The varied names of nuts became a plot point in an episode of House.
Apparently, in Brazil, Brazil nuts are called walnuts, or pecans, or something. House treated a spy for every other damn thing until they finally told him the spook had been in Brazil.
There is a chance I’ve got the whole thing backwards. :smack: Aw, nuts.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Except that a chimpanzee is NOT a monkey, not by either common usage or accepted definitions.
[/QUOTE]
The only people I know who don’t consider chimpanzees to be monkeys are the pedants who say, “You know, a chimpanzee is an ape, not a monkey,” every time the word monkey is associated with a chimp. How would they be getting so many opportunities to trot this one out unless everyone else uses the word monkey in connection with chimps?
[QUOTE=Barrington]
It hadn’t occurred to me before, but the old packaging howler “PEANUTS (Warning: may contain nuts)” makes more sense when you consider that peanuts are not nuts.
[/QUOTE]
Not long ago I bought a packet of mixed nuts which bore the warning (verbatim) “CONTAINS NUTS. MAY CONTAIN OTHER NUTS.”
OK, I assume it meant that it could contain nuts other than those listed on the ingredients, but it’s pretty dumb wording…
[QUOTE=acsenray]
The only people I know who don’t consider chimpanzees to be monkeys are the pedants who say, “You know, a chimpanzee is an ape, not a monkey,” every time the word monkey is associated with a chimp. How would they be getting so many opportunities to trot this one out unless everyone else uses the word monkey in connection with chimps?
[/QUOTE]
<sigh> I know of no one who makes the mistake of thinking of the word “monkey” when they see a chimpanzee. Now, maybe YOU do. :dubious:
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
<sigh> I know of no one who makes the mistake of thinking of the word “monkey” when they see a chimpanzee. Now, maybe YOU do. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Personally, I consider a chimpanzee to be a “monkey” under the common usage of that term. The restriction of the term “ape” to the great apes (gorilla, chimp, and orang) really represents a hijacking by scientists of what was originally a general term for all primates. While in technical context I would not call a chimp a monkey, in common English I have no problem with that usage.
From Merriam-Webster:
Note that per this definition it is OK to refer to an ape as a monkey, even though some distinction is made.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Well, only true if you consider a cow the same as an impala, for example.
[/QUOTE]
Not really, because they are not similar, whereas the nuts in question are.
Sometimes precision is useful or essential - other times it’s superfluous or at least not very important.
Consider that as a macrocosm of this point, we already lump a whole bunch of botanically diverse things under the umbrella term ‘nuts’ (some of which aren’t even seeds).
Thinking of walnuts and pecans as rather similar is no more a crime than that.
[QUOTE=bouv]
While watching Good Eats, ol’ AB mentioned that pecans aren’t actually nuts, but are “drupes,” as are walnuts and probably other things we call nuts. And of course, we all know that a peanut isn’t a nut, it’s a legume. So of the things we commonly call nuts, which ones are actually botanically/taxonomically considered “nuts?”
[/QUOTE]
If the distinction actually exists, it’s an extremely debatable one.
This site discusses the botanical status of various kinds of “nuts” in excruciating detail.
Thing is (and not to anyone in particular) botanists get to define and delineate terms applicable to botany. If they invade the supermarket and start insisting that the fruit and vegetables section be reorganised so as to group the apples and pears with the strawberries, - because they’re accessory fruits, or the oranges and bananas with the blueberries, because they’re all really berries - then they’ll have overstepped the mark a bit. Different groups of people use terms differently, and do not necessarily get to impose their terminology on each other.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Thing is (and not to anyone in particular) botanists get to define and delineate terms applicable to botany. If they invade the supermarket and start insisting that the fruit and vegetables section be reorganised so as to group the apples and pears with the strawberries, - because they’re accessory fruits, or the oranges and bananas with the blueberries, because they’re all really berries - then they’ll have overstepped the mark a bit. Different groups of people use terms differently, and do not necessarily get to impose their terminology on each other.
[/QUOTE]
The OP was asking specifically about the botannical definition, I believe.
