Science desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 20[edit]

Would algae be a vegetable?[edit]

For instance, Spirulina (dietary supplement). It's not meat, it's not fruit, and it doesn't seem to fit Vegetable: The broadest definition is the word's use adjectivally to mean "matter of plant origin" to distinguish it from "animal", meaning "matter of animal origin" because algae aren't "plants" as far as I know. Joepnl (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question! Is a mushroom a vegetable? If so, then so are algae. See Flora (and gut flora), Domain (biology) and Linnaean taxonomy. Tevildo (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, in that when they say "plant" they mean the common definition, not the scientific one. The common def is something like "a living organism incapable of moving on it's own". In common usage algae, fungi (including mushrooms), and lichen could all be counted as plants. See wikt:plant for some of the defs. Note that culinary classifications, which predate much of scientific classification, often use their own system. For example, tomatoes, while scientifically classified as fruit, are vegetables in a culinary sense, and peanuts, while legumes in the scientific sense, are nuts in the culinary usage. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first culinary classification I can find for spirulina would be "cheese" (queso de tierra by the Spanish) :) Joepnl (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat notes, the culinary distinction predates the botanical definition and does not always agree with it. I don't have the case name handy, but the US Supreme Court had to rule on whether the tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. The issue was that Congress had set different tariff duty rates for imported fruit and imported vegetables, and the two sides were the tomato growers (in New Jersey, California, and elsewhere) and the importers of Italian tomatoes. As StuRat also notes, the common usage of "plant" is broader than Plantae, but it should also be noted that the division of Plantae and Fungi into separate kingdoms is relatively recent. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nix v. Hedden, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see a source for a "common definition"; Oh, and some algae are capable of independent movement.[1] DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with trying to nail down the common usage is that it's bound to be imprecise. For example, since microscopic organisms weren't known at the time, whether they are classified as plants in common usage is a bit random. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You, StuRat, wrote: "since microscopic organisms weren't [known] at the time, whether they are classified as plants in common usage is a bit random." Weren't known at what time? Since they are microscopic, how could they have a common usage before their discovery? They were known when Linnaeus developed modern taxonomy; scientists just didn't have a good handle on how to categorize them until the twentieth century. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the time when the common English usage of the term "plant" came into existence. I wasn't talking about the scientific meaning. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to stifle discussion here, but shouldn't we be mindful this is a reference/science discussion. It might be interesting that one country has a law about tomatoes or that culinary descriptions confuse definitions, but shouldn't we be answering the OP's question from a scientific point of view.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to look at the question itself, not just the desk on which it is posted. You can make a case that the question would have been more appropriate on the language desk, but it seems to me that it's about food as much as it is about biology. So culinary categories strike me as relevant. I don't think biologists use the term "vegetable" much in scientific discourse anyway, though I'm certainly open to correction on that point. --Trovatore (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that biologists don't use the term "vegetable", because they do use the term "fruit" in its botanical meaning, and identify other parts of a plant, such as stems, tubers, etc. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but "fruit" wasn't mentioned.

There's a very strange phenomenon around the word "fruit" as it relates specifically to tomatoes. A whole cohort seems to have discovered that tomatoes are botanically "fruit" and to relish (ha ha) calling them "fruit" at every opportunity. But they haven't started putting them in fruit salad or baking them into pies (though tomato jam may be slightly more popular than it was when I were a lad). And I have not observed any comparable movement to recategorize green beans, which are every bit as much fruit as tomatoes. --Trovatore (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And no one but a botanist would refer to the various sorts of squash as fruits, but they have seeds and so are botanically fruits. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Since "vegetable" isn't a scientific term, this Q belongs on the Language Desk, not here. On the other hand, the OP couldn't be expected to know that "vegetable", or for that matter all culinary labels, aren't scientific terms, until we explained it. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another linguistic issue that may be of interest here is that you have to be careful using the word "algae". Spirulina is actually a cyanobacterium, and cyanobacteria used to be called "blue-green algae", probably still are by some people. But biologically, they are actually bacteria. (Which doesn't necessarily mean they're not algae; our article says that there is no precise definition.)

But algae also include seaweed, and I'm pretty sure that at least would count as a vegetable culinarily. It's often marketed as "sea lettuce" or some such. Albeit the dried-and-salted version people snack on probably shouldn't be seen as an excuse not to eat your kale. --Trovatore (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, seaweed includes green algae, and green algae are botanically Plantae. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This question, like many we receive here at the science ref desk, has little to do with some concrete thing such as Spirulina - and everything to do with the vagueness of the English language (ie, the term "vegetable"). Since people in general can't agree whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit, or whether fruits are vegetables - we have no chance at a simply agreed answer with Spirulina!

What's needed here is a solid definition of a word - and in this case, there simply isn't one.

You could say "For the purpose of answering this question, assume the precise definition of 'vegetable' is XXXX." - and then we can answer it - but everything depends on what 'XXXX' is - and your answer should be obvious if the definition is sufficiently precise. So if you'd clarified "assuming a vegetable is a multicellular eukaryote of the kingdom Plantae" - we'd have the answer in a heartbeat...but you'd have been able to answer it yourself with a couple of mouse-clicks.

I suppose a better thing would be for you to tell us why you need to know. For example, if you had asked "Does spirulina count as a vegetable in the Federal Nutrition standards for school meals - then that's a question that might be answered. Probably not though. See: Ketchup as a vegetable.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's quite easy. For a website aimed at consumers I need to describe Spirulina and I was wondering if I lied by saying "Spirulina is a vegetable". I did know about the tomato case and was hoping this one would be simpler. Apparently it is not.Joepnl (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should say that it's a vegetable. Scientifically, it's not a plant - and the best science definition for "vegetable" is "plant material". Gastronomically, things like mushrooms, seaweed and yeast products aren't described as "vegetables". In common usage, "bacteria" or "micro-organisms" might be the most accurate description - but vegetable is stretching the definition to the breaking point. They do photosynthesize like plants - Unfortunately, if you expect people to get excited about eating the stuff, that may not be the right description either! (My favorite cyanobacterium factoid is that sloths cultivate them in their fur to turn themselves green for better camouflage!) SteveBaker (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, a court ruling with the power of Nix v. Hedden (tomato importer vs taxman) is unlikely for algae. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but not entirely impossible, given that nori is consumed in the United States, and that its classification as a vegetable or not could have tax implications similar to that case. Since nori was not commonly eaten in the U.S. of 1883, I'm not sure the ruling of the case is strictly applicable. --Jayron 32 14:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason the inner part of the cell membrane is hydrophobic?[edit]

I've read that the inner layer of the cell membrane is hydrophobic while the outer layer is hydrophilic. What is the purpose of that fact? Is there a physiological explanation for that? ThePupil17 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Lipid bilayer, the animation at the very top explains it pretty well. These membranes form naturally and do so through hydrophobic/hydrophilic activity, as the heads of the phospholipids are attracted to water and the tails are not, so the inside of a cell membrane is composed of the tail ends of two layers of phospholipids, and the outside is composed of the heads. Cannolis (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This property is the very reason why membranes exist in the first place. When you have a mass of phospholipids in water, their hydrophilic sides attract water and their hydrophobic sides repel water, so they naturally tend to self-aggregate into an arrangement where the hydrophilic ends are in contact with water and the hydrophobic ends are not -- the simplest such arrangement is a bilayer with the hydrophobic ends on the inside. Our lipid bilayer article explains this in greater detail. Looie496 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrophilic chemicals like salt and sugar want to bond to water, which is polar. They can form strong electrostatic attractions with it. They can't form such strong attractions with hydrocarbon groups like the fatty acid tails. Blythwood (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about Hydrophobic collapse. DMacks (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]