Science desk
< March 27	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 28

Can an apartment building grow enough food to feed its tenants?

I recently watched a YouTube video about a plant lady whose apartment was covered with plants. She always bought soil, pots, and new plants and filled her apartment with plants until it became like a forest. Sometimes, she played music for her plants and talked to her plants. Extrapolating this story to all apartment dwellers, if each apartment dweller were to fill each liveable apartment with native, edible plants and make the flat roof of the apartment a garden of flora and fauna, is it possible to feed every tenant in the apartment building? How much space (horizontal and vertical) is needed to grow food (plants and animals and maybe some edible mushrooms growing nearby on top of dead organic matter) in order to feed one human per year? How much time and manpower are needed to invest in subsistence farming? And what to do about crop protection from bugs and vertebrate animals? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on what answer you want. Examples: John Jeavons studied how much land would be required to support a single vegetarian back in the 70s. His research settled on 4,000 square feet of farm land and another 4,000 square feet of supporting land (walking paths, storage, etc...). A more recent study from Colorado State University claims only 100 square feet is required and makes no assumptions about supporting land. Because there is no consensus about the amount of land required, and the ranges you will find go from a single room to a city block, you can get any and every answer you like and it will be supported by someone. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is in the inputs. If you rely on sunlight to drive the system, then you need a large area to collect enough energy. But, if you use electricity generated elsewhere, then using grow lights and hydroponics, you can grow far more food in a small area. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not. Look at the size of Biosphere 2, how many humans it was supposed to support, and the fact that they ended up on a starvation diet.[1][2] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biosphere 2 was not designed to produce the maximum amount of calories from the available space, it had a savannah, fog desert, mangrove swamp, and marine area bigger than the agricultural area. Also Biosphere 2 was intended to be completely sealed from the outside, that's not an issue in normal farming. As for the original question "The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. Very few populous countries have more than an average of 0.25 of a hectare. It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of arable land to support one person is a mere 0.07 of a hectare–and this assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land degradation or water shortages, virtually no post-harvest waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to plant, fertilize, irrigate, etc.17. In India, the amount of arable land is already down to 0.2 of a hectare; in Philippines, 0.13; in Vietnam, 0.10; in Bangladesh, 0.09; in China, 0.08; and in Egypt, 0.05." from here http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/feb25/articles16.htm 208.90.213.186 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So a typical North America / Western Europe diet requires 0.5 hectare/person, and the absolute minimum is 0.07 hectare.

0.07 hectare = 7534.737 square feet. Name three apartment buildings that have 7500 square feet of arable land per tenant. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right with regards to the apartment, I was just pointing out that Biosphere 2 had an area of 1.27 hectares and eight people so ~0.16 hectares/person more than the minimum space required to grow enough food to sustain the crew. 204.28.125.102 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the urban farming ideas rely heavily on hydroponics. I've seen a lot of wild claims about hydroponics possibly written by people who were stoned at the time... seriously, what else do people really farm indoors? Wnt (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sprouts?

Today there of course also are hydroponic greenhouses for commercial vegetable farming (but I'm not so sure, "at the time"). PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herbs - a mini hydroponics box with a grow lamp over it is great for those of us with North-facing kitchens (where the typical pot-on-the-windowsill will just die) MChesterMC (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North-facing in the Southern Hemisphere gets plenty of sun. Akld guy (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stomach and intestinal pain

Abdominal pain discusses the causes of abdominal pain, but not the origins of the pain itself. When something happens in your stomach or your intestines that leads to abdominal pain (e.g. you ate bad food, and you're about to have a sudden loose bowel movement, respectively), how does the pain get produced? Do we have a lot of pain-sensing nerves in both places? I suppose I might be able to find this kind of thing with a Google search or a scholarly-journal search if I knew the terminology, but with my layman's understanding, all I'm finding is the websites that discuss conditions that can cause pain, not the mechanism by which the sense of pain arises when those conditions exist. Of course, I understand that cancer can cause pain if a mass is pushing up against a nerve; I'm thinking of situations when the underlying cause is an ordinary minor illness or not an illness at all, when the contents of the food canal are the only issue. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If bacteria are the cause, the inflammatory response can cause pain. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, locating the ultimate source can be complicated. The (cellular nexus of the) body has a system by which it notifies the "controller" (ie: you) that some problem exists. That is pain. Precisely how it arises is almost indeterminable because everything has to work together to get that message through whether the neural pathways exist or not. For example, a broken limb sometimes results in a physical break in the nervous system yet the victim of the injury somehow finds out about the issue eventually! That aspect may not be well-covered in scholastic journals (so it may not help you here), but still something to keep in mind... Earl of Arundel (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes after an amputation people still feel the missing limb and pain from it. 81.151.128.189 (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to Phantom pain and phantom limb (which needs work, weirdly it doesn't seem to link to the former article). Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How I explain one abdominal pain to patients is that your intestines are lined on the inside with thousands of little things like fingers. They are supposed to help move the waste along. If your waste is too thin and watery, the little fingers pull on each other, which causes extreme pain. I know, it is a rather childish explanation, but it helps them understand that they don't need to go into emergency surgery. I also took part in two studies that found a correlation between hard waste in the bowels and migraine headaches. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The general mechanism of pain is called nociception, but out article doesn't go into detail on abdominal pain per se, just on the explanation of pain in general. --Jayron 32 12:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be a little careful of terminology here. Pain has 2 components. Nociception is required. This is the ability to detect noxious stimuli which evoke a reflex response that rapidly moves the entire animal, or the affected part of its body, away from the source of the stimulus. The concept of nociception does not imply any adverse, subjective "feeling" – it is a reflex action. An example in humans would be the rapid withdrawal of a finger that has touched something hot – the withdrawal occurs before any sensation of pain is actually experienced. The second component is the experience of "pain" itself, or suffering – the internal, emotional interpretation of the nociceptive experience. Again in humans, this is when the withdrawn finger begins to hurt, moments after the withdrawal. Pain is therefore a private, emotional experience. (see Pain in fish) DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The is an enormous system of nerves running throughout the gut in two layers; it's called the Enteric nervous system. Many of the nerve cells (neurons) here just act locally, detecting local changes and cause some location action (contraction, secretion or communicating with other neurons). Some of the neurons ("sensory" or "afferent" neurons) send electrical signals to the brain, and it is these some of these signals which trigger the subjective sensation of pain. Klbrain (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This paper looks useful: [3] It describes TRPA1 responding to prostaglandins, hydroxynonenal, and protease-activated receptor to trigger primary afferent neurons. It isn't really a complete view of all pain though; for example, it doesn't really address muscle spasms which I have the impression might provide a whole different means to suffer. Describing all pains by all routes is complicated, but this is a way in which inflammation can trigger a mental response. Wnt (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microwaveable ready meals

Are microwaveable ready meals already cooked or are they only partially cooked? Could you eat them without microwaving? 2A02:C7D:B91F:6A00:E42B:4113:52F:15F8 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some are already cooked and only have to be heated. Others, especially chicken, have only been pre-browned and have to be cooked thoroughly, until they reach a safe internal temperature, to eliminate health hazards like E. coli, salmonella or listeria. --Hofhof (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't risk trying to cook raw chicken in a microwave! Dbfirs 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about a precooked, frozen chicken meal, intended for microwave cooking, and only if we follow the instructions. Some chicken products require using an oven though, but this might be a question of taste, not health. It could be unsafe to do in some cases. A food thermometers can always be of help here, if you really want to be safe. Hofhof (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at? I will note that cooking raw chicken in a microwave is perfectly safe and reasonable, and no more risky than any other cooking method. Microwaved chicken can be tender and moist, and many people cook raw chicken in microwaves every day. Here is a quick selection of instructions on how to cook raw chicken in the microwave: [4] [5] [6]. Your own tastes and opinions of course may vary, but please to not imply there is anything risky about cooking chicken in a microwave. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK, I accept that it's possible to cook small pieces of chicken safely, but you will note that all three recipes warn about checking that all of the meat is properly cooked. I dispute your original research of "no more risky than any other cooking method". Perhaps microwaves more modern than mine have a more even distribution pattern. Dbfirs 21:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been problems with pre-cooked breaded chicken products, but I can't find anything scholarly saying there are any notable risks to cooking chicken in the microwave properly [7]. Undercooking is indeed a source of problems, but that is common to all cooking methods. It is also of course easy to undercook chicken in a frying pan or in an oven, and if you look at those recipes [8], they all also say to check that the meat is done, usually by specifying a color and temperature. In absence of any evidence of any special risk, I see no reason to claim risk, any more than we would say that grilling chicken is risky. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breaded or not, it's all about raising the internal temperature across the whole product. Where the heat comes from is indifferent. Hofhof (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it doesn't matter where the heat comes from, but the problem with some (perhaps older) microwaves is that the distribution of heat can be uneven, so one part can be cooked when another part is still cold. Rotating plates and efficient design should minimise this disadvantage. Dbfirs 22:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave Cooking instructions or recipes for any raw or semi-raw foodstuff will almost always include a waiting period. (Sometimes multiple cycles of cook and then "let sit for x minutes".) Most people think that wait period is just so you don't burn your lips. It's not. It's to allow heat to distribute through the food. With conventional ovens, this time is built into the cooking time. (Heat has to diffuse from the outside to the inside, but that's just part of the normal cook time so you don't think about it.) With microwaves, we intuitively expect to be able to eat it the instant it comes out, which is really not the best for a lot of foods. ApLundell (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to say with any consistency. The only reliable answer we can give you is to follow package directions for reheating such meals; those directions are optimized to properly cook the food. --Jayron 32 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the time. One person on YouTube goes by the name of The Wolfe Pit has a cooking and food show, in which he samples different microwaveable meals. Sometimes, he reports that the microwave is not as efficient as the conventional oven in regards to reheating fried chicken or anything intended to be crispy. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for any value of "proper". The package directions are unlikely to give you food poisoning, for example. I'm sure alternative methods of reheating exist, some of which may present people with products they prefer more. But the package directions will meet minimum food safety guidelines, and any further advice we could give here would amount to original research. --Jayron 32 19:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

coordinate explanation

What do the coordinates that Wikipedia provides in numerous map descriptions mean? I am somewhat embarrassed, in that my duties in the Navy involved navigation and the following example is alien to me. N 4,165,950 E 792,000.

Could you please provide an explanation of this coordinate system and how it works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:4300:1C46:A5CA:C85F:278F:191C (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These coordinates look like Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system. If so, they are meaningless unless they are accompanied by a zone number. Perhaps you could give a link to where you saw these numbers. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly it's Gold mining in Virginia --CiaPan (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear be be using quadrangle maps. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :If you mean 4°09′54″N 7°55′12″W / 4.165°N 7.92°W, then it's a point just off Twanswiebo Liberia, which is near Tabou, Ivory Coast. It's 4.16 degrees North of the Equator, and 7.92 degrees West of the Greenwich meridian. LongHairedFop (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the poster saw Gold mining in Virginia#List of gold mines, claims, and prospects which says:

quadrangles are USGS 7.5 minute quads and the coordinates are UTM.

Mines in Buckingham County

Anaconda mine
Quadrangle: Dillwyn

Location: N 4,165,950 E 729,000 (Zone 17)

The post said E 792,000 instead of E 729,000 so the article doesn't show up in a search on the full coordinates. I guess CiaPan found it by omitting "E 792,000". The article does include the zone number Jc3s5h wanted, and it already says it's Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system as Jc3s5h guessed. Good work from bad information. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do fat and protein intake need to be restricted on a vegetable-based diet?

I know that there is a maximum intake on protein and fat, but is this for all kinds of fats and proteins, including vegetable-based protein and fat, or mostly animal-based protein and fat? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you still should keep protein and fat down to reasonable levels, it would be difficult to overdo it on either on a vegetable-based diet, where a lack of protein and fat is the more common problem. But, perhaps an all macadamia nut diet might drive you over the limit on fat (the lack of many other nutrients from such a diet would be a bigger concern). StuRat (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very interested to find out how the OP knows "that there is a maximum intake on protein and fat" See Low-carbohydrate diet, No-carbohydrate diet, Inuit cuisine, Yup'ik cuisine, and Greenlandic cuisine. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they mean that there is an upper threshold on consumption before there are inevitable health consequences. There may be no such thing as "fat poisoning", but a daily diet of lard (or indeed a "healthier" plant-derived oil, will have an impact, even in the near-term. The same is true of exclusively protein-based diets and to some (somewhat debated) extent for protein/fat-based diets that exclude carbohydrates, as the articles you linked to note. Additionally, the OP may have been speaking in absolute terms, rather than the caloric contribution relative to carbohydrates. Back when I was studying nutrition as part of a broader education in physiology (and I will grant you, the last time I took a course that was focused on nutrition was near the turn of the century), the standard prescription was around 10-20% fat, 35-55% carbohydrate, and 25-50% protein, with a great deal of variability per activity level and specific medical or lifestyle needs. There has, of course, been a lot of debate in the years since then, born in large part by the Atkins fad and similar trends in the U.S. in the mid-noughties. But while researchers and sources disagree at length about the impacts of a diet at the extremes, the simple fact that often gets lost in the mix is that most nutritionist and medical researchers tend to urge some sort of balance of the three varieties of macronutrional sustenance, bearing in mind that the diet must also meet baseline needs with regard to various micronutrients. The type, extent, and strenuousness of one's typical daily physical activity also have a profound impact upon the advisability of certain balances. And as Stu has pointed out above, it's rarely the case that a plant-based diet leads to excesses of protein or fat--usually the challenge runs in the other direction. Of course, if the OP's inquiry is not entirely abstract, but rather touches upon personal choices, they are advised to get their advice from a qualified physician, nutritionist or other health expert, not here. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think to go for always, is a balanced diet regardless of its source. Coconut oil like some animal fats are saturated fat. Nothing wrong with that, providing this is not your main calorific source ( OK if your an arctic explorer or mountaineer you may benefit from lots of saturated fat during those expeditions but not before or after). Whereas, hemp-oil and fish oil have a good mixture of Omega fatty acids but likewise only consume in moderation. Hydrogenated fats are a no-no and are being banned. Also, doesn’t really matter whether you have animal of vegetable protein. Having said that, think some would support me in saying it is better to have both with the same meal (provides complex protein). So, grilled sardines on toast with baked-beans is not bad at all -surprisingly. A high fat, low crab diet for weight loss seems fine providing one returns to a balanced diet after one's weight comes down.

The sulfur based amino acids from meat and dairy products and saturated fat from such sources should be restricted, see here for details. Count Iblis (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ "low crab" diet. But as for hydrogenated fats, I believe the problem is partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. Once you fully hydrogenate them, the trans fats generated in the process are eliminated. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday library?

At https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3197874/second-arctic-doomsday-vault-will-allow-the-worlds-precious-books-to-survive-armageddon/ (which is terrible source that I do not trust) there is a claim about a "Second Arctic Doomsday Vault". does anyone know of a reliable source which confirms this claim? If this (or the implied first Arctic Doomsday Vault) actually exists, I will create an official proposal that the entire contents of all of the different language Wikipedias be periodically archived there. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the first one is, but the one The Sun is talking about appears to exist: [9]. Most English-language sources I've found seem to just be quoting The Sun, with all the good sources being in Norwegian. It was created by the founders of piql. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is obviously the Svalbard seed bank. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was my presumption as well, but I'm not sure how "obvious" that would be to the average person; the seed bank is not exactly low profile, but neither is it a common household topic. Presumably it is is the "first vault" in this instance, though (first vault for preserving what little biodiversity can be stored in a dormant state, longterm, the second to archive as much of human knowledge as possible. I very much doubt the two projects are related though, beyond the overlap in goals and the need to accomplish both in the same region. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess it is obvious, insofar as the seed bank is mentioned in the article in question; my mistake. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But does the Svalbard seed bank (or anything like it) store books and/or data? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure no. Yeah, the title of The Sun article confused me - I had assumed they meant this was the second data vault in the arctic. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on your definition of "data", doesn't it? That does no per se require an electronic medium, though certainly film is pretty low tech (the advantage of course being permeability, in best achievable conditions, assuming set resources and an eventual lapse in storage maintenance). But I'm not sure if the records are translated into complex data recorded on to the film or if they are just photo-images of the reference material imprinted on it.

Guy, here are a couple of recent reliable sources in Norwegian, one from NRK and two from the Svalbard Post, detailing the project. Interestingly, after considering the point discussed above, I thought this was a bit of a peculiar project, insofar as, even with their present optimal process, the materials would last but a thousand years. That seems like an all too brief period in the kind of doomsday scenario so catastrophic that no-one anywhere else is maintaining accurate records. But one of the administrators interviewed in the Norwegian sources makes clear that there is a second motive, in that these archives will be time capsules, and if there is ever purging of historically relevant facts or misinformation so severe as to obscure the record, parties in the future can reference the archives to sift the fantasy from the reality (well, at least insofar as we, and the materials we produce are thought to be faithful and accurate agents for recording what is going on right now; god help future historians who will already have a hard enough task trying to understand what was happening in this particular moment in time!) Snow ^{let's rap} 06:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you even reading the Currant Bun? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... A few of my dearest drinking pals at the local pub enjoy reading the Currant Bun -or at least looking at page three. It has few (if any) polysyllabic words and does not force them to think too much. So long as they comprehend the phrase "its your round next – get them in" I like to stay in their company. They are also very good at plumbing, laying floor tiles and many other thing that I need done around the house but can't be bothered to do myself.--Aspro (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The British Library has several nuclear proof vaults scattered around the UK (so a friend who works there told me). One is in near Whitby. Anything that is published in the UK has to be deposited at the British Library, and copies are placed in these vaults. ^[1] This means the British Library, and by extension the people of the UK, own one of the largest porn collections. --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to Boston Spa, near Wetherby, rather than Whitby. And it's far from nuke-proof. The site at Thorp Arch Trading Estate began as ROF Thorpe Arch, a munitions filling factory. Like most things in the area, it's there because of Wetherby's good transport links. The "bunkers" there aren't nuke proof, almost all aren't bunkers they're open-roofed berms around stuff that might go bang itself and the library doesn't even use them. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious of any popular press that emphasizes Svalbard's role as a "doomsday vault". That's really the smallest part of its purpose. It's not really plausible that in a Hollywood style Armageddon would happen and then farmers of the world would hike up to Svalbard to get some seed packets.

It's an offsite backup for other existing seed-banks, and a hedge against extinction for many crop species, but the idea that it's a Garden of Eden Construction Kit is mostly an invention of the popular press. ApLundell (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/legaldeposit/

Strawberry variety - "Trollope's Victoria"

I would be grateful to learn more about the strawberry variety "Trollope's Victoria". I have seen it mentioned in various 19th Century horticultural works, but haven't seen anything more recent. I particularly am interested in just who the Trollope was after whom it is named. I ask because we have a portrait of a "remarkably fine" strawberry grown by my ancestor James Trollope in 1861 at Marston Rectory where he was the gardener. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently its named was changed to "Duke of Edinburgh" by the early 20th century, but I haven't looked at more recent sources than that [10]. Looking through 19th century horticultural journals I only see passing mentions of the strawberry. Maybe you can find something informative in more recent work under the new(er) name. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name Trollope during the 19th century would most immediately be associated with the novellist Anthony Trollope 1815 - 1882, a relative of the Trollope baronets whose line of baronetcy was created in 1642. Blooteuth (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he was noted for his green fingers though. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Trollope did grow strawberries. Check through his autobiography here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, only two mentions though, and no indication that he came up with any new varieties. DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily named after a historical person. In English, a trollop is a promiscuous woman or prostitute. Akld guy (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely that a fruit would be named after a woman as described by Akld guy. Most plant varieties are named after the person who bred them. 86.169.56.176 (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was named after a woman. There is the possibility, for those who see beyond the superficial, that the name was originally a nickname. Akld guy (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Trollope's Victoria" suggests it was bred by a "Trollope" and named after a "Victoria". If only we could think of a famous Victoria of the Victorian era after whom people might have wanted to name things. That was a joke, in case you are hard of thinking. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.bl.uk/aboutus/legaldeposit/

[1]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 March 28

Contents