• Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 days ago

    They don’t, they’re a distinct third thing with a distinct third type of cells

    They are, however, more closely related to us animals than they are to plants. As in, our last common ancestor is less far back.

    Also, unrelated to your comment, but related to the post: vegetable isn’t a botanical term, but a culinary term. So, there’s no bioligical basis for vegetable in the first place, so there’s no issue with counting mushrooms among them. Sure, it’s a bit inconvenient that the word ‘fruit’ is both a culinary and a botanical term in English, and there’s overlap to it, but that doesn’t mean it’s somehow illogical that some things are culinarilu fruits but not botanically, and vice versa.

    • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      So, there’s no bioligical basis for vegetable in the first place

      idk if I would go that far, I think “edible parts of plants” is a solid foundation. Sure, “edible” is kind of a social construct, but the plant part is indisputable. “Vegetarian” and “plant based diet” are near synonymous

      • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I’ve never been under the impression that any edible plant part is a vegetable. Like, an almond? An apple? Rice? Cinnamon? I could go on. All edible plant parts. I’ve never heard of them be referred to as vegetables.