Talk:Legume/Archive 1

Legumous trees

Not sure whether its worth a article section, but here goes anyway: legumous trees are not mentioned in article, so perhaps include it ? a example is Moringa oleifera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.12.176 (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant the other drumstick tree, Cassia fistula. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wisteria

In the Wisteria article it says that Wisteria is a legume. I'm not sure where to list it. Could someone add it please. 19:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk)

Legume and pulse: any difference?

I'm struggling to understand what is the difference, if any, between legume and Pulse (legume). And if there's no difference, why are there two articles? Thanks for any help. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulse (legume) page seems to cover the matter well: "A pulse ... is an annual leguminous crop yielding from one to twelve seeds of variable size, shape, and color within a pod. Pulses are used for food and animal feed. The term "pulse", as used by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), is reserved for crops harvested solely for the dry seed. This excludes green beans and green peas ...". There are lots of legumes that are not pulses. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nadia. I should have read more closely. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legumes are more important than Britney Spears

This article is a brush-off. It is unbelievable to me that no mention is made of rhizomes, for instance. Legumes are one of the only plants that can create sustainable agriculture. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Any chance someone could elaborate on that. In particular I'm wondering whether there is a connection to Légume, the French word for vegetable?
-- 77.47.5.73 (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm french, and I see no difference in english between the words Legume and Vegetable. So there is an interwiki with Légume in the page Vegetable, but not in the page Legume. --Consulnico (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In English there is no meaning of legume equivalent to vegetables in general. The word can refer to 1) a group of plants 2) their fruits 3) those of their fruits used as vegetables. Potatoes, cabbages, tomatoes, turnips, cucumbers, spinach, etc. are not legumes in any sense. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia page for legume explains the etymology of the French term. It is derived from the Latin term for "plant pods", and in French originally referred to what in English are known as grains and legumes as well as vegetables. The French Wikipedia says the equivalent French word to "legume" is "légumineuse" or "true legume". Or at least that is my quick reading of it. 59.167.126.21 (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology is here. Légume is a vegetable in French, English "legume" is légumineuse in French. http://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais/search?source=auto&query=legume

"plant of the group of the pulse family, pea, 1670s, from French légume (16c.), from Latin legumen "pulse, leguminous plant," of unknown origin. One suggestion ties it to Latin legere "to gather" (see lecture (n.)), because they can be scooped by the handful. Middle English had the word in the Latin form legumen" The etymology should be explained in the article: "from the French "légume"" for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:A861:FB05:14E9:FA55 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malnutrition cure - eat more?

"The low concentrations of the amino acid methionine in legumes may be compensated for simply by eating more of them." Citation needed? I mean, really. This is a "no sh**" statement if I've ever seen one. The real problem I see is a 'sort of' weasel word 'more'. How much? ;) 75.70.89.124 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine#Dietary_sources Apparently, at least 5x as much by mass. 75.70.89.124 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrient composition

Although this article relates to a class of food, rather than a single ingredient, it would be useful to know (eg in comparison with other food types), the relative nutritional content of this class of food, ie proportions of proteins, fats, carbohydrates (incl sugars) etc. This would allow comparison with root vegetables, poultry etc. FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facts ?

The following text was removed from the Nutritional facts section:

According to the protein combining theory, it was thought that legumes should be combined with another protein source such as a grain in the same meal, to balance out the amino acid levels. However, protein combining has lost favor as a theory (with even its original proponent, Frances Moore Lappé, rejecting the need for protein combining in 1981

ref>Diet for a Small Planet (ISBN 0-345-32120-0), 1981, p. 162; emphasis in original/ref>).

A variety of protein sources is considered healthy, but they do not have to be consumed at the same meal.

Culinary reaction to Protein combining and its popularization has attempted to undercut the biochemical study of essential amino acids and their nutritional provision. Reference to Protein combining shows that Criticism has arisen, but the foundations of amino analysis of vegetable protein sources is well-established. F.M. Lappe did not "reject" combining.Rgdboer (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Since when have Brown Speckled Cow and Brown Rice Miso been legumes?90.245.47.198 (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, brown speckled cow beans do exist... Deli nk (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of legume products

Does this page need a list of products derived from legumes (like tofu, soy cheese, miso)? Wouldn't those be covered in the individual articles about the legumes? • Supāsaru 16:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. the list should be remade to remove all legume products (for which there is already a page). also, pecan does not seem to be a legume.

First known legume species?

When did the first species of legume appear on Earth? Did such first species have already nitrogen-fixing symbiotic bacteria or they just turned up later? Probably that kind of information (the one I was researching for when I consulted the article) would be relevant in the article if it can be found out. Thanks and regards. --95.20.44.23 (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it carefully yet but this article may be of some help for a start. --95.20.44.23 (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrogen fixing is found in several groups within the nitrogen-fixing clade (Cucurbitales, Fabales, Fagales and Rosales) of the rosids. Perhaps the ancestor of this was pre-adapted from symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and different groups developed symbiosis independently. Or perhaps the ancestor of this clade was nitrogen-fixing and the ability has been lost in some descendant lineages, in which case nitrogen-fixing is older than legumes. My first thought would be that this question isn't answerable. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with pulse (legume)

I'm not sure if there is a technical difference between "legume" and "pulse" but even if there is, it is 1) probably slight and 2) one can't really tell by looking at contents of our articles Legume and Pulse (legume). According to [1] The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations uses the term ‘pulse’ to describe crops harvested for their dry grains, such as lentils or chickpeas. They suggest the term ‘legume’ includes these dry grains, as well as fresh peas, beans and crops mainly grown for oil extraction, such as soya beans and peanuts. Distinctions between the two terms are small, so it’s easy to see why we use them interchangeably. Another source [2] suggests that "pulse" refers only to seed and "legume" to the whole plant, but it is the same topic anyway. Therefore, I propose that we cover both terms under the same article, legume, because 1) that term appears to be slightly more general and 2) it has no disambiguation issues (primary topic for pulse is heartbeat). No such user (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and merged the two articles. Now, there is also a significant content overlap with Fabaceae. I'll open a discussion at its talk page. No such user (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest cultivation

The article says legumes have been found in Britain as early as the 11th century. The earliest cultivations elsewhere are around 5,000 years ago and there are two different 11th centuries within that time span. Which is it for Britain? Colin McLarty (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little googling finds this, which gives the 11th century AD for the first written reference to peas in Britain. I would guess that if they weren't present beforehand they would have been introduced by the Romans. You'd have to trawl the archaeological literature for dates. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective

The article is very accurate in describing what a legume is. However, shouldn't their be a plain-language explanation? For example, one could simply say:

Legumes are plants that have seeds inside of a pod that can be split in half along it's seems. That is, the pod that contains the seeds has a seem in the front and back, and therefore can be split evenly into two halves along the seem. Many legumes are also symbiotic nitrogen fixers.

I'm sure that what I offer above could be improved by a wordsmith of some sort, but if multiple entries in a dictionary are required to understand exactly how the article is defining a legume, it seems a bit off-putting. I don't typically make edits to an article unless I'm adding or new information or changing wrong information; this is a personal rule because I'm not a wordsmith, and I also do not know all of the Wikipedia rules regarding each issue (such as style).

If anyone has insight in this, can make an appropriate edit, or can enlighten me on the rules of style, thanks! Tmbirkhead (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains wrong information and Its lack of style , we can improve it by doing accurate researches on reliable resources such as academics books, scientific articles with authors who have good credentials.Zumento (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legume. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019140707/http://loco.biosci.arizona.edu/pdfs/MagallonEvolution2001.pdf to http://loco.biosci.arizona.edu/pdfs/MagallonEvolution2001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts

Peanuts are not mentioned after the beginning of the human consumption section. They are not listed in the FAO pulses list, which I understand, but there is no clarification or further description of them. They are a major contributor of legumes, at least in the American diet, and I think that some description of them in the Human consumption section is warranted, even if it means a new sub-category of legumes for oils (though I think more are eaten, either roasted or as peanut butter, than are grown for oil, admittedly my best guess). That long list of pulses seems like undue weight given to a lot of minor contributors on that list and the lack of a similar list for non-pulse legumes. Of course peanuts have their own article, but their absence here, other than in passing, seems like a rather large hole in the article. Dcs002 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Dcs002. Please proceed with selective information and sources from the Peanut article to add content to the article. --Zefr (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]