetables, zucchini are fruiting bodies or fruit. We definitely do eat vegetables.

level 2
Original Poster19 points · 3 years ago

Yes we do. Because it's a culinary term. There just aren't any plants as a whole that are considered vegetables. Roots leaves and stems are only parts of the plant, not the plant in its entirety. It's like saying that a cow is an udder because that's the most recognizable part.

level 3

but then there are no plants as wholes that are considered fruits then because the trunk of an apple tree isn't a fruit

level 4
Original Poster4 points · 3 years ago

Fruit is still a botanical term. An apple is the fruit of an apple tree and a tomato is the fruit of a tomato plant. Your arm is still your arm after all.

level 1

So what do you call a quadriplegic botanist then?

level 2

It's been 5 fucking hours, give me the answer!!!

level 3
2 points · 3 years ago

A vegetable.

level 4

Wouldn't that be a comatose botanist?

level 5

if it has seeds I think it's a fruit

level 1

What about doors?

level 1
2 points · 3 years ago

Who's classifying a tomato as a vegetable? seriously?

level 1
[deleted]
2 points · 3 years ago

What, fuck you, I don't accept this, stop ruining my reality.

level 2
Original Poster0 points · 3 years ago

Why?

level 3

sarcasm

level 1

I've been telling people there's no such thing as vegetables for years. Do they listen? Nooooo.

level 2

Everyone is sick of hearing crazy rants from you vegetable denialists.

level 1

Who cares?! Its the culinary term that matters! Same goes with hings like: "botanically the strawberry is not a berry" Nobody cares. It's a matter of definition.

level 2

It matters differently to different people. A botanist and people who uphold scientific definitions will follow the botanist's classification, other people will think differently based on what matters to them.

level 1

I've often wondered the same thing about plants and weeds. What specifically makes a particular plant a weed? They are all plants!

level 2

A weed its just a plant where you don't want it. Plants that spread easily are more likely to be weeds because they're more likely to move from where they're desired to where they're not.

level 3

I would also add that weeds tend to choke out other plants and flowers.

Edit: Had a poke weed plant growing in my yard and I let it grow full bloom. It was quite pretty.

level 1

Would never have guessed. Maybe another instance where cultural definitions gradually change literal definitions?

level 1

One of my favorites is corn. It's considered a vegetable, grain, and fruit, under different circumstances. Source: http://www.extension.org/pages/36971/please-settle-a-dispute-is-sweet-corn-a-vegetable-or-a-grain-what-is-the-difference-how-about-field-#.VVFZEPlVhBc

level 1

wouldn't fruits also already be a culinary term as well? obviously, there's a scientific definition for the word fruit, but not all things we consider fruits necessarily fall in this category.

level 1

I'd let him have a TV show. Teaching kids science bro.

level 1

In plant systematics and taxonomy, one of the most important things you study are the different kinds of forms that certain parts can take, such as the different kinds of fruits (berries [like bananas], drupes, pomes, achenes, etc.), flowers/inflorescences, leaves, barks, phyllotaxies (arrangements of leaves on a stem), and other stuff.

When we took it up, for convenience purposes, we grouped all these "traits" into two groups. Reproductive, and vegetative. Reproductive parts are fruits, seeds and flowers. Vegetative is everything else (stems, roots, shoots, leaves).

Now, the term vegetable is arbitrarily based on tradition (hence tomatoes) but you can't deny the etymological similarity and relationship. Most vegetables are stems, roots and leaves.

What honestly blew my mind in school was figuring out that most plants (all angiosperms to be specific) have flowers and fruits. Carrots have flowers? Potatoes have flowers? Weed has flowers? Rice is a fruit? Corn is a fruit? That messed with me big time as a kid.

(Oh and rhubarb is treated as a fruit culinarily. Now that's messed up too.)

level 1

IT'S CROWS AND JACKDAWS ALL OVER AGAIN.

level 1

How does this effect the three food groups, Animal, Vegetable, and Mineral?

level 1

Also, there are no such thing as Reddit in biological terminology ... and by the same flawed reasoning, that doesn't exists.

level 2
Original Poster0 points · 3 years ago

I'm not going to explain why what you just said is wrong. I'm just going to let you think about what you said.

level 3

There are many different classification systems for many different things. If botany doesn't have the same classification system as culinary does it necessarily mean that botany trumps? Personally I don't think so. As there is more nutritional information in the culinary naming system than in the botanical naming system.

I don't want to go to the store and have to piece together which are sweet plants, and which aren't. It's all organized so I don't have to think.

level 4
1 point · 3 years ago

It's not that hard. When you go to the supermarket and you see a plant that you really like, you just say to your buddy, "dude, that's a sweet plant, bro!"

level 3
3 points · 3 years ago · edited 3 years ago

I did think about it ... you are the one that has demonstrated no thought in your response.

The headline was "TIL: In the world of botany there's no such thing as vegetables ...". Would you really accept someone saying "In the world of botany there's no such thing as planets/atoms/people/intelligence/Reddit/etc" simply because these things don't have a classification provided within the "world of botany".

These things continue to exist within the "world of botany" independent of classification. It is a logical fallacy to think otherwise. These things had to pre-exist our labelling of them for us to discover them and label them.

The headline is an inaccurate sensationalist statement crafted to pull in non-thinkers ... apparently like yourself.

There is a difference between saying that "the object does not exist" and "the label is inaccurate and not used". Neither you nor the poster seems to have understood that distinction.

level 4
Original Poster-2 points · 3 years ago

I am the poster. Good job showing how well you can read.

level 1

I don't care, just stop serving me "vegetable medleys" with mushrooms. Fungi are not plants and are therefore not allowed to be called vegetables. I'm looking at you Kelsey's, ya dicks! Vegetable medleys that are 95% fungi 5% vege, can not pass for a vegetable medley...

level 1

Wait you seriously mean not every single american knows thing from elementary? How is that not something you learn as a kid?

level 2

Because who fucking cares?

level 1
0 points · 3 years ago

A more fitting title would be "vegetables arnt real. Dammit obama"

level 1

That would explain why many vegetables (culinary) I look up end up being a fruit (botany): obviously tomatoes, zucchini, peppers, etc.

level 1

Good cause I hate vegetables!!

level 1

I call my cock Big Black Willie, even though technically he's referred to as penis. Does this mean that Big Black Willie does not exist? Open your mouth and find out, motherfucker.

level 1

This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote. (Info / ^Contact)

level 1
0 points · 3 years ago

"We are not vegetables, thats racist of you"

Community Details

19.2m

Subscribers

33.9k

Online

You learn something new every day; what did you learn today? Submit interesting and specific facts about something that you just found out here.

Create Post
r/todayilearned Rules
1.
1. Inaccurate/unverifiable/not supported by source
2.
2. No personal opinions/anecdotes/subjective posts
3.
3. No recent sources
4.
4. No politics/agenda pushing
5.
5. No misleading claims
6.
6. Too general/can't stand on its own/how to
7.
7. No submissions about software/websites
8.
8. All NSFW links must be tagged.
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.