Talk:Tamarillo

Fruit vs Fruits

I find it quite jarring & distracting to use fruits as the plural of fruit in the sense piece of fruit, when this article is clearly discussing only one fruit. Is there any policy reason not to replace "fruits" with "fruit" or "pieces" as is appropriate in each context? Martin Kealey 103.207.76.77 (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

What does it taste like? A little piece of heaven. Tart and sweet, with a great pulpy texture. If I had to compare it to a fruit, I'd say a less sweet kiwi. Cskotte 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

tree or climber

I've seen it [http://the-plant-directory.co.uk/cyphomandra-betacea-tamarillo-or-tree-tomato-p-2536.html described as a climber, though usually it's described as a small tree. Is that link wrong? --Chriswaterguy talk 23:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it a kind of Tomato, and where does it come from?

I was surprised that this article differs from just about all other WP ones on fruit in that it does not explicitly tell you to which other fruits this one is related. Does it just look like a tomato is it a cousin? And although it says quite a bit about its cultivation in Australia and New Zealand, it does not tell us where it originates. Details on taxonomy and etymology are scant. It looks as if the authors are mostly interested in the commercial cultivation of the fruit, and then mainly in the Antipodes. That's all well and good, but the scientific stuff is just as interesting. How about it? Myles325a (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. It appears that available sources and the local consensus recommend against a move to "Tree Tomato". A move to Solanum betaceum to split the difference as per WP:FLORA had more support, but I don't find consensus for such a move at this time, either. That option may be worth exploring at a later date. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

• Tamarillo → Tree Tomato

– The international English common name for this plant, in scientific literature and daily use, is "tree tomato", which follows from the Spanish common name "tomate de arbol". This makes sense because the plant is native to the Andes, where it is grown and consumed on a large scale. A few growers in New Zealand, where there is a ridiculously small acreage of tree tomatoes (like 100 hectares total?) are attempting to rename this fruit using a nonsense word ("tamarillo") that is a hybrid of Spanish and a word taken from the Maori language. This attempted renaming is expressly for the marketing purposes of this small group of growers. It's fine with me if the Kiwi growers want to call it a "tamarillo" for their marketing purposes, but the proper name, and the name that should be used here, is "tree tomato". Accordingly, the text of the article should be changed, and the article should be moved to "tree tomato". "Tamarillo" can then redirect to "tree tomato", and not the other way around, as is presently the case. 68.201.89.238 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Proposed title should be Tree tomato, per WP:NCCAPS. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think tamarillo is a very silly name, but marketing based renamings can succeed. "Kiwifruit" has totally displaced "Chinese gooseberry". I've only seen this fruit in markets in the US a handful of times, but it's alway been labelled as "tamarillo". On the other hand, nobody in South America calls it by that name (and if somebody in South America does know an English name for it, it's "tree tomato"). I'm not sure about New Zealand (or other parts of the English speaking world), but in the US, very few people are familiar with it by ANY name. I'd usually be inclined to suggest titling by the scientific name for an obscure fruit with multiple common names per WP:FLORA, but that route is somewhat complicated in that the best known scientific name, Cyphomandra betacea doesn't reflect current classification. At any rate, "tamarillo" does seem to be taking off. See these Google Ngram results: [1] Plantdrew (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  What is this renaming that is being discussed here? The article doesn't seem to discuss that subject. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See the last paragraph (beginning with "Prior to 1967...") in the "Plant origin and regions of cultivation" section. Plantdrew (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I live in New Zealand and I have heard of the fruit being referred to as a tree tomato once or twice, but I do know it and think of it as tamarillo. So at least in this country, that appears to be the common name. Schwede66 17:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. From all that I have seen in basically my own life and regardless of how this "new" name came to be, it seems that "tamarillo" has become the WP:COMMONNAME of that plant. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose In Google Scholar the phrase "tree tomato" (in quotes) gets 1300 hits, while "tamarillo" gets 2080 hits. In the article, most of the references that use a common name in the title refer to tamarillo apart from one by J. Morton dated 1987 and another dated 1949 (Hume & Winters). Tamarillo appears to have widespread currency across English speaking countries including United StatesNew ZealandUnited KingdomCanadaAustralia Yes, its kind of annoying the marketers can manipulate our language (I only knew this plant as tree tomato years ago) but that's not our concern here.--Melburnian (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support and Clarification Searching the UN Food and Agriculture Organization website (fao.org), hits for "tree tomato" outnumber those for "tamarillo", a ratio which increases when one takes into account the fact that a number of the records at FAO are reproductions of publications from New Zealand.

Perhaps most to the point, standards for tree tomatoes have recently been developed by the FAO and World Health Organization in the Codex Alimentarius process. These are the Codex Standard for Tree Tomatoes (not "tamarillos"), adopted in 2011.

Notably, the title of the Codex international standard contains a footnote. This footnote states that tree tomatoes are "Commonly known in certain regions by tamarillo."

The opposition to the proposed move comes from "Melburnian" and New Zealander, suggesting that "tamarillo" is a Down Under regionalism, whereas "tree tomato" remains the international English standard common name, as reflected in no less than the UN Food and Agriculture Organization's recently adopted international standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.89.238 (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In the search box at http://www.fao.org "tree tomato" (phrase in quotes) gets 18,700 results and tamarillo gets 183,000 results.--Melburnian (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It does seem that now the most common English name is "tamarillo". The analogy with "kiwi" is a good one. They used to be called "Chinese gooseberries" in the UK; now they are always called "kiwis" (without even the word "fruit" in my experience) and I've found that younger people don't know their old name at all. Marketing wins out again. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – although the name "tree tomato" is used by the more scholarly references (and I use it myself), I don't think changing the name of the page here is warranted. The trade name has entered the language as a common name. I'd prefer to see the page at the scientific name, which, of course, is a perennially unpopular suggestion in wikipedia. There is a certain absurdity to distinguishing this species as tree tomato. and Solanum muricatum as "tree melon", though its fruit looks just about the same as some of the more stripey S. betaceum. I'd lay a small wager that over the next 20 years or so those common names will change as cultivar names such as 'Puzol' take over as common names. Perhaps in 50 years or so wikipedia can get all pages moved to the best and most stable names, namely the scientific names. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There is, indeed, a valid argument that this article should be at the scientific name. Neither "tamarillo" nor "tree tomato" are comparable to the examples at WP:Flora#Scientific versus common names (namely rose, apple, watermelon). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Noting what Peter said above this—that this is not a comparable case to 'rose, apple, watermelon'—what is the most used/recognized name in reliable sources; one of the "common names" or Solanum betaceum? Judging by what has been already mentioned here, I'm hearing mostly the common names. Hamamelis (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Having both "tree tomato" and "tamarillo" redirect to Solanum betaceum seems like a reasonable suggestion, particularly in view of the fact that tamarillo has been expressly rejected as the English common name by UN FAO as recently as 2011. The fait accompli of the marketer renaming of the "Kiwifruit" doesn't mean we must accept whatever name the New Zealand marketing board decides to assign to tree tomatoes today, and rutabagas tomorrow. Some of the opposition for using "tree tomato" cites such strong scientific sources as Sysco (cough). If we follow that logic, then perhaps we should delete the entry for facial tissue in favor of simply using Kleenex... after all, Kleenex gets more hits, at least in some parts of the world. This is obviously bassackward reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.89.238 (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Codex Alimentarius of the FAO/WHO mentioned above, "tamarillo" remains as a common name encountered in the standards.[2]
  • No one is saying we "must accept" whatever name the "New Zealand marketing board" decides. We decide the name used for our article titles by consenus, with reference to our policies and guidelines.
  • The link to Sysco was given as an example of word usage encountered in Canada, not as a scientific source.
  • Marketing names have been favoured as article titles for things such as automatic, continuous clothing closures and moving staircases.--Melburnian (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    • We should stay away from titling by marketing names that are trademarks (unless the article is about the specific trademarked product, as in Kleenex, or unless the trademark has become become genericized, as in elevator). I can't find any evidence that "tamarillo" is a trademark. If it is, I'd be inclined to support the move. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
      • An application for a trademark in New Zealand under class 31 (which includes fresh fruit and vegetables) was made in 1965 and withdrawn in 1967 (case number 79697).[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melburnian (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 November 2013‎ (UTC)
• Support Solanum betaceum per WP:FLORA. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Tree tomato. I have eaten a lot of these in my time on this planet and I have never heard any English speaker refer to it as anything else. Sources also bear this out. I don't think the WP:FLORA rule applies here either, because this is a common food fruit and is not only known in the botany world; in any case, the ability of any individual WikiProject to override WP:COMMONNAME should be taken with a big pinch of salt.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Amakuru, WP:COMMONNAME is not overridden by WP:FLORA, but in accord with it, so no dose of salt, big or small, need be invoked. Although I would instinctively prefer Solanum betaceum, I agree with you that this is a plant recognized more widely than by just botanists, and so, personal preferences aside, would support any of the three names suggested here more-or-less equally. FLORA reasonably allows for common names as article titles, in cases such as Rosa → Rose. Hamamelis (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OK then, @Hamamelis:, I'll take your word for that. Consider the salt returned to the cellar! I still favour tree tomato though, because I do think it is quite widely used outside botany. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

However, various lines of evidence suggest that "tamarillo" is now more commonly used, e.g. this Google ngram. So if the article is to be at the common name, it should be at "tamarillo" by the logic of WP:COMMONNAME. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Take a look → [4] at what happens when the hyphenated "tree-tomato" is included. Note: in order to use hyphens between words the whole must be parenthesized, but case sensitive cannot work at the same time. Note, also that on the first engram the percentages are on an order of magnitude much smaller, to the point of not even showing up on the second (if you hover over over the names at the bottom, you'll see that they are there, just flat on this scale). Apparently "tree-tomato" is by far the most in use in books, and consistently as well. Am I interpreting this correctly? Hamamelis (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it no, the parentheses turns the "-" into an operator (a minus rather than a hyphen), so (tree-tomato) gives results for all books that contain the word tree, but not the word tomato.--Melburnian (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks @Melburnian:. I misinterpreted the use of the word 'compositions' in the Google Ngram's sentence "Case-insensitive searches and compositions cannot be combined. Ignoring case-insensitive option". Your (correct) interpretation is further confirmed at https://books.google.com/ngrams/info. Too bad that hyphenation isn't (yet) an option for queries. Hamamelis (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, to search for "tree-tomato" you input "tree - tomato": Google treats such punctuation characters as separate words. (See e.g. this comparison of "quick witted" and "quick-witted".) The form "tree-tomato" does not occur. I think there's no doubt that since the mid-1990s "tamarillo" has become the more common; it doesn't matter whether you search in American English, British English or all. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Now I see it where it says what you say, too. Thanks for pointing it out to me, honestly don't know how I missed it. (Curiously, when one keys in "foo-foo", Ngrams displays it as "foo - foo"; whereas inputting "foo - foo" displays back as "foo -- foo".) Hamamelis (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is covered on the Ngram Viewer information page in the section "Ngram compositions" (in the text above the first graph in that section)--Melburnian (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I started my previous post "As far as I understand it", and from further tests, it's clear that I didn't. There's a different between what you type into the box and what the Google ngram system then does.

• Typing "quick-witted" or "quick- witted" or "quick -witted" causes "quick - witted" to appear, and the search is for the hyphenated word. Google expands it because internally the hyphen is stored as a separate string.
• Typing "quick - witted" causes "quick -- witted" to appear, and the search is for a spaced hyphen or dash. Google treats these internally as the string "--".
• Typing "(tree-tomato)", with or without spaces around the -, causes it to be taken as the minus operator, and finds occurrences of "tree" without "tomato".

Sorry for the confusion. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Synonyms for Solanum betaceum

It is clear, from the article listing Solanum species that, based on phylogenetic analysis of molecular data, this plant should be referred to as Solanum betaceum. However, it is also clear that the most commonly used name for this plant is Cyphomandra betacea. I am extremely surprised that this is not listed as a synonym in this article. Surely this is an oversight?

The following table shows the number of hits when I tried to google for "Cyphomandra betacea", its current official name, the currently listed synonyms on the Wikipedia page for this plant, and an additional synonym that I just made up (but which could easily be entered by mistake).

Search text (in quotes but search also includes quotes around query)	Number of hits
"Cyphomandra betacea" (not currently shown as a synonym)	104000
"Solanum betaceum" (the current official name)	55,200
"Cyphomandra crassifolia"	697
"Pionandra betacea"	572
"Solanum betacea"	2,470
"Solanum crassifolium"	794
"Solanum insigne"	794
"Cyphomandra betaceum" (not listed as a synonym --just for fun)	54

As can be readily seen, Cyphomandra betacea is the most commonly used name, the current official name, Solanum betaceum, is a distant second, and all the other synonyms are barely used within the pages which have been crawled by the Google spider.

I propose that Cyphomandra betacea needs to be added as a synonym.

Cosmicaug (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicaug (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tamarillo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070629030009/http://www.tamarillo.com/Tamarillo/servlet/Serve?file=Supplier_FAQ.htm to http://www.tamarillo.com/Tamarillo/servlet/Serve?file=Supplier_FAQ.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

On somewhere,

There's this point in the article that's there.--Knockxx (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Dubious genetics

The article states that the tamarillo is a "A crossing of flowering plant family Solanaceae with the Tamarind (Tamarindus indica)[2]"

As an amateur plant scientist, I find it incredibly unlikely that a tomato plant from south america naturally crossed with a bean plant from asia. Furthermore, the plant shares absolutely no characteristics with a tamarind tree, and there is no information anywhere on the internet supporting this genetic cross theory. The cited source [2] is a book about eating fruit, I would not consider that a high-quality source on genetic information. I suggest we find a better source or remove this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.230.131 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Varieties/Cultivars

There appears to be no definitive classification of fruit varieties other than by fruit colour. From Morton (1987):

There are apparently no named cultivars... The dark-red strain (called "black") now leading in commercial plantings in New Zealand was obtained by selection around 1920 as a variation from the yellow and purple types grown up to that time. It was propagated and reselection thereafter resulted in this large, higher quality, red variety.

According to tamarillo.com the main varieties are red, amber, and gold. The general consensus is that the orange/amber is the sweetest.--Lmstearn (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

French name

When I lived in Rwanda in the 1980s, Where it is a well known fruit, the French speakers called it “prune de Japon”. Ptilinopus (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)