So I’ve always heard - fungi are closer to animals than plants. I’m not sure how that’s known.
This is technically correct, though it is such a huuuuuuge distance from both it is a pretty moot point :).
- Tamerlane
Er… not really. I’m 26 now. :smack:
Yeah, that sounds familiar. I just forgot about it. I guess I was thinking of one level broader than Kingdom, even though none is scientifically recognized-- at least not to my recollection.
I know a few people where the kinship is clearly evident.
Uh, did you finish my post? 
Maybe not they’re not universally agreed upon, but the various superkingdom category schemes are not crazy-ass fringe ideas.
Oh, oops. I read it, but somehow it went by me without my noticing-- probably because I associate “prokaryotic” and “eukaryotic” with microscopic organisms.
Aren’t beans considered a meat?
The category vegatable can include things which are not plants. Many people consider tomotaoes a vegetable, though it’s technically a fruit. Same with mushrooms, basically.
No. Meat is animal flesh. Beans grow on plants. “Plant” and “animal” are mutually-exclusive categories.
And, as has been mentioned several times already in this thread (more than once by me even! :)) there are two ways to make a distinction. You can either use a technical biological definition, in which all parts of a plant are vegetables, fruits are a subset of vegetables, being fleshy plant material covering seeds, and fungi are neither. Or you can use the cultural, culinary definition, which basically limits fruits to those botanical fruits which are predominantly sweet or sour in flavor, most commonly served in sweet dishes, and vegetables include things like mushrooms but exclude cereals.
But equating “mushroom” to “tomato” makes zero sense, as by either definition, tomatoes are vegetables. Whereas mushrooms are vegetables under one definition and non-vegetables under the other.
I guess I don’t see what you were trying to ask or state with your post - it didn’t seem to cover any ground that hadn’t been thoroughly covered already in the thread.
I was told that the chitinous cell walls of fungi are indigestible like fiber, so in that regard they serve the same dietary role as vegetables. Although we get most fiber from whole grains… this just gets harder and harder. But yes, the chitin relates them closer to insects than plants.
A strawberry is seeds surrounded by a fleshy material. Would a strawberry be the anti-fruit? (- fruit) ? NOR Fruit?
They were by the Pythagoreans, but that view has largely gone out-of-fashion in the last couple of millennia.
There are some interesting rationales for this belief posited in classical writings. The most commonly cited (in modernity) is that flatus produced by the eating of beans is evidence that they are ensouled. (“Spiritus” = “breath/life”.)
Aulus Gellius held that beans resembled testicles too closely to be proper eating, and, similarly, Antony Diogenes observed that chewed beans smell an awful lot like semen, and ought not to be swallowed on that account.
Of course, one could choose to be all smart-assy and use the older sense of “meat” as “fit to eat,” and say that beans are meat.
“I have given you every seed and herb – to you it shall be meat,” and all that.
In the context of a sorting out meat vs vegetable, however that would be a bit silly. 
It’s botanically not a fruit, that’s for sure. I’ve read that it’s just a specialized bit of stem. Obviously it performs an identical function to that of fruits in other plants, but the underlying biology is different.
They are in the same *category *in the new food pyramid, but that doesn’t mean one is the other.
As I believe they were in the old one. Legumes are one of the more protein-dense options in a vegetarian or vegan diet. They still are not nearly as protein-rich as meat or eggs. But like you say, it’s a major stretch to call them honorary meats.
IIRC, tomatoes are considered fruits, scientifically speaking, and is not that distantly related to some of the citrus plants.
I have explained this multiple times already in this thread. Either read what I have posted, or please bow out. smiling bandit, I even took the time to explain it for you specifically one time. If you have some sort of question or problem with what I’m saying, state it directly. Please do not keep repeating the same things over and over, especially since (as you indicate with your “IIRC” above) you don’t actually know what the terms “fruit” and “vegetable” mean anyway.
Tomatoes are, botanically speaking, fruits. If you had taken the time to read the definition of “fruit”, which I have taken the time to specify more than once in this thread, this would be obvious. It would not be a matter of “recalling” anything. All fruits, once again, are vegetables. The category “fruit”, scientifically, is a subcategory of “vegetable”. I’m sorry you don’t understand that. But I have explained it more than once. The term “scientifically considered” has absolutely no relevance here whatsoever, since the scientific definition of “fruit” is not in dispute, and thus the tomato’s status as a fruit need not be considered at all. It either is a fruit, or it is not. There is no “consideration” involved in making the determination.
Whether they are closely related to citrus or not is obviously irrelevant (and I can find no evidence to suggest it’s true, so cough up a cite) since all sorts of plants that are not particularly closely related bear fruit. Tomatoes’ nearest relatives are the potato, whose domestic varieties at least do not produce fruit at all, and deadly nightshade, which produces small berries. Even closely related plants, then, vary in whether or not they bear fruit.
I really don’t see why you feel the need to inject barely-remembered cereal box science into this thread, when every point you raise has been thoroughly addressed prior to your posts. If I wrote something that you don’t understand, quote it and ask me to explain it. If someone else in the thread confused you, I’m certain they would be willing to do the same.
Tomatoes are solanaceae – like tobacco, datura, chili peppers, and deadly nightshade.
They are in the same class as citrus trees, Magnoliopsida (or Dicotyledoneae.) Their practical relation is that they both bear seeds that contain two germinal leaves. “Not that distant,” except that they’re not in the same family or the same order.
previews
Oh, hi, Ex.
Well, that was weird. I would have sworn that Excalibre’s post wasn’t there when I started to reply, but based on the time, it must have been. I guess I just stopped reading when I got to the bit about tomatoes not being distant from citrus.