Talk:Banana

Just some questions

I'm sure many of you are aware that the botany section of this article is pathetic. I don't know how but maybe we could get someone who knows about this from a portal or something to touch it up? And I don't know if it is possible but i think it would look much better if it had a nice neat template on bananas? I'm not too familiar with templates from wikipedia but maybe the one from cucumbers would work? And for all you people who keep complaining about semiprotects, if you are peeing. unsigned comment added by Stinkypie (talk • contribs) 06:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Botany

I should make an account or whatever to get this in the main article, but i try to give my 5 c. worth:

Banana (Musa x paradisiaca) is a member of the Musaceae family, order Zingiberales. It is a large monocot herb - so not a tree, and related to grasses.

Bananas contain three natural sugars - sucrose, fructose and glucose combined with fiber. A banana gives an instant, sustained and substantial boost of energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hela786 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes banana interesting botanically is that it is triploid, so it has three sets of chromosomes rather than the common two: in plants doubling of chromosomes is common so 4 and 8 would also not be out of the ordinary. This chromosomal abnormality makes the plant sterile, but gives the benefit of virtually seedless fruit - there are few varieties that contain, vary rarely, an occasional seed. Cavendish, our familiar mass-grown variety does not. This makes bananas practically impossible to breed in conventional means. Any of the bananas available are as such not a result of years of breeding, but more or less accidental.

There are tow types of bananas in common parlance, plantains and dessert bananas. Botanically the difference is not as clear: most 'cooking bananas' are a varieties of the common banana, just a few belong to another subspecies, one that could be called the 'true' plantain, and what the botanists would call plantains. The red (fehi or fe'i) banana is actually another subspecies entirely, though in taste and appearance it seems very similar to an ordinary dessert banana.

With all this the scientific name of the banana is actually still somewhat controversial, as an excerpt from the taxonomic notes attests:

"It was difficult enough coping with the cultivated bananas but since both Musa paradisiaca and Musa sapientum are rather complex hybrids between two quite distinct species, authors were forced to adopt ever more excruciating contortions to accommodate what were actually true species within a taxonomic framework that included complex hybrids. For example, Musa paradisiaca is seedless. So in order to accommodate plants that were thought to be wild seeded forms the subspecies seminifera was created. But sometimes even subspecies were found not to be sufficient and varietal names had to be added to precisely identify a plant, e.g. Musa paradisiaca subsp. seminifera var. hookeri. A nomenclature system that gives to a seed-bearing diploid species (Musa sikkimensis Kurz) the status of a variety of a subspecies of a seedless triploid is obviously in trouble although, of course, this could be recognised only in hindsight." (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~drc/musa_paradisiaca.htm)

1. The Family Musaceae

Habit and leaf form. Very large herbs (with pseudo-stems constituted by massive leaf bases); laticiferous. Plants (or at least, the the leaf bases) succulent. Perennial; cormous, or rhizomatous. Pachycaul. Mesophytic. Leaves large to very large; alternate; spiral; flat; petiolate; sheathing. Leaf sheaths with free margins. Leaves simple (but becoming ragged and pseudo-pinnate by tearing between the lateral veins); epulvinate. Lamina entire; lanceolate, or oblong, or ovate (large); pinnately veined (the laterals parallel to one another); without cross-venules (i.e. between the laterals). Vernation convolute.

General anatomy. Plants with laticifers (articulated, with mucilaginous contents). The laticifers in leaves, in stems, in flowers, and in the fruits. Plants with silica bodies (‘trough-shaped’, mostly associated with the vascular bundles). Accumulated starch other than exclusively ‘pteridophyte type’.

Leaf anatomy. Epidermis without silica bodies. Stomata present; tetracytic. Hairs absent.

The mesophyll containing mucilage cells (with raphides); containing calcium oxalate crystals. The mesophyll crystals raphides and solitary-prismatic. Minor leaf veins without phloem transfer cells (1 genus). Vessels absent.

Stem anatomy. Secondary thickening absent. Xylem without vessels. Sieve-tube plastids P-type; type II.

Root anatomy. Root xylem with vessels; vessel end-walls scalariform and simple.

Reproductive type, pollination. Plants monoecious, or andromonoecious, or polygamomonoecious (?). Floral nectaries present. Nectar secretion from the gynoecium (via septal nectaries). Pollination entomophilous, ornithophilous, and cheiropterophilous.

Inflorescence, floral, fruit and seed morphology. Flowers aggregated in ‘inflorescences’. The terminal inflorescence unit cymose. Inflorescences axillary; erect or drooping, thyrses of few flowered cymes; spatheate. Flowers bracteate; medium-sized to large; very irregular; zygomorphic; cyclic; pentacyclic. Perigone tube absent.

Perianth petaline, or of ‘tepals’; 6; joined (five members united, the median inner member posterior and free); rather theoretically 2 whorled (the three outer members and two of the inner members represented by teeth or lobes on a perianth tube, the split coinciding with the inner adaxial, free member); rather theoretically isomerous; petaloid. Corolla (if the perianth is interpreted as such) partially gamopetalous (five members joined, one free). The joined petals anterior (the posterior member free). Corolla more or less bilabiate.

Androecium 5, or 6. Androecial members free of the perianth; free of one another; at least theoretically, 2 whorled. Androecium exclusively of fertile stamens, or including staminodes. Staminodes when present, 1 (the sixth member, opposite the free perianth member, often staminodal or absent). Stamens 5, or 6; diplostemonous; alterniperianthial. Anthers adnate; dehiscing via longitudinal slits; introrse; tetrasporangiate; appendaged (by prolongaton of the connective), or unappendaged. The endothecial thickenings spiral. Microsporogenesis successive. Pollen grains nonaperturate; 2-celled.

Gynoecium 3 carpelled. The pistil 3 celled. Gynoecium syncarpous; synstylovarious, or eu-syncarpous; inferior. Ovary 3 locular. The ‘odd’ carpel anterior. Gynoecium stylate. Styles 1; attenuate from the ovary; apical. Stigmas wet type; papillate; Group III type. Placentation axile. Ovules 10–50 per locule (‘many’); arillate (aril rudimentary), or non-arillate; anatropous; bitegmic; crassinucellate. Embryo-sac development Polygonum-type. Polar nuclei fusing simultaneously with the male gamete. Antipodal cells formed, or not formed (then the three nuclei degenerating early). Synergids pear-shaped. Endosperm formation nuclear.

Fruit fleshy; indehiscent; a berry; 20–100 seeded (‘many’). Seeds endospermic. Endosperm not oily (starchy and mealy). Perisperm present. Seeds with starch. Cotyledons 1. Embryo straight, or curved. Testa without phytomelan; thick, hard.

Seedling. Hypocotyl internode present (fairly pronounced). Mesocotyl absent. Seedling collar conspicuous (in the form of small wings). Cotyledon hyperphyll compact; non-assimilatory. Coleoptile present. Seedling cataphylls present. First leaf dorsiventral. Primary root ephemeral.

Physiology, biochemistry. Not cyanogenic. Alkaloids present (indole), or absent. Proanthocyanidins present; cyanidin, or cyanidin and delphinidin. Flavonols present, or absent; when detected, kaempferol and quercetin (traces). Ellagic acid absent. Saponins/sapogenins absent (?). C3. C3 physiology recorded directly in Musa. Anatomy non-C4 type (Musa).

Geography, cytology. Tropical. Tropical Asia, Africa, Madagascar and Australia. X = 9–11, 16, 17.

Taxonomy. Subclass Monocotyledonae. Superorder Zingiberiflorae; Zingiberales. APG (1998) Monocot; Commelinoid group; Zingiberales. Species 42. Genera 3; Ensete, Musa, Musella.

Economic uses, etc. In addition to banana and plantain products (including alcohol, meal), Musa species and varieties are important sources of fibre (abaca cloth, Manila hemp).

Watson, L., and Dallwitz, M.J. 1992 onwards. The families of flowering plants: descriptions, illustrations, identification, and information retrieval. Version: 25th November 2008. http://delta-intkey.com’.

Why is this article blocked?

I know, bananas are a funny subject, but come on! This block even prevents serious edits. Other, similar pages (such as Cucumber, Carrot, Candle or Bournemouth) are not restricted in such fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.72.230 (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I find your comment unintentionally amusing. :) Was your examples of unblocked articles truly random? I was expecting something like cucumber, carrott, candle, celery... Most longish objects with only one not edible. Does Bournemouth have any significance to the other things? :D 204.191.239.189 (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with the first comment. Could someone please tell us why it's protected? I suggest you become a user! I could help you get started. :) --LCoolo (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the most recent block is listed as "Excessive vandalism," which is pretty much what it always is. It's move protected (green lock) because the page was renamed ".ł-ł...A...G...G...E...R.?" for some reason. I wish I could tell you what that means. The user's explanation for changing it to that name was "Grawp’s massive cock hits banana." I have no clue. All of the logs are here. --Friginator (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Storage and Transport

There is a rather odd few paragraphs in the storage and transport section extolling the virtues of wrapping bananas in polythene bags to preserve their freshness. It describes itself as "this report" and its sole aim seems to be to promote a study that the author obviously believes to be getting insufficient attention. It asks farmers to experiment for themselves in a very unencylopaedic way.BobCatBobDog (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

More info, but it is locked

This article openly requests more info on certain topics, but then it is locked up. Is that self-contradictory or not? I say, "yes".72.146.52.71 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This article goes into a good deal (especially early on) about the use of the banana in Asia, the Americas, and Europe, w/o even mentioning Africa. Is this a right thing to do? Especially since the banana is a tropical fruit that growns in the open all around the tropical region of the world. It's insulting to Africans not to at least mention them, and logically incorrect, too.72.146.52.71 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This article makes little or no mention of bananas grown in greenhouses. It is illogical to state that bananas are grown in "N" number of countries w/o even mentioning greenhouse bananas - as if they absolutely, positively have to be grown outdoors. Another example of this notion is where it says that in the United States, bananas are grown in Hawaii and Florida - implying nowhere else at all. Well, bananas are grown in greenhouses all over. And growing bananas in Canada isn't mentioned at all.72.146.52.71 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have personally seen bananas grown in tempetate climates elsewhere. Banana plants can be grown outdoors in warm weather, and then dug up and kept in warm places like basements and barns in the wintertime. Next, when warm weather comes again, they respond well to be re-planted.72.146.52.71 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I have seen a rubber tree grown in a greenhouse, that does not make it a greenhouse crop: while apprently in Iceland they grow them commercially in greenhouses, of the millions of tons of bananas grown yearly only an insignificant fraction would come from a greenhouse - so it is not much of an oversight. After all practically anything CAN be grown in a greenhouse.

On the other note, in Uganda the main source of carbohydrates in the diet banana/plantain. In many other African countries it forms an important part of the diet; in India massive quantities are consumed as well. While banana is mostly starch, eaten as a staple it provides the RDA of many nutrients and vitamins. (If you doubt me there is information in WHO pages.)

TuraSatana

Banana chips

"Banana chips are a snack (and a healthy alternative to potato chips)"

Is there any reason to think that deep fried bananas are healthy? In my experience they're far greasier than a good quality potato chip, does anyone have a source for this? Chrissy Bee (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I presume this is referring to dried banana chips, not deep-fried. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the other edits here, I doubt we'll find a source: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Banana&diff=194414838&oldid=194393532. --rw (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted that statement because of a) Chrissy's point and b) the user who inserted that comment (Spartand117) has a long history of vandalism. --rw (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a dumb deletion. The article now makes no mention of dried bananas as snacks at all.

This is the dumbest deletion i have seen in ages. You are deleting something because it is greasy? Can't you just keep the section in and just change it? And on the article on the chips says that you can have fried and/or dried ones. Anyway i don't think it's a good idea to delete stuff just because a vandal made the edit. --Stinkypie (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Koeppel NYTimes article 18jun08

Yes, We Will Have No Bananas; By DAN KOEPPEL, June 18, 2008; NY Times. Dan Koeppel is the author of “Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18koeppel.html -69.87.203.196 (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks.24.47.216.175 (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

dramatic rise in price of bananas predicted as a result of fuel cost

Could somebody maybe find a source that verifies this? I think it was maybe in NYT, but I don't have an online subscription.24.47.216.175 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

historical info without citations

I've just removed this section from the history section:

The banana is mentioned for the first time in written history in Buddhist texts in 600 BCE. Alexander the Great discovered the taste of the banana in the valleys of India in 327 BCE. The existence of an organized banana plantation could be found in China in 200 CE.

This because nobody seems to have been able to find a citation for these statements in a period since at least last september. I've looked a few times myself but couldn't find good sources. If people want to give it another try, please do. If these could be validated these would be very interesting historical bits of information after all. Martijn Faassen (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Slipping on banana peels

This story might or might not be totally fictitious: Supposedly a man went over Niagara Falls in a barrel and survived to tell about it. He went on a world tour to give lectures and tell his tale. While in New Zealand, he was walking down a sidewalk. He slipped on a banana peel, fell down, broke his leg, and died of an infection afterwards. Of course, this story dates back to when people really did make world tours to tell their tales (no TV, etc., existed), and antibiotics hadn't been invented, and people really did die from infections from broken limbs. 72.146.52.71 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually reported to have been an orange peel? 58.107.95.127 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah it was a used dinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.2.1 (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Peel

I was surprised to see no mention of banana peels being used as a hallucinogenic drug. I first heard about drying, pulverizing and smoking banana peels back in 1969, but I always thought is was an urban legend. Here's a web page with detailed instructions/recipe for preparing the peel for smoking : Smoking Banana Peel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbdude99 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a good source of potassium

It is a common misconception that bananas are a good source of potassium. A thin 2000 calorie/day person would have to eat 2.5 pounds of unpeeled bananas before they got the RDA (about 7 bananas). They would have to eat ONLY bananas to get 160% of the RDA. Many more common foods are a better source: beans, carrots, prunes, soybeans, fish, definitely potatoes, yogurt, squash, clams, and beets rank better. Yet most people can only identify bananas as being a good source of potassium, which is clearly false if you compare it to what is typically taken to mean a "good source". Wiki is being used to promote a common misconception. 24.214.120.227 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Just reading straight from the info boxes. 100g of banana contains 358mg of potassium. 100g of potatoes is 421mg; and that's for unpeeled ones. The difference is significant but only by less than 20%. In addition the article on wiki states that although it is urban legend that potatoes do not have all their nutrients in the peel it states that 50% of the nutrients are in the flesh. Thus you can arguably say that without the peel, bananas are much better than potatoes. Do you have peel in your fries? You said definetly potatoes, I'm not bothered to check all of them but if you say that potatoes are a good source i think you might be wrong in the others. The only thing that you might have a point at is that people are more likely to eat large amounts of potatoes than bananas. Oh and i don't think the wiki would let such a major urban legend escape the attention of thousands of users. Please don't underestimate the wiki and before you post stuff on the talk page please check your content first.Stinkypie (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Stinky for finding an error in my comments. But if all my comments are to be discarded without further reflection, then by your reasoning, all comments with a single error should be discarded in their entirety. Your reasoning also states that we should never edit wiki articles because thousands of people have already checked them. Please provide a thoughtful argument that indicates bananas are a good source of potassium rather than initiating an ad hominem attack based on a single factual error. You say you are not bothered to check all of my data, so please do so. 24.214.120.227 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you go to potassium they've already done the leg work for the both of you. "The USDA lists tomato paste, orange juice, beet greens, white beans, bananas, and many other good dietary sources of potassium, ranked according to potassium content per measure shown" with reference to [1] To 24.214.120.227, good source of potassium doesn't mean that it will provide all dietary requirement in one small serving as far as I know - think balanced diet 62.31.149.64 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

7 bananas is not "one small serving". One orange provides I believe 300% rda vitamin c verses one banana providing 8% of potassium. Clearly bananas are not a good source of potassium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.137.154 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Errm well sorry about that. I'm still pretty new here. Now that i think of it it might be classified as a personal attack sorry about that. I don't think an orange has as much as 300%, on the template thing for oranges it says 75% for 100g, i'm pretty sure that an orange is a lot more than 100g. I think an important fact that you are forgetting is that for your average person, 1 large banana would be enough for one serving. But when you consider the fact that in some countries eat bananas as a staple food, you can say that a lot of their potassium would come from bananas. It does have quite some potassium in it and as such i think it should be considered a good source of potassium. Stinkypie (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A peeled medium banana has 105 calories and 422 mg potassium. RDI for potassium is 4700 mg for a 2000 calorie/day diet. So 1 banana has 9% potassium and 5% calories for a 2,000 calorie/day diet. So bananas are a better source of potassium than they are for calories. But they are not a "good source" of potassium because they do not provide a wide enough variety of other nutrients. To explain by example: let's say you eat 11 bananas to get 100% RDI of potassium and 55% of the 2000 calories/day. So now everything else you eat has to be jam-packed with nutrients if all your other RDI's are going to be acquired in the 900 calories remaining for the day. Compare this to oranges: 1 medium peeled orange without seeds has 116% of your vitamin C and 3% of the 2000 calories. You would have to eat 13 bananas to get as much potassium as 1 orange has of vitamin C. But the situation is even worse than that: "good source" means on a nutrient/calorie basis. By this measure, an orange has 22 times more vitamin C than a banana has of potassium (116%/3% divided by 9%/5%). Bananas are such a bad source of potassium, that bananas themselves have almost twice as much the RDI of vitamin C as they do potassium. On a per-calorie basis, oranges are as good as bananas for potassium.Ywaz (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Standards for what defines a "good source" for nutrient content are actually codified in US law §101.54(c)(1): "'Good Source' claims. (1) The terms “good source,” “contains,” or “provides” may be used on the label and in the labeling of foods, except meal products as defined in §101.13(l) and main dish products as defined in §101.13(m), provided that the food contains 10 to 19 percent of the RDI or the DRV per reference amount customarily consumed." You shouldn't confuse the term "good source" with an "excellent source" as defined in §101.54(b)(1): "'High' claims. (1) The terms “high,” “rich in,” or “excellent source of” may be used on the label and in the labeling of foods, except meal products as defined in §101.13(l) and main dish products as defined in §101.13(m), provided that the food contains 20 percent or more of the RDI or the DRV per reference amount customarily consumed." (See: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=8c5344f04a8ae103e5b0ff5a17c7fa97&rgn=div8&view=text&node=21:2.0.1.1.2.4.1.1&idno=21) USFDA specifically identifies bananas as being a "good source" of potassium as they are rated as having 12% of the RDI. (See: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/food/pdfs/hhs_facts_sodium.pdf) If this is an urban legend, then the experts of one of the world's largest food and drug regulators have it all wrong, and this talk page would not be the appropriate place to debate that. Heliostellar (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Heliostellar, it's only by the "skin of its teeth" that the law allows advertising that a medium banana is a "good source" of potassium.

1) The FDA says the DRV is supposed to be used for macronutrients which is only 3500 mg whereas most sources, which i consider better sources, say 4700 mg. So yes, I think the FDA has it wrong compared to better experts and this is exactly the place to debate it.

2) You are proposing that the wiki article contradict itself. The wiki article uses 8% based on the RDI which most government organizations agree with. But you want to isolate the "good source" statement to abide by the FDA's 12%.

3) We are not required to follow the law's definition for "good source". That is merely what advertisers are allowed and it does not make sense as I have detailed above. Wiki is not the place for advertising.

These are the three errors in your reasoning. Bananas are not a good source of potassium. Only 5 of the 19 foods listed in your reference that have wiki articles mentioned something like the food being a "good source" of potassium. The other 4 all had better potassium to calorie ratios. Of the 21 foods listed in your source, only soybeans had ratio worse than bananas. Ywaz (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Banana history section

The people that presumably brought the banana to Africa were Austronesians. Polynesians are a subdivision of Austronesians but their voyaging was in a different direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.235.244 (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Radioactivity

The natural radioactivity in Bananas is well-documented and worth including in the article. Please see http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm, also Ref: Handbook of Radiation Measurement and Protection, Brodsky, A. CRC Press 1978 and Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, Industrial and Military Sources, Eisenbud, M and Gesell T. Academic Press, Inc. 1997. PolarYukon (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As bananas grow from cuttings, not seeds, they are more vulnerable to genetic malfunction, as there is no sexual mechanism to shed negative traits. I wonder if the presence of radioactive potassium in the fruit could exacerbate this problem, accelerating chromosonal damage. In a sexually reproducing organism, an increase in mutation rate as a result of exposure to radioactivity could paradoxically speed up the rate of evolution, but (if my hypothesis is correct), in the banana, this same stimulus can only lead to an early demise for the species. (In fact, non-sexually reproducing organisms have far shorter life spans as a SPECIES, than do their sexual counterparts.) Myles325a (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Name Banana

The name Banana came from the Professor Alistair B. Broom. The century is hard to locate but he came up with the name when he was researching in Papua New Guinea.

Doubtful. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Blue fluorescence of ripening bananas, a recent discovery

Just a fun and amazing recent finding. A photograph of this phenomenon would be appreciated. Cheers Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A publication in Angewandte Chemie by Moser et al. (2008) mentions a recent and surprising finding. Ripe bananas exhibit a blue fluorescence when exposed to ultra-violet (UV) light (Dark light). This property has been overlooked for a long time. Green bananas do not show any sign of fluorescence. The cause is attributed by the authors to the degradation of chlorophyll giving rise to the accumulation of a fluorescent product in the skin of the fruit. The chlorophyll breakdown product is stabilized by a propionate ester group. Banana-tree leaves also fluoresce in the same way. A possible consequence in nature is that animals capable to see in the UV spectrum would also be able to detect quicker the ripened fruits.

Actually, I personally dispute these results. Since the article, I have observed tons of bananas from green to brown. They do NOT glow as the article states. I have 36 feet of blacklight in my room. The only part of a ripe banana that *actually* fluoresces is the EDGES of the black spots. The rest is clearly just the blue light REFLECTING off the banana, not fluorescing. In real life, the pictures do not look like any of the pictures in the science articles; they are clearly doctored. I've lived around blacklights daily for 15 years and know what fluorescing looks like. The scientists must have missed something. I think when they tried to translate it into layman speak, they messed up not because they don't know their science, but because they don't know blacklights. ClintJCL (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The journal article says that yellow bananas absorb at around 350 nm and emit at around 450 nm. I don't work in a lab any more so I can't test it out myself, but the journal looks legit to me. The part about animals seeing bananas using uv detection is not right: if the banana emits blue light, it will look bright in the sun for those who can see blue light (an effect like [Bluing (fabric)|laundry bluing]) but will be dark in the uv. Daniel Kellis 23 March 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

References

Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Walking Bananas

I think the fact the bananas appear to walk as they grow is an interesting fact. The routes underground grow laterally which cause the plant to move laterally on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by jonholland99 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are under the influence of The Day of the Triffids.Myles325a (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorial correction proposed

God only knows why this article is locked, but I imagine you have your reasons. In any event, the following sentence needs editorial improvement/repair: "A possible consequence in nature is that animals capable to see in the UV spectrum would also be able to detect quicker the ripened fruits." One possibility would be: "A possible consequence in nature is that animals capable of seeing in the UV spectrum would also be able to more quickly detect the ripened fruits."

212.202.28.10 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV UV Section

I believe the UV Section isn't written in a neutral point of view.Hereford 20:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Reply

I think that the term "neutral point" of view is poorly chosen. When I discovered this surprising information in a scientific paper recently published in Angewandte Chemie by Moser et al. (2008) my aim was only to share it on Wikipedia. I have no connection with the authors and I expressed no biased opinion, being not involved in this study. These observations are published in an international peer-reviewed and well accepted journal and I do not suspect their veracity, nor the scientific approach followed by the authors. ClintJCL may personally dispute this observation, but before to further criticize the phenomenon, I would simply suggest him and other readers to carefully read the paper of Moser et al. (2008).

To quote the remark of ClintJCL: "The only part of a ripe banana that *actually* fluoresces is the EDGES of the black spots. The rest is clearly just the blue light REFLECTING off the banana, not fluorescing", I do not say anything else in my text. The fluorescence is clearly present around the black spots. "Ripened bananas (left, under sunlight) fluoresce in blue when exposed to UV light (right). Note the steep chemical gradient of fluorescent dye developing around the black spots (right)". To conclude, I think that the applied (POV-section|date=December 2008) banner is not merited and should be removed. Thank You for reading the original paper.

Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But it just makes no sense. How could fluorescence help animals with UV sight to find fruit?--88.101.76.122 (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've edited that section - there was some POV language as well as some time-sensitive stuff as well. I have also moved the information into the "Properties" section where I think it fits better. I believe the current version is neutral and fairly presents what was in the referenced paper, so I have removed the POV tag. - Eron^Talk 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Cultivation

This article is vague on what is one of the most interesting things about bananas, and that is they are a mutation that can no longer reproduce by seeds. I THINK that mutation occured about 10,000 years ago, and since then, the plants have been grown from cuttings, and are thus genetic clones of their ancestors. I THINK that the initial cultivation was in South East Asia and PERHAPS New Guinea (which is now recognised to have originated their own version of agriculture thousands of years ago). The article does not deal with new information from genetic analysis which demonstrates banana's susceptibility to disease ( a susceptibility to which all organisms that reproduce asexually are prone, as there is no mechanism for quickly moving resistant traits to the wider community of plants). There was a very good article on this in New Scientist a couple of years ago which I will try to dredge up. Meanwhile, this article needs some restructuring and tidying up. Myles325a (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Banana as a "berry"

The bannana as a "false berry" is mentioned nowhere in the article. Don't know where you'd add itKurtle (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Taste

The banana is really good and good 4 you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.228.87 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Banana is actually a vegtable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluezoo44 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't 4 of myself...--Kurtle (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Health benefits

I think it was time to add some health benefits to the article. The only health references before were pests, diseases, natural disasters and allergic reactions, and I think it gives the banana a non-neutral defamation, so I don't think I need to be any fanatic banana worshiper to argue the new section was needed. Anyhow, I didn't find any fully scientifically peer reviewed summary of the effects of bananas, but I think those sources I found were pretty sufficient - their lists of primary sources seemed reliable at a glance, and I find the risk of bias is low, since it is a general fruit we're talking about and not some "new fantastic" product. Anyhow, feel free to add to it, or remove still dubious claims. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection

This article has been protected for a month. Any objection to unprotecting it? --Richard (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bananas in Pyjamas

Youshould add bananas in pyjamas in See Also and Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.229.212 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fruit or Herb

First line it says it is a fruit then a herbaceous plant. is it a fruit of herb???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XX EOIN XX (talk • contribs) 11:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of Banana Leaves

Mention of broad banana leaves as food plate/tray in S. India (perhaps other regions as well?) would be a nice addition.