Letter | Published:

Classification of Fruits

Nature volume 5, page 6 | Download Citation



IT seems from the numerous attempts that have been made that a philosophical classification of fruits is either unattainable or practically of very little value when attained. At any rate working botanists have, as a rule, discarded the majority of the carpological terms that are to be found in text-books as too cumbrous or too uncertain in their application. Among the latest attempts at simplification in the matter of the classification of fruits are those of my friends Prof. Dickson and Dr. M'Nab (see NATURE, vol. iv. p. 475). Both of these are open to some criticism on matters of detail, but I can hardly expect you to accord me space to point out what I believe to be the merits or shortcomings of their respective schemes. I should also trespass too much on your courtesy and on the patience of your readers did I enter into any engthened explanation of the following scheme, in which I have adopted to some extent the nomenclature of Prof. Dickson and Dr. M'Nab, and which I offer for consideration solely on the grounds of expediency and simplicity:—

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

About this article

Publication history





  1. Search for MAXWELL T. MASTERS in:


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.