Post edited 1:27AM – Apr-27-11 by tunawrites

I think, at least in terms of casual taxonomy, "fruit" is still the appropriate name for "seedless fruit." Sure, "seedless fruits" are mutant "fruits," but they are probably "fruits" nonetheless (parthenocarpy is the name for the mutation resulting in seedless fruit, by the way.) "Seedless fruits" must be artificially encouraged since those plants cannot propagate themselves, but, all in all, it is just genetic manipulation of a mutation to make a more commercially attractive product. I'd say that such things are still called "fruit." Or you could call them "mutant seed-bearing plant structures," but I have my doubts that that will catch on. And, if you work in a kitchen, it's probably a little wordy.

Yeah, I'd say calling a seedless fruit a vegetable not only misses the definition of a fruit but doesn't help you anyway, since vegetables as well as fruits, and all other plants too, need some kind of seed to reproduce.  A seedless fruit is just a fruit mutation, but basically its DNA is unchanged.

Might as well say that a mule is not a mammal because it's sterile, or that a chicken that can't lay is therefore not a bird.