It was only in 1969 (nice) that fungi officially became its own separate kingdom.
I think an issue here is that taxonomic and colloquial definitions don’t always agree.
Spiders are colloquially bugs, but they’re not taxonomically “true bugs” (which is itself a colloquialism for Hemiptera). Tomatos are colloquially vegetables but taxonomically fruits…but afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.
And as someone else in the thread mentioned, colloquial berries are not always taxonomic berries.
So…colloquially, “plants” sorta means, “macroscopic multicellular living non-animal thing,” but taxonomically it’s something else.
And literally anything is a fish if you try hard enough
I mean, probably not bacteria or viruses.
Any vertebrate at least. A boney fish what likes a-bonin’
very well said
Similarly, “a planet” can be understood in technical or colloquial context which changes the meaning. It can have a specific meaning or a vague flexible meaning, just like with berries.
BTW raspberries are my favorite berries… sort of. Watermelons are pretty good too.
Actually planet doesn’t have any hard set definition, we kind of just do it case by case because its damn near impossible to come up with a rigid definition that doesn’t suddenly classify some planets as moons or some moons as planets or create weird situations in which an object can switch between the two.
The International Astronomical Union (IAU) defined in August 2006 that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body that:
- is in orbit around the Sun,
- has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
- has “cleared the neighbourhood” around its orbit.
And in that same article:
It has been argued that the definition is problematic because it depends on the location of the body: if a Mars-sized body were discovered in the inner Oort cloud, it would not have enough mass to clear out a neighbourhood that size and meet criterion 3. The requirement for hydrostatic equilibrium (criterion 2) is also universally treated loosely as simply a requirement for roundedness; Mercury is not actually in hydrostatic equilibrium, but is explicitly included by the IAU definition as a planet
That’s not even addressing the issue of rogue planets which were ejected from their star system. Many estimates say they outnumber the stars. Obviously when a planet is ejected it doesn’t just disintegrate but by that poor definition it’s no longer a ““planet””, so it’s clearly a problematic definition.
I like bananas
If you’re talking about tomatoes, the difference is the context, and it isn’t a choice between colloquial vs scientific taxonomy, but between culinary/nutritional vs botany/taxonomy (and). You can talk about either in a colloquial context or a formal context, though generally there isn’t much reason to talk about botany in a colloquial setting.
From a nutritional perspective, mushrooms are generally considered vegetables, too.
afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.
I thought you were wrong but I looked it up and I appear to have been mistaken. It makes “tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables” sound nonsensical, as it implies that “vegetable” is a different taxonomical option, when really it’s just a word for objects with a particular collection of traits that are relevant in a different context. What we should he saying is “While tomatoes are not fruit in the food pyramid, taxonomically, they are.” Doesn’t really roll off the tongue, though. Maybe “Tomatoes are vegetables AND fruits!” would solve that?
but what about berry club? which things count as berries now?
I hate the word colloquial
Colloquialism is the best word.
Watermelons are berries. Strawberries are not.
They are not made of straw, either.
Tomatoes are a fruit.
The definition of planet is completely subjective, whereas the definition of mushroom is based on science and evolution.
Some people believe the earth is flat, I don’t think whether the definition is scientific or not matters much lmao
Planet used to mean wandering star, referring to ‘stars’ that didn’t stay in one place but moved around with the days, months, years, or centuries. Obviously not a useful definition these days, I consider a planet a rocky body big enough that it’s gravity makes it almost perfectly round.
I’ve met people who were certain that bugs weren’t animals
Hell I’ve met people that don’t think humans are animals
Interestingly people who don’t understand they are animals are the least human
I’ve met a lot more people who think people aren’t animals than people who think bugs aren’t.
I’d like to see your statistical records.
Left them in my other pants, unfortunately.
like everything else in this thread, doesn’t it depend on the context? like I’m willing to bet that if you polled a ton of people to “draw an animal” the overwhelming majority would draw vertebrates
That doesn’t mean that the animals they don’t draw aren’t animals
Pluto is a mushroom
No, Pluto is a plant.
No. Pluto is an animal.
Source: Disney Wiki
Is he though? He’s anthropomorphic, speaks clear English, and owns a dog.
Pluto is an animal-shaped person.
Wait no that’s Goofy. Pluto is an animal owned by an animal-shaped person!
Ya done goofed!
Goofily!
Question is, if they are a plant, who are they in league with?
I overheard someone talking about veganism and said they only eat plants. I asked them about mushrooms, “of course it’s fine, those are plants”.
No amount of convincing worked.So I’ve seen it once.
Mushrooms are plants in the culinary sense. Like strawberries, blackberries and raspberries are berries in the culinary sense.
Yup. Inside culinary classifications, fungi don’t exist. Outside of culinary classifications, vegetables don’t exist.
Culinary definition doesn’t differentiate plants, but mushrooms are vegetables.
Separate culinary definitions? That’s nuts!
But not peanuts, which are legumes.
Or the stone fruit, coconuts.
If anything is close to having a consciousness and experiencing an array of emotion, including suffering. That’s a mushroom, much more than a plant.
The mycelium, maybe. That is definitely not the part of the mushroom that you eat.
so hang on, mushrooms are like uh, well not milk, but as if say a cow regrew its meat every season? or maybe like a lizard that regrows its tail?
mushrooms are weird, man
wild idea, would it be possible to hijack mycelium with animal DNA and make it grow mushroom shaped meat??
Notch funds a real life Mooshroim when?
Actual animals are far more likely to feel pain that fungi. Do fungi even have a nervous system?
Fungi are a nervous system.
We actually suspect they do. They can also display intelligent behavior, from a certain definition of the concept.
First time hearing this but mushroom is a protein source so from diet perspective, I see it as a meet type food. Deff not vegatable
Mushrooms have some protein, but not very much. They aren’t a very good source of protein
So are chickpeas or edamame meat to you? Because they have like 5 times as much protein by weight than mushrooms.
I would go with, based totally on feelz, that no because it generally note used like that.
As you think is all super science here, trust me bro
I think OP is on mushrooms.
Pluto is a planet, though. It’s officially considered a “dwarf” planet, and as “dwarf” is just an adjective, it’s still a planet (just like a short person is still a person). The other 8 new dwarf planets (Ceres, Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus, and Sedna) are also all planets - so we have 17 planets total.
Seriously, though. By the same 3 criteria that Pluto isn’t a planet, Mercury isn’t (as it isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium).
I mean Pluto IS a planet i guess what people mean when they say pluto is not a planet is that it is no longer part of our solar system
No, that’s just you. I’m genuinely curious why you’d think anyone would ever make the argument Pluto isn’t part of our solar system.
No, they don’t.
The solar system is larger than you think and extends quite a bit beyond pluto
https://science.nasa.gov/learning-resources/how-big-is-the-solar-system/
It’s not a plant or an animal, but a secret third thing.
Plants are closer to humans than the mushrooms.
You sure about that, boss? http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes
That’s just the explanation of eukarya which lists animalia within the same super-group as fungi and plants being in a different one altogether. Any relationship with plants to humans (which are within animalia) or mushrooms could be a bit subjective.
Yes, fungi are closer to humans than plants. If you look at the reproductive cycle of all three though, plants have a closer amount of “sexes” to humans. Plants generally having “1” or 2 sexes; humans having 2. Fungi though…
Scratch that. Reverse it. And on we go
They’re
fungifun guys.Mushrooms are actually aliens
You can use mushrooms in Plants vs Zombies.
It isn’t called “Plants and Fungi vs Zombies.”
Ergo, mushrooms are plants.
Checkmate, atheists!
From what I’ve seen, dudes that care that much about mushrooms are really fun guys.
All hail the Mushroom King!
deleted by creator
If Pluto is a planet, then Ceres is a planet too. CERES RIGHTS!
Remember the Cant!
Let’s just acknowledge that anything big enough to be round is a planet. That’s the bare minimum criteria.
Orbit shapes and clear paths don’t matter, the Solar system isn’t a typical stellar system, many aren’t so stable and ordered, especially in binary and triplet star systems. So the pedantry around the shapes of the orbits of the outer kuiper planets is a very silly thing to argue about. After all most orbits in binary and triplet systems aren’t even predictable long term, let alone not circular.
So that makes Earth and Moon a binary planet system. I’m cool with that
I believe the rule of thumb is binary planets’ barycentre is external to either body. This is the case with Pluto/Charon,
I think it’s also the case with Earth/Moon.It is not the case with the earth and the moon. It would be if the moon was 40% more massive
That’s a good rule of thumb… but it’s probably not enough; no reasonable definition would call Jupiter a star, or even a brown dwarf, or the Solar System a binary system, yet the Sol - Jupiter barycentre is outside the sun… (the whole system’s barycentre is sometimes inside the sun, but that’s due to Saturn’s, Uranus’, and Neptune’s pulls cancelling Jupiter’s).
I’d call the barycentre thing a necessary but not sufficient requirement; a proper definition of double planet should probably also take into account other factors like the relative mass and density of the bodies, and their minimum and maximum distance.
OK, can you name all planets in the solar system?
Sure. Jeff, Darryl, Norma, Luanne, I got lotsa names.
deleted by creator
