@bethorien -Blackberries are… a few things.
The commonly referred to “blackberry” is an aggregate fruit. A single blackberry is actually not a single “whatever it is” at all- it’s a bunch of very tiny things. Those things are not a berry but a drupe. So when you eat a blackberry you are eating a cluster of drupes which we refer to as a single entity and in that form it is an aggregate fruit. Many things with the word “berry” in the name are not botanically berries. Many things we don’t think of as berries (like Watermelon and Oranges) are actually berries. Fun stuff.
1. True currants like red currant are berries- so credit there. I am not informed enough on red currant to say if it was named after the color red or not- but deductively it fits and black currant was named such for its pigment so, I think this is fair to include- at least based on my limited knowledge of currants. And perhaps I am wrong and someone will come tell us currants are actually not berries and why.
2. The common blackberry is not a berry. There is another issue shared with 3 below.
3. As a true currant we’d think this is as easy to say yes to as red currant. The problem comes from the fact it is referred to as a “black” currant. Wether black is a color or not is subjective- and somewhat problematic to the discussion is the very nature of color.
To colors and black-
Many simplify this discussion to a debate over wether black is a color or a shade- wether a shade is a color or not. We can debate the issue from many directions- “light black” or “dark white” would generally be what most people describe as “gray” wouldn’t it? Or an object we call “black” might be analyzed via wavelength and actually be a very dark “blue” right? Some
Will hinge the discussion on this logic. Of course that proves nothing. “Light red” at some point is just pink right? There is a key difference in black of course- black is when something doesn’t reflect light in any visible wavelength- or very little. So here it gets really tricky because people will try to use common “dictionary” definitions or a definition from art or color theory or science etc. black can be said to be the absence of light. If we define color as a visible wavelength of light- black doesn’t have a visible wavelength. If we define color as a visual sensation caused by interaction
between an object, light, and our photoreceptors/brain- black could be called a color. The matter gets quite in depth but I’m not taking sides on the matter here- all I can say is that one may or may not consider black a color and there isn’t necessarily a definitive answer because beyond personal interpretations and opinions- there is no singular authority which can speak to the matter definitively- and across subjects and disciplines like art and science and language are various authorities which hold conflicting views on the issue. So overall I’d say the currants are probably correct but black currant gets an asterisk, and black berries are not a berry at all, but red currant I am aware of no flaws and that is not one I (or I suspect most people- at least whom I know) would have thought of- so very clever on that. Thank you.
The commonly referred to “blackberry” is an aggregate fruit. A single blackberry is actually not a single “whatever it is” at all- it’s a bunch of very tiny things. Those things are not a berry but a drupe. So when you eat a blackberry you are eating a cluster of drupes which we refer to as a single entity and in that form it is an aggregate fruit. Many things with the word “berry” in the name are not botanically berries. Many things we don’t think of as berries (like Watermelon and Oranges) are actually berries. Fun stuff.
2. The common blackberry is not a berry. There is another issue shared with 3 below.
3. As a true currant we’d think this is as easy to say yes to as red currant. The problem comes from the fact it is referred to as a “black” currant. Wether black is a color or not is subjective- and somewhat problematic to the discussion is the very nature of color.
Many simplify this discussion to a debate over wether black is a color or a shade- wether a shade is a color or not. We can debate the issue from many directions- “light black” or “dark white” would generally be what most people describe as “gray” wouldn’t it? Or an object we call “black” might be analyzed via wavelength and actually be a very dark “blue” right? Some
Will hinge the discussion on this logic. Of course that proves nothing. “Light red” at some point is just pink right? There is a key difference in black of course- black is when something doesn’t reflect light in any visible wavelength- or very little. So here it gets really tricky because people will try to use common “dictionary” definitions or a definition from art or color theory or science etc. black can be said to be the absence of light. If we define color as a visible wavelength of light- black doesn’t have a visible wavelength. If we define color as a visual sensation caused by interaction