Quote:
Originally Posted by gnappi
I "think" many say these are not edible because of the seeds. Jeez, if this is the case, I'd have to stop eating a LOT of other fruits like guava, cactus pear, watermelon, sapodilla and more!
|
There are no seeds in the fruit of this variety, you can see fruits cut in half in the photo album I posted, the fruit is seedless. I think people say they are inedible because the real M. acuminata subsp. zebrina and M. acuminata subsp. sumatrana are wild, seeded plants. I think also they are normally just sold for their beautiful looks, and so people tend to think they must only be for their looks, and the fruit is of no interest and therefore assumed to not be edible. Compared with a good fruit producing cultivar, it also tends to have a very poor yield.
This plant is routinely assumed to be one of those subspecies, which it is not, and also those two wild taxa are erroneously assumed to be synonymous with each other, which they are not. Aside from the botanical taxonomy among M. acuminata taxa needing revision, the plant in question is not either of those two wild taxa. It is something else, I have some theories of it's origins, but no solid proof yet.
Here is a gallery of photos of truly wild-type Musa acuminata which are allied to the M. acuminata subsp. zebrina (like I said, the botanical taxonomy of the various M. acuminata taxa is in need of revision and somewhat complicated). You can see they are quite different from the edible red-leaved plant in question, these plants are tall and very slender, with upright leaves, very small and seeded fruit when pollinated, no pulp or seeds when not pollinated (i.e. non-parthenocarpic), and no persistent bracts on the rachis. These plants are occasionally seen in the nursery trade, but are much rarer than the weird edible one, and when they are sold they are generally under the same set of names as the edible one they are confused with.
https://goo.gl/photos/uP8iySJmtuvMrrXm8