Peanuts Not Groundnuts

[barbitu8]

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpeanuts.html

I thought we all knew, especially Una, that peanuts are legumes and not groundnuts, or any kind of nut, unless "groundnut" has a special meaning.

[Una Persson]

I picked up "groundnut" from fierra, and your query had me wondering if I was using it properly. According to this cite, I am using it properly in a British way. I also know at least one of my references referred to it as such, although I'm not near them so I can't tell which one.

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=groundnut

2. Chiefly British and South Atlantic U.S. A peanut.

...

3: pod of the peanut vine containing usually 2 nuts or seeds; `groundnut' and `monkey nut' are British terms [syn: peanut, earthnut, goober, goober pea, monkey nut]

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by barbitu8

I thought we all knew, especially Una, that peanuts are legumes and not groundnuts, or any kind of nut, unless "groundnut" has a special meaning.

Sure they are nuts. Just because they also happen to be legumes doesn't mean they can't be nuts too.

From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: nut
Etymology: Middle English nute, note, from Old English hnutu; akin to Old High German nuz nut and perhaps to Latin nux nut
1 a (1) : a hard-shelled dry fruit or seed with a separable rind or shell and interior kernel (2) : the kernel of a nut b : a dry indehiscent one-seeded fruit with a woody pericarp

By definition 1, they are certainly nuts.

Merriam-Webster also supports Una's use of groundnut, although they also qualify it as British.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=groundnut

Aha! A useful footnote on Charles Williams' Seed of Adam.

[Polycarp]

The nitpicker's guide (the one that insists that the jackrabbit is not a rabbit but a hare) would define "nut" as the hard fruit of a tree, as opposed to the underground pods of peanuts. But from the point of view of foodstuffs, peanuts are considered nuts.

And this furnishes the perfect opportunity to quote the ultimate in bureaucratic obfuscatory prose:

In the Nuts (Unground) (Other than Groundnuts) Order, the expression nuts shall have reference to such nuts, other than groundnuts, as would, but for this Amending Order, not qualify as nuts (Unground) (Other than Groundnuts) by reason of their being nuts (Unground).

[barbitu8]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

The nitpicker's guide (the one that insists that the jackrabbit is not a rabbit but a hare) would define "nut" as the hard fruit of a tree, as opposed to the underground pods of peanuts.

I know there's a difference between a rabbit and a hare, but I don't remember what it is. Would you refresh my memory.

[John W. Kennedy]

If I remember rigtly, the original distinction in England was that rabbits lived in colonies and were small and hares were big and solitary. But the discovery of new species in the New World left the situation hopelessly confused.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Merriam-Webster also supports Una's use of groundnut, although they also qualify it as British.

Most African countries that export this product refer to them as 'groundnuts'. Different name for the same animal. The Brits ride lifts; we put them in our shoes.

[Jurph]

Originally Posted by barbitu8

I know there's a difference between a rabbit and a hare, but I don't remember what it is. Would you refresh my memory.

http://www.orcca.on.ca/~elena/useful/bunnies.html

No more confusion! The difference is in the maturity at birth and several physical features.

[Colibri]

The earliest European exposure to the peanut most likely occurred when the Spanish arrived at Hispaniola in 1502,

One small correction: the Spanish arrived in Hispaniola in 1492, with the first voyage of Columbus, not 1502. The report should be amended.

[barbitu8]

OK, we've taken care of the nuts and bunnies, now about those pesky chipmunks. Are there any other differences between chipmunks and ground squirrels other than chipmunks have cheek stripes?

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by barbitu8

OK, we've taken care of the nuts and bunnies, now about those pesky chipmunks. Are there any other differences between chipmunks and ground squirrels other than chipmunks have cheek stripes?

Google cache of an article from the South Central Service Cooperative for Arkansas schoolkids on the difference. (The original article is apparently deleted from the website.)

Originally Posted by SCSC

Although chipmunks are rodents from the family Sciuridae, they are not the same thing as the ground squirrel. All chipmunks have stripes on their faces and can have one or more stripes down their back. They are lighter colored than ground squirrels. If a chipmunk is said to be brown-gray, it means that kind will be browner in summer and grayer in winter.

Species of chipmunk, and of American ground squirrels.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Colibri

One small correction: the Spanish arrived in Hispaniola in 1492, with the first voyage of Columbus, not 1502. The report should be amended.

It's referring to his landing of June 29, 1502, on a later voyage. I believe what the source is saying is that there is no record of such an encounter with the peanut on the prior voyages.

The original source actually says:

The first written account of the crop is found with the Spanish entry into Hispanola in 1502...

which may imply that it was the first time they had visited the island, which is not true.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

It's referring to his landing of June 29, 1502, on a later voyage. I believe what the source is saying is that there is no record of such an encounter with the peanut on the prior voyages.

The original source actually says:

which may imply that it was the first time they had visited the island, which is not true.

On Columbus's fourth voyage in 1502 he scarcely touched in at Hispaniola at all, being forbidden to enter Santo Domingo harbor by the new governor Ovando when he arrived there on June 29. (Columbus was pretty much persona non grata in Hispaniola after his previous mismanagement.) However, he did put in for repairs at a more remote harbor on the island for a couple of weeks, before continuing on to explore the coast of Central America. (Ref: Samuel Eliot Morrison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea)

In any case, it would be very strange if the first encounter by the Spanish with the peanut were so late, since Hispaniola and the rest of the Greater Antilles had been pretty well explored by then.

This site seems to explain where some of the confusion about dates comes from:

The earliest mentioning by an European came from Bartolome Las Casas, who arrived in Hispaniola (Haiti) in 1502, and worked there as a missionary from 1510 to 1547. He began writing his 'Apologetic History' in 1527 but the book was first published in 1875.... He mentions the name MANI. The earliest published description is possibly of Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes, who arrived in Hispaniola in 1513. In 1525 he send his 'Sumario Historia' top Charles the 5th; it was printed in Toldeo in 1527. In 1535 he started the publication of 'Historia general de las Indias' in which he describes the common appearance of the peanut (named MANI) on Haiti and other Isles.

Sauer, evidently the source of the 1502 date in your quote, seems to use it because it was the date of Las Casa's first arrival in Hispaniola, even though Las Casas did not begin writing his account until 1527, and it was not published until 1875. Certainly the peanut would have been well known to the Spanish before Las Casa's arrival.

I checked Oviedo's "Sumario Historia" of 1527 (aka Natural History of the West Indies), which I have in English translation, and the peanut is not mentioned there. Therefore Oviedo's more detailed "Historia General" of 1535 would seem to be the first actually published record.

(Forgive me for going on at some length on this, but I once helped develop an exhibition on plants and animals transferred by Columbus's voyages, and am currently working on another one that involves the same thing.)

[Dr. Lao]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

The nitpicker's guide (the one that insists that the jackrabbit is not a rabbit but a hare) would define "nut" as the hard fruit of a tree, as opposed to the underground pods of peanuts. But from the point of view of foodstuffs, peanuts are considered nuts.

I agree that it is extreme nitpicking, mostly because virtually all of the "nuts" that we eat are not true nuts by the botanical definition. So, people, to people who say that the peanut is not a nut (by the botanical definition) I usually say, well neither is a walnut, almond, or cashew.