• Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Botanic science is correct (in this, at least FFS), whereas “culinary” taxonomy followed import law that was altered to dodge tariffs… They are not the same. 😅

    • Phineaz@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Botanic science is correct

      Oh you sweet, sweet summer child.

      To clarify: A lot of well established taxonomy was severly shaken when genetic sequencing was applied en masse, resulting in phylogenetic trees very different from what was thought to be nearly certain. In modern biology, you have different taxonomy systems for different purposes, each using somewhat different justifications (am not a biologist, but related). They are all “wrong” in a sense, hence the joke.

      • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Look, dear ol’ patronizing friendo. My experience is in culinary, not botanical science, and hence the snub at the tariff dodging history of tomatoes’ profit-focused designation as a vegetable (ie. staple vs. luxury), but thanks for playing. Syntax is a bitch, eh?

        • Phineaz@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Didn’t mean to patronise, sorry if it came across that way. I appreciated your joke, and wanted to add another joke about the biological side of things on top