It was only in 1969 (nice) that fungi officially became its own separate kingdom.

  • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
    162·
    20 hours ago

    The definition of planet is completely subjective, whereas the definition of mushroom is based on science and evolution.

  • 0ops@lemm.ee
    21·
    1 day ago

    I’ve met people who were certain that bugs weren’t animals

  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
    471·
    2 days ago

    I think an issue here is that taxonomic and colloquial definitions don’t always agree.

    Spiders are colloquially bugs, but they’re not taxonomically “true bugs” (which is itself a colloquialism for Hemiptera). Tomatos are colloquially vegetables but taxonomically fruits…but afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.

    And as someone else in the thread mentioned, colloquial berries are not always taxonomic berries.

    So…colloquially, “plants” sorta means, “macroscopic multicellular living non-animal thing,” but taxonomically it’s something else.

    • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
      7·
      2 days ago

      Similarly, “a planet” can be understood in technical or colloquial context which changes the meaning. It can have a specific meaning or a vague flexible meaning, just like with berries.

      BTW raspberries are my favorite berries… sort of. Watermelons are pretty good too.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        24 hours ago

        Actually planet doesn’t have any hard set definition, we kind of just do it case by case because its damn near impossible to come up with a rigid definition that doesn’t suddenly classify some planets as moons or some moons as planets or create weird situations in which an object can switch between the two.

          • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            16 hours ago

            And in that same article:

            It has been argued that the definition is problematic because it depends on the location of the body: if a Mars-sized body were discovered in the inner Oort cloud, it would not have enough mass to clear out a neighbourhood that size and meet criterion 3. The requirement for hydrostatic equilibrium (criterion 2) is also universally treated loosely as simply a requirement for roundedness; Mercury is not actually in hydrostatic equilibrium, but is explicitly included by the IAU definition as a planet

    • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
      82·
      2 days ago

      If you’re talking about tomatoes, the difference is the context, and it isn’t a choice between colloquial vs scientific taxonomy, but between culinary/nutritional vs botany/taxonomy (and). You can talk about either in a colloquial context or a formal context, though generally there isn’t much reason to talk about botany in a colloquial setting.

      From a nutritional perspective, mushrooms are generally considered vegetables, too.

      afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.

      I thought you were wrong but I looked it up and I appear to have been mistaken. It makes “tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables” sound nonsensical, as it implies that “vegetable” is a different taxonomical option, when really it’s just a word for objects with a particular collection of traits that are relevant in a different context. What we should he saying is “While tomatoes are not fruit in the food pyramid, taxonomically, they are.” Doesn’t really roll off the tongue, though. Maybe “Tomatoes are vegetables AND fruits!” would solve that?

  • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
    823·
    2 days ago

    I overheard someone talking about veganism and said they only eat plants. I asked them about mushrooms, “of course it’s fine, those are plants”.
    No amount of convincing worked.

    So I’ve seen it once.

    • ShaggyBlarney@lemmy.caEnglish
      723·
      2 days ago

      Mushrooms are plants in the culinary sense. Like strawberries, blackberries and raspberries are berries in the culinary sense.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      111·
      2 days ago

      If anything is close to having a consciousness and experiencing an array of emotion, including suffering. That’s a mushroom, much more than a plant.

        • shneancy@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 day ago

          so hang on, mushrooms are like uh, well not milk, but as if say a cow regrew its meat every season? or maybe like a lizard that regrows its tail?

          mushrooms are weird, man

          wild idea, would it be possible to hijack mycelium with animal DNA and make it grow mushroom shaped meat??

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
        101·
        2 days ago

        Actual animals are far more likely to feel pain that fungi. Do fungi even have a nervous system?

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        29·
        2 days ago

        First time hearing this but mushroom is a protein source so from diet perspective, I see it as a meet type food. Deff not vegatable

        • teft@lemmy.world
          201·
          2 days ago

          So are chickpeas or edamame meat to you? Because they have like 5 times as much protein by weight than mushrooms.

          • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
            312·
            2 days ago

            I would go with, based totally on feelz, that no because it generally note used like that.

            As you think is all super science here, trust me bro

        • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
          10·
          2 days ago

          Mushrooms have some protein, but not very much. They aren’t a very good source of protein

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
    223·
    2 days ago

    Pluto is a planet, though. It’s officially considered a “dwarf” planet, and as “dwarf” is just an adjective, it’s still a planet (just like a short person is still a person). The other 8 new dwarf planets (Ceres, Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus, and Sedna) are also all planets - so we have 17 planets total.

    Seriously, though. By the same 3 criteria that Pluto isn’t a planet, Mercury isn’t (as it isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium).

  • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
    382·
    2 days ago

    Fuck you op. Mushrooms are plants, Pluto is a planet, and that’s the truth from one edge of this flat Earth to the other.

    ~disclaimer: this is a joke~

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      12·
      2 days ago

      Honestly? Flat earth? It’s not even funny as a joke. That entire movement has been so incredibly detrimental, and dangerous. It has shattered families, and been an instruction manual for other conspiracy theorists. And the worst thing of all is that it makes actual, real facts about how the earth is in, in reality, a hollow shell with a breathable atmosphere in its inferior, come across as just as crazy as flat earth. How are we supposed to spread the truth of hollow earth when flat earthers are out there making us look crazy? Just because hollow earth also points out that the government is lying about the earth doesn’t mean we’re the same! People need to know about hollow earth! Otherwise, we’ll never be able to heal the housing market by building condos inside the earth!

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      3·
      2 days ago

      Honestly? Flat earth? It’s not even funny as a joke. That entire movement has been so incredibly detrimental, and dangerous. It has shattered families, and been an instruction manual for other conspiracy theorists. And the worst thing of all is that it makes actual, real facts about how the earth is in, in reality, a hollow shell with a breathable atmosphere in its inferior, come across as just as crazy as flat earth. How are we supposed to spread the truth of hollow earth when flat earthers are out there making us look crazy? Just because hollow earth also points out that the government is lying about the earth doesn’t mean we’re the same! People need to know about hollow earth! Otherwise, we’ll never be able to heal the housing market by building condos inside the earth!

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      101·
      2 days ago

      Let’s just acknowledge that anything big enough to be round is a planet. That’s the bare minimum criteria.

      Orbit shapes and clear paths don’t matter, the Solar system isn’t a typical stellar system, many aren’t so stable and ordered, especially in binary and triplet star systems. So the pedantry around the shapes of the orbits of the outer kuiper planets is a very silly thing to argue about. After all most orbits in binary and triplet systems aren’t even predictable long term, let alone not circular.

        • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
          5·
          2 days ago

          I believe the rule of thumb is binary planets’ barycentre is external to either body. This is the case with Pluto/Charon, I think it’s also the case with Earth/Moon.

          • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
            1·
            19 hours ago

            That’s a good rule of thumb… but it’s probably not enough; no reasonable definition would call Jupiter a star, or even a brown dwarf, or the Solar System a binary system, yet the Sol - Jupiter barycentre is outside the sun… (the whole system’s barycentre is sometimes inside the sun, but that’s due to Saturn’s, Uranus’, and Neptune’s pulls cancelling Jupiter’s).

            I’d call the barycentre thing a necessary but not sufficient requirement; a proper definition of double planet should probably also take into account other factors like the relative mass and density of the bodies, and their minimum and maximum distance.

            • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
              1·
              1 day ago

              Yeah, I went and checked after posting.

              My hunch is that if the moon was closer it would ‘drag’ the barycentre closer to the moon.

              Which, given the moon is slowly receeding, means it was probably a binary early on in the formation of the solar system.

              • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                24 hours ago

                Other way around, the further apart the objects are the less likely the barycentre is to be inside one of them, you can picture it as a rubber band with a dot drawn on it, the more you stretch it the further the dot gets from both ends even if it gets further from one end faster.