Talk:Pineapple

Seeds

the pineapple is not really a fruit, it is a flower and as such does not have any seeds.

The crown of the pineapple is the beginning of the next plant, which is inhibited during commercial growth.

Nathan (pineapple importer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raify (talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 October 2004 (UTC)

You need to read the articles on flowers and fruits. To say it is a flower is to mean we eat the petals, etc. However, I suspect your concept comes from the fact that the majority of the flesh we eat actually develops from non-flower parts that support the flowers and developing fruit; so it is called an accessory fruit. In the somewhat similar case of the artichoke, the part eaten is the base of the structure that holds the flowers—harvested before the flowers even develop (in bud), so the artichoke is not a fruit

The crown is one method of vegetative reproduction (see discussion at top of page about "seeds") - Marshman 17:11, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The pineapple is a multiple fruit, botanically a syncarp. Indeed, each pineapple "eye" is a fruit. Pineapple flowers are fused at their base, around a same axis. Imagine this is the same as a corn (maize) ear, where all the grains would be partly fused, and fused with the central axis. The bracts (foliar structures) subtending each individual flower are also fused to some extent, only the upper part remaining free (taking the appearance of a scale in the mature pineapple). After anthesis (opening of the individual flowers), each flower develops parthenocarpically into a berry (which means that this development does not depend on the formation of a botanical seed in the ovary), with the growth of all flower parts, excepting petals, style and anthers, which dry and fall, and including bracts. These fleshy berries and the fibrous axis constitute the pineapple.

The crown of the pineapple is present at anthesis, however it resumes growth when the whole pineapple matures. In some varieties, it can reach appreciable proportions, so, to avoid shipping and selling all this green mass, the crown is manually "reduced" by cutting its growth axis with a cutting tool. On the contrary, when the pineapple is cultivated for the canning industry, the crown is left undamaged, so it can provide an excellent planting material for the next planting cycle. Geo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.135.154 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in commercial production that new plants are grown from suckers since they are clones of the parent. Fruit crowns are not, and are hit-and-miss in terms of viability. Second-generation fruit are a good bit smaller, if they occur at all, and are used for canning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.203.224 (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

First successful culivation in Europe

it was not successfully cultivated in Europe until Pieter de la Court developed greenhouse horticulture near Leiden from about 1658

Weird, because I just spent two hours reviewing multiple books on the subject, none of which say that. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to see the problem. Pieter de la Court wasn't born until 1664. He published the Byzondere Aaemerkingen in 1737. This article needs serious work. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. The article had the wrong person with the same name linked and the wrong date. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a clarifying footnote that explains the problem in detail (from A Cultural History of Plants in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Vol. 4, 2022):

It has also been proposed that the first pineapple in Europe was cultivated at Meerburg in the 1650s by Pieter de la Court (1618–85), father of the younger Pieter de la Court discussed below in relation to hothouses. Modern historians treat this as a "legend" as there is no evidence that this was the case. It may be that there was some confusion over the pursuits of the two de la Courts, with the son’s interests more squarely focused on gardening. See Weststeijn (2012: 284)

I hope that clears things up. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Part of the confusion is the fact that Pieter de la Court kept his use of tanner's bark secret for years in the late 1600s, I believe, publishing his ideas much later in the late 1730s. Although I'm still trying to trace the connections, it looks like he shared this technique somehow, and word spread among botanists and gardeners in the intervening time period. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In the wild, what creatures eat pineapples?

Most fruits evolved to be eaten by some creatures to help propagation. But there is no information in this article about evolution or symbiotic relationships. FreeFlow99 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2024

I've just had an epiphany that pineapple is in fact a vegetable because it's lacking a seed an by my undisputed logic an evidence I deem this to be true so I would be much appreciated if you would do me the courtesy of stop misleading the masses Sincerely Sardar 90.255.70.146 (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I just had an epiphany that your edit request should be declined.^{[just kidding]} You need reliable sources, and your 'undisputed logic' is original research. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of a conifer pine image for etymology

Erik del Toro Streb - I don't see the point of your wanting to use an image from a pine tree for the pineapple article. Pinus canariensis (note name format for binomial nomenclature) is an unrelated species, and no WP:SCIRS source has made this connection between a pine tree and pineapple.

It is just your unsourced opinion and WP:OR that this explains the etymology of the common name, pineapple. The pine-apple was actually first observed in Peru in the 17th century, and obviously was not a conifer, as explained in the existing etymology section.

No purpose, other than giving your opinion of similar appearance, is served by the image to explain etymology. Zefr (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Zefr - Pinus canariensis is of course an unrelated species, you could omit that and just call it pine tree if that is better. And yes, the connection between a pine tree and pineapple has been made of course.

The word stems from Middle English pinappel (“pinecone”, literally “pine-apple/pine-fruit”), from Proto-West Germanic *pīnapplu. Later applied to the fruit of the pineapple plant due to its resemblance to a pinecone. Compare the Middle Dutch and Dutch pijnappel (“pinecone", formerly also "pineapple”), and Middle Low German pinappel, Old High German pīnapful, Middle High German pīnaphel, and early Modern German pinapfel — all in the sense of “pine cone”. Compare also the post-Classical Latin pomum pini, the Old French pume de pin, the Middle French and French pomme de pin and Spanish piña. By surface analysis, pine +‎ apple.

I don’t want to put all that lengthy text in the image description. You will find the source in any etymology book of your choice. Therefore, because of your unqualified assertion that there is no source for this etymology, I must unfortunately undo your undoing again. I don’t want this to become an edit war. But you should clearly improve your reasoning for undoing. Erik del Toro Streb (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

As described under 'Etymology' in Special:Diff/1303898988, the words pine apple were in use for the pine cone some 2 centuries before the fruit was called pineapple. But that term for the tropical fruit evolved because explorers/botanists of the 15th-16th century called many newly-discovered fruits '"apple'" , not specifically because it looked like a pine cone. Zefr (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)