Re: More berries

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Cereoid-UR12-] wrote...
>
>Obviously you have been doing too much pontificating and have not paying
>attention, Melvin.

Pontificating, moi?

>Are you aspiring to be Rinkytink's lap dog?

Arf. 

>I gave a much better reference than the one you cite with out-dated

Old references are bad? Are you sure you like plant taxonomy?

>second-hand vague definitions. It is a almost a crime that some references
>books have such lousy poorly conceived definitions. It really doesn't matter
>that someone like you is under the mistaken impression that what they say is
>gospel.

Not "gospel" but as examples of actual usage of the terms in 
question.

>Here is a more thoughtful and thoroughly researched reference on the
>subject:
>
>Spjut, R.W. (1994) A SYSTEMATIC TREATMENT OF FRUIT TYPES. Memoires of the
>N. Y. Bot. Gard. vol. 70.

So, you like that treatment's definitions better? I've got it right 
here. But if you look, it actually agrees with those other books I'd 
cited, at least in regards to the basic definitions of "berry" and 
drupe". It even uses a diagram of a 4-seeded Ilex fruit to illustrate 
"Drupe", and cites Persea as an example of a 1-seeded berry

[snip of previous]

cheers