Talk:Nut (fruit)/Archive 1

Pistachio

What is the pistachio? Does anyone know this one? Wiwaxia 05:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep. It's a drupe like walnuts, pecans etc. But, surprisingly, actually closer related to mangoes :-) KristianM

ok Steezart (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Will something grow if a nut is planted?

Yes, but only if the the nut is unroasted, and still alive (aka still fresh, not rancid). I think, but am not sure that the plant grows faster if the shell is removed, but the plant is weaker. 71.199.123.24 06:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Allergies

It says in the article that nut allergies are common, and the article puts forth two definitions of nuts, so which one are people allergic to? Or are they allergic to both? I don't really know anything about the matter, and I find it very hard to understand in this article. This needs to be, IMO, fixed to be more understandable. --Sterio 00:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Both. Basically it's common for people to be alergic to parts of a plant that are plantable. This is seeds basically, excluding the fleshy edible parts. The reason some plant are worse then others has to do with which proteins are in the seed. Some proteins are harder to split into constituent amino acids then others. No one is alergic to amino acids (most of them anyway), but if an un-split protein winds up inside the blood stream it can cause an allergy. Typically babies have immature digestive systems that don't fully split the proteins. 71.199.123.24 06:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone can put nuts as testicles has anyone ever heard about that slang before? Huh.--"@seisho11" (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Already covered at Nut#As slang, doesn't belong in this article. Anomie⚔ 03:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is a Walnut/Pecan a nut?

The Walnut and Pecan both have a fruit (inedible) that surrounds the pit. Based on the distinction between a nut and a seed this would indicate that either the distinction if faulty or they are not true (botanical) nuts.

So do hazelnuts, beechnuts, etc. The historical botanical definition of a nut was written to include plants then treated in the order Fagales, with various exclusions written in to count out other plants (including those then treated in the separate order Juglandales). Since then, genetic evidence has shown that the "Juglandales" are nested wholly within the Fagales (see e.g. the phylogeny at Missori BG research). It makes good sense to adapt the definition of 'nut' accordingly, particularly as the seeds thereby included are all popularly called nuts. - MPF 15:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Nut is a morphological term, and walnuts are not nuts. Using 'nuts' this way, turns it into a taxonomic term which is already covered by the group name Fagales. The non-nutty parts surrounding hazel or walnuts are of different anatomical origin, and furthermore are boundaries for when a drupe has a fleshy or a leathery covering not well-defined. Calling what 'we think of as a nut' a botanical nut is ends up being a much too imprecise definition. Nuts and drupes and various other types of fruit have developed in many different plantgroups outside Fagales: try decribing new plant species in one of those groups without an anatomical framework for your descriptions. - KristianMikk 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is legitimate for botanists to wish to have a term for indehiscent nuts, simply to avoid constantly having to say "indehiscent". It must be born in mind that this is jargon. The correct definition outside of botanical context is the more general one, which is far more useful in everyday life than one that requires indehiscence. Ed Uber 14:02 July 20th, 2014

--- This article needs repairing!!!
Exactly like peaches, walnuts are drupes (see the article for technical clarification) because they have pulp outside the shell... walnuts have a pulp; that pulp is removed and the walnut dried, and that's what we buy in the supermarkets; that the walnut's pulp isn't edible and we eat the seed, while in the peach we eat the pulp and discard the seed, does not change the way that botanically the walnut is a drupe and not a nut. :) Hazelnuts, like acorns, are not drupes – they are nuts (botanical term) and they don't have pulp. Nuts (botanical term) are dry fruit, while drupes are pulpy fruits. Curiosity: in Portuguese the problem is much more serious, because the word walnut (noz) is the same as nut (noz). --portugal (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus, yet? Currently, this article contradicts itself by saying that a Walnut is a true nut botanically, but a drupe in the culinary section. 69.95.233.55 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on pecans, the pecan is a species of hickory and that, furthermore, the fruits of all plants in the hickory genus are drupes and not nuts. The introduction to this article, however, seems to suggest that hickories produce true nuts. I do not know which is correct. ~EphraimGlass, 20 Feb 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Pecan have drupes, Hickory have nuts. Here is a reference for you to look at:[1] Though the issue is not always clear since these fruits fall somewhere in the middle of the two categories depending on how one classifies the origin of the covering. Nature does not alwas fall into easily derived groups and science does not always make clear declarative statements. Hardyplants (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Flora of North America says all Juglandaceae fruits (pecans, walnuts, hickory nuts) are nuts in the botanical sense, though they superficially resemble drupes. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at a hickory seed in the field. It has a covering just like a pecan. That's because the pecan is a hickory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.160.199.100 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the Pecan page, which had all the information but was rather confused. Nadiatalent (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is still contradictory, showing that Walnuts are nuts in the first image, then showing the walnut in an isolated image with the caption declaring that it is "not a true nut," then again the image of bulk nuts is displayed, including the Walnut. Axeb (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the article is wrong and should be changed to agree to the Pecan article.Kevin Murray (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Allergies

I have been told that the allergy is due to a mold that is found on seeds. This may not be true as it is in direct conflict with what the article states.

Allergies are caused by natural constituents of the nuts. What you are thinking of is probably Aflatoxin (a poison, not an allergen) produced by some moulds in the genus Aspergillus - MPF 15:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This info needs to be added to the article ASAP! 85.77.197.44 (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Benefit to plant

What is the benefit to the plant of making its seeds edible? 71.199.123.24 06:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I believe it's just a consequence of the nut being an energy source for the young plant. In much the same way, I can't see a benefeit to a plant's stem and leaves being edible (it certainly doesn't improve chances of survival) and yet in many, if not most, cases they still are. -GamblinMonkey 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I'd go a step further and say that the nut is a case of the plant evolving a hard shell to protect that seed and prevent it from being eaten. 69.95.233.55 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bowl of few nuts, plus many peanuts and cashews

Maybe this picture belongs rather with an article on Nut (culinary), as it's a poor example of Nut (fruit), since it is composed predomoninantly of things that are not nuts? KP Botany 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

cholesterol?

I read "Rabbit at Rest" by John Updike and in that book the protagonist is not allowed to eat nuts because of their cholesterol content. I thought nuts were healthy. Was that a misguided belief at the time of publication, or do nuts actually have a high cholesterol content? Zigzig20s 12:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno... but this is the discussion page of an encyclopedia - try asking at Yahoo Answers or something instead.

No. Only animal products have cholesterol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.116.245 (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Corn Nuts?

Does anyone seriously consider a corn nut to be a nut... even in the culinary sense? Frail Elf 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I don't think corn nut fits the definition given for a nut, even in just the culinary sense. It's a snack food. I've removed it from the article. Swax 07:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone seems to have put corn nuts back in the article. I am deleting it again. Dubhslaine —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

"Waste Products"

My clarification is such:

the original: that nuts are superior to meat because they are free from "waste products"

my edit: that nuts are free from "feces"

is correct and useful, since the term "waste products" is misleading and vague. The slaughtering process invariably results in intestinal material contaminating the meat, which makes people sick. the term "waste products" is so vague as to be unhelpful, since waste products could mean horns and hooves, or pelts. What Kellogg was saying is that nuts are better, because they don't have E. coli on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.42.202 (talk • contribs)

I suspect that your edit just looked like mindless Wikipedia:vandalism; sorry about that (well, not that I made the mistake, but I could have). We do need some wording like "contamination", because neither "waste products" alone nor "feces" alone really makes the point very clearly. The wording "the intestinal contaminants that are present on meat, such as E. coli" looks fine to me. (I don't have the Kellogg article handy so I'm writing this assuming this is really what Kellogg was intending). Kingdon 21:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy of nuts by John Harvey Kellogg

Why is this part of the main article? It smells like advertising or myth-building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojmorales0002 (talk • contribs)

I'm not really sure one way or the other. Can someone find some evidence about the importance or non-importance of this? For example, were nuts considered healthy before Kellogg? Did he have a big impact on public perception of nuts (in, say, the United States? Europe? Worldwide?)? Kingdon 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm going to remove it until someone does prove its important. The thing does not say anything about the impact... but does manage to say that Kellogg was correct in claiming that "nuts were truly one of the earth's finest bounties". Clearly highly POV, although I'm not sure who's POV... Alkrensel 07:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Deleted

The article was deleted (apparently as an act of vandalism) by a user with IP 70.110.23.81. I've reverted the article to its previous state. Fysidiko 21:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Joseph

Just wondering, what is with the 'Nuts are most liked by Joseph' headline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.113.138 (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Chestnut picture

The objects shown in the chestnuts picture look suspiciously like buckeyes to me. The chestnuts sold during the holiday season are darker tinted and more monochromatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.171.183.100 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a tree nut?

I came to wiki today to find out what is a "tree nut" versus a "nut". Disappointedly tree nut just points here, and the only mention of it in the article is it refers to "tree nuts and peanuts" implying that peanuts may not be tree nuts? The adjective has to mean something, right? Tree nut = nuts according to the referal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anythingapplied (talk • contribs) 18:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unclear formulations

The introduction states:

  Seeds come from fruit, and can be removed from the fruit, like almonds,  
  cashews, walnuts, and pistachios, which were once inside fruit.

This sentence is both somewhat unclear in it self and clashing with the immediately preceding:

  A nut is a type of seed. Nuts are both the seed and the fruit, and
  cannot be separated. 

Combined, these sentences makes the definition of nut a contradiction, because a nut could not be a seed.

(I refrain from correcting this myself, because I lack the deeper biological insights and could misstate the nuances of the issue.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.191.12 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to that user's comment, can I ask if it is a fruit or a seed? The intro (which is now different?) says it is a seed or fruit. The biological description states that it is a seed -- what gives? Is it a fruit, seed, both or something else? Says who? 121.44.130.242 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Vitamins F and G

According to Vitamin#Names_in_current_and_previous_nomenclatures vitamins F and G have both been reclassified, and vitamin G was the term for riboflavin, not docopherol. --Zenten (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

difference in definition unclear

I read the article and I really am even less clear of the definition of nut vs culinary useage for nut than before i read it--174.45.157.77 (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Coconuts

I was surprised not to see Coconuts listed among the culinary nuts. Are they too moist to be considered nuts even in the culinary sense? AaronCarson (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

add NUT TYPES list, yes/no?

it'd be cool if this page had a list of nut types, imho. what do you guys think? makeswell 22:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Article is confusing

The lead section makes a big deal out of the botanical concept of nut, listing a bunch of things that don't meet the definition, but with no explicit list of the ones that do. I suppose the listing hazelnuts, hickories, chestnuts and acorns is supposed to be about botanical nuts, but it's hard to tell. Walnuts and pine nuts are said not to be true nuts but are pictured. The "nutritional benefits" section also lists many that other text claims are not true nuts.

Basically one gets the impression that the article doesn't know which topic it wants to be about, and it is very difficult for the reader to tease out, for any given statement about nuts, whether it's talking about "true nuts" or "culinary nuts".

My sense is that most of the stuff that there is to say (or at least that is currently said in the article) is about "culinary nuts", which include the "true nuts" but are not limited to them. Therefore I would propose that we make a decision that this article is about "culinary nuts", and use the term "nut" for them without apology, but with a note that there is a more restrictive notion from the field of botany. If there's enough to say about them, perhaps a separate true nut or nut (botany) article might be split off. --Trovatore (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

... oh, and in the same spirit, I would propose moving this article to nut (food), since culinarily most nuts are not considered "fruit" in English. --Trovatore (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to make this move Mike Cline (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Nut (fruit) → Nut
• Nut → Nut (disambiguation)

– In my opinion, the fruit/food is the primary topic and doesn't need a disambiguator. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think it's so much more common than the fastener, that most are also familiar with (nuts and bolts) 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; I am sympathetic, but I agree that the fastener is competitive as far as primary topic goes. Powers ^T 15:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There are lot of terms of this word. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without any evidence that suggests that Nut (fruit) is searched for way more than, or is greatly more significant than, Nut (hardware), I'd prefer to keep it as a dab page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support The fruit is obviously the origin of the rest, which are either nut-shaped or nut-sized. The usual dab hatnote will of course be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Etymology is not usually one of the criteria used to determine primary topic. Powers ^T 15:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Powers. Much more relevant here is what people are most likely seeking when searching for "nut". I see no evidence that the fruit/nut is the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved from Further reading - potential sources

Books

• Alasalvar, C. / Shahidi, F. (eds. 2008). Tree Nuts: Composition, Phytochemicals, and Health Effects. CRC Press. ISBN 9780849337352
• Goldstein, M.C. / Goldstein, M.D. (2010). Healthy Foods: Fact versus Fiction. Greenwood. ISBN 9780313380969
• John Harvey Kellogg, “Nuts a coming food staple” (pp. 165–203), in: The Itinerary of a Breakfast (1920). New York and London. Funk & Wagnalls Company.
• Preedy, V.R./Watson, R.R./Patel, V.B. (eds. 2011). Nuts and Seeds in Health and Disease Prevention. Academic Press. ISBN 9780123756886

Review articles on possible health benefits

• Bolling, B.W. et al. ”The phytochemical composition and antioxidant actions of tree nuts”, Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2010),19(1):117–123.
• Casas-Agustench, P. et al. “Nuts, inflammation and insulin resistance”, Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2010),19(1):124–130.
• Kendall, C.W. et al. ”Health benefits of nuts in prevention and management of diabetes”, Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2010),19(1):110–116.
• Ros, Emilio “Nuts and novel biomarkers of cardiovascular disease”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2009),89(5):16495-16565.
• Sabaté, J. / Ang, Y. “Nuts and health outcomes: new epidemiologic evidence”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2009),89(5):16435-16485.

--Ronz (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Walnuts revisited and the definition of nuts.

Walnuts are nuts, or drupe-like nuts, or perhaps something else. There isn't a good single botanical definition of nut out there. Nut is an extremely problematic fruit type when it comes to botanical definitions. The "flesh" of a walnut is involucral tissue, not pericarp, so calling them drupes isn't quite accurate. Similarly, the cap of acorns is involucre (and in fact, acorns are sometimes treated as a fruit type called "glans"). Even Corylus fruits may fall from the tree with the involucre attached. There's basically a continuum from walnuts (persistent involucre fully enclosing the nut) to hickorys (enclosing involucre opens by valves and is eventually shed) to acorns (persistent involucre covers only part of the nut) to hazelnuts (involucre has a broad opening and is more or less persistent in various species).

In the earlier discussion of walnuts, this link was posted as support of walnuts not being nuts: http://www.biology-online.org/11/7_fruits_flowers_and_seeds.htm. Note that this source says that hickories are nuts, while pecans (a species of hickory with typical hickory fruit anatomy) are drupes. I hope that illustrates some of the confusion. There are certainly reputable botanical sources (e.g. Gleason & Cronquists Manual of Vascular Plants) that support calling walnuts "nuts". And there are botanists that suggest throwing out the term "nut" altogether as being to vague (e.g. the Glossary here: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/). Richard Spjut is responsible for (as far as I am aware) the most recent comprehensive treatment of fruit types. He dispense with the term "nut" and has an extensive discussion of the varying definitions of nut here: http://www.worldbotanical.com/fruit_types.htm.

Wikipedia should have an article on nuts, of course, and I think the botanical definition currently used here is basically a good reflection of how botanists have used the term (although problematic). I'd like to edit the article to reflect the difficulties in applying a strict botanical definition of nuts to all the plants out there with nut like fruit, and would like to expand the fruits covered under the botanical definition to cover nuts outside of Fagales (as well as bringing Juglandaceae back). I may not accomplish this in the near future, but would like to solicit opinions about the scope of this article (and the botanical definition) from other editors.Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the most pedantic thing I've ever read. 23.233.58.250 (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sloppy redirect

"Nucule" redirects here, but the word is nowhere used in the article. Koro Neil (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In the wikipedia article 'Nut' the cashew is stated to be the product of an 'accessory fruit'. In the wikipedia article 'Cashew' it is stated that the 'accessory fruit' is called a cashew apple and that the nut is produced in another part. It appears to me that one of these must be incorrect. I imagine that the 'Nut' article is the incorrect one. Please would someone who knows this neck of the woods better correct one or the other of these two articles. Best wishes, Luke WisemanLuke.wiseman (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nut (fruit)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The reason for the B is that it is a good article but from my WikiProject POV, it needs more on culinary uses. -- Warfreak 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Other Uses and Overall Review

This article is really informative and flows easily when reading. All of the information seems relevant in explaining nuts, especially from a botanical view.

One suggestion would be to include a citation to the final section of historical uses. This statement is not easily found when clicking on the reference links, is there a way you can locate where you learned this information and make it more clear to the reader?

Additionally, I think this article could benefit from more other uses of nuts. It is helpful to have this section, but seems like it could be better utilized if it were filled more abundantly with more uses. I'd love to know more uses as well! Hfaith (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nut (fruit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613040928/http://www.foodallergy.org/allergens/index.html to http://www.foodallergy.org/allergens/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing section: pre-historic consumption

I'm removing the short section on Pre-historic consumption. An in-depth History section might be nice, but this is...not that. This section just consists of: a link to the Paleo diet article; a reference to nut consumption by pre-humans (approx half a million years before humans even existed, so it's a fun fact but inaccurately stated and odd to find here on its own); and an un-ref'd line about Native Americans and the California horse chestnut. Grease Bandit (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was "merge". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

---

I have proposed that Nut (food) should be merged into this article, which will then deal with all aspects of nuts; botanical, culinary, nutritional, production and trade. After the merger, if approved, I hope to further expand and improve the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support So long as it is incorporated well, merging these two seems like a good option, especially considering the poor state of both articles right now. And if the "Nut (food)" section ever ends up getting too lengthy, then there can be a discussion at splitting it off at that point into what would, hopefully at that point, be a much better formatted and referenced article. For now, merging is a good idea. Silverseren^C 07:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There is sufficient overlap to justify the merge. Zefr (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.