Semoga apa yang bakal saya tampilkan kepada anda pada kali ini dapat membantu anda. Pada terbitan blog saya pada kali ini saya ingin berkongsi dengan anda tentang sejenis tanaman yang begitu comel, bulat dan berwarna meah, iaitu TOMATO. Saya ingi bertanyakan kepada anda satu soalan tentang tomato ini. Adakah tomato ini tergolong dalam golongan sayur atau buah? Pasti anda sendiri tertanya-tanya apakah buah ini tergolong dikalangan buah atau sayur. Sedangkan saya sendiri tertanya-tanya adakah tomato ini tergolong didalam buah atau sayur pada awalnya.
ASAL NAMA TOMATO DAN KELUARGA TOMATO
Baiklah, saya ingin berkongsi dengan anda tentang salasilah tomato ini. Menurut para pakar yang terlibat dengan pertanian, mereka mengatakan bahawa asal-usul tomato ini pada asalnya bukanlah nama tomato. Tetapi nama asalnya ialah POMME d'AMORE yang membawa maksud Epal Cinta. Ini adalah kerana jika dilihat pada sifat tanaman ini yang bulat seperti buah epal dan berwarna seperti buah epal itu sendiri. Namun para pakar menyatakan bahawa ini berlaku salah faham pada asal-usul namanya. Sesetngah pakar memberi nama POMME d' MORO yang membawa maksud Epal Dari Moro.
Namun menurut kajian pakar menyatakan bahawa tomato pada hari ini adalah berasal dari negara Peru dan kebanyakan tomato boelh di dapati di Andes. Pada ketika itu, tomato telah dibawa ke Amerika Syarikat di bahagian Selatan dan Tengah negara tersebut. Di sini bermulanya penanaman tomato dengan meluas
Ahli botani awal telah mengiktiraf tomato ini di dalam keluarga Solanaceae, nama yang berasal dari negara Solanum Latin. Pada tahun 1962, pengkelasan tomato telah di terima pakai oleh seorang ahli botani yang bernama Yusuf Pitton de Tournefot, Alpes Maritimes. Klasifikasi yang mereka usulkan akan menebus maruah tomato yang mengalami zaman kegelapan. Yusuff Pitton meletakan tomato ini dalam Solanaceae di mana panggilan spesifikasi utnuk tomato ini adalah Lycopersicon yang membawa maksud Serigala Pic.
Yussuf Pitton de Tournefat
Wolfpfirsich adalah nama lain bagi tomato yang membawa maksu TEPAT yang diambil dari perkataan yunani yang menggunakan perkataan lama Jerman.
Pada tahun 1753, Carl Linnaues, seorang ahli botani yang berasal dari Sweden adalah seorang pakar botani didalam bidang Taxonomi malah Carl Linnaues telah diangkat sebagai Bapa Taxonomi kerana menemui bidang baru didalam kajian Botani.
CARL LINNAUES
Carl Linnaues mempunyai pendapat yang bercanggah dengan Yussuf Pitton de Tournefat didalam kajiannya berkenaan dengan salasilah tomato ini. Carl Linnaues telah mengambil tindakan dengan memberikan tambahan nama kepada tomato ini. Ini kerana SOLANACEAE LYCOPERSICON sendiri membawa maksu racun dan serigala. Jadi bagi mengelakan salah faham dikalangan masyarakat atau penggemar makanan berasaskan tumbuhan ini, Carl telah meletakkan nama ESCULENTUM yang membawa maksud BOLEH DIMAKAN.
Dengan ini maka terhasil nama baru bagi tomato iaitu SOLANACEAE LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM atau lebih dikenali dengan nama LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM.
Mengikut sejarah perkembangan tomato ini, tomato mengalami perjalanan yang begitu panjang sekali dengan pelbagai pandangan dan persepsi yang berlaku di kalangan masyarakat semasa di awal kemunculan tomato ini. Tomato ini dikatakan telah mula berkembang sekitar tahun 1800 masihi keseluruh pelusuk dunia dengan begitu pesat sekali. Malah di awal kemunculan tomato ini, masyarakat dunia telah menggunakan tomato ini dengan pelbagai kaedah dan cara seperti untuk perubatan dan makanan dan sebagainya. Makanan sebagai contoh, diperingkat awal kemunculannya, masyarakat menggunakan tomato sebagai rempah ratus dan juga dijadikan sebagai cuka untuk menyedapkan lagi masakan.
Anda pasti tidak dapat jawapan lagi kepada persoalan yang saya timbulkan di awal artikel blog saya ini bukan? jadi mari kita ikuti kisah ini untuk mengetahu dengan lebih lanjut sama ada tomato ini tergolong dikalangan buah atau sayur.
Kisahnya bermula di Amerika Syarikat pada tahun 1887. Di mana pada ketika itu, Amerika Syarikat mengalami perkembengan ekonomi yang begitu pesat didalam pelbagai sektor. Sektor pertanian tdiak terkecuali. Dan apabila berlakunya eksport dan import bagi sektor pertanian, pihak imegresen akan melakukan pemerikasaan bagi setiap barang yang di import. Termasuk tomato yang telah didagangkan di pelabuhan Amerika Syarikat.
Pada tahun tersbut iaitu 1887, menurut undang-undang Amerika Syarikat, 10% duti dan cukai akan dikenakan kepada semua jenis sayur-sayuran tetapi tidak pada buah-buahan. Maka berlaku perselisihan faham diantara seorang pengimport yang bernama John Nix dengan seorang pemungut cukai yang bernama Edward L. Hedden. Pertelingkahan mereka adalah apabila pemungut cukai mengatakan bahawa tomato adalah sayur-sayuran manakala John Nix mengatakan bahawa tomato adalah buah-buahan. Dan John Nix berkeras mengatakan bahawa tomato adalah buah-buahan. Dan harus dikecualikan cukai. Dan apabila pertelingkahan ini berlaku, maka kes ini terus dibawa ke mahkamah Amerika Syarikat. Sila baca artikel
Nix v . Hedden , 149 US 304 ( 1893 ) yang dipetik dari laman web supreme.justia.com
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
The court takes judicial notice of the ordinary meaning of all words in our tongue, and dictionaries are admitted not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court.
Tomatoes are "vegetables," and not "fruit," within the meaning of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121.
Page 149 U. S. 305
This was an action brought February 4, 1887, against the collector of the port of New York to recover back duties paid under protest on tomatoes imported by the plaintiff from the West Indies in the spring of 1886, which the collector assessed under "Schedule G. -- Provisions" of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, imposing a duty on "vegetables in their natural state, or in salt or brine, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, ten percentum ad valorem," and which the plaintiffs contended came within the clause in the free list of the same act, "Fruits, green, ripe, or dried, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act." 22 Stat. 504, 519.
At the trial, the plaintiff's counsel, after reading in evidence definitions of the words "fruit" and "vegetables" from Webster's Dictionary, Worcester's Dictionary, and the Imperial Dictionary, called two witnesses, who had been for thirty years in the business of selling fruit and vegetables, and asked them, after hearing these definitions, to say whether these words had "any special meaning in trade or commerce, different from those read."
One of the witnesses answered as follows:
"Well, it does not classify all things there, but they are correct as far as they go. It does not take all kinds of fruit or vegetables; it takes a portion of them. I think the words 'fruit' and 'vegetable' have the same meaning in trade today that they had on March 1, 1883. I understand that the term 'fruit' is applied in trade only to such plants or parts of plants as contain the seeds. There are more vegetables than those in the enumeration given in Webster's Dictionary under the term 'vegetable,' as 'cabbage, cauliflower, turnips, potatoes, peas, beans, and the like,' probably covered by the words 'and the like.'"
The other witness testified:
"I don't think the term 'fruit' or the term 'vegetables' had, in March, 1883, and prior thereto, any special meaning in trade and commerce in this country different from that which I have read here from the dictionaries."
The plaintiff's counsel then read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word "tomato."
Page 149 U. S. 306
The defendant's counsel then read in evidence from Webster's Dictionary the definitions of the words "pea," "egg plant," "cucumber," "squash," and "pepper."
The plaintiff then read in evidence from Webster's and Worcester's dictionaries the definitions of "potato," "turnip," "parsnip," "cauliflower," "cabbage," "carrot," and "bean."
No other evidence was offered by either party. The court, upon the defendant's motion, directed a verdict for him, which was returned, and judgment rendered thereon. 39 F. 109. The plaintiffs duly excepted to the instruction, and sued out this writ of error.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The single question in this case is whether tomatoes, considered as provisions, are to be classed as "vegetables" or as "fruit" within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1883.
The only witnesses called at the trial testified that neither "vegetables" nor "fruit" had any special meaning in trade or commerce different from that given in the dictionaries, and that they had the same meaning in trade today that they had in March, 1883.
The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word "fruit" as the seed of plaints, or that part of plaints which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants covering and containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are "fruit," as distinguished from "vegetables" in common speech or within the meaning of the tariff act.
There being no evidence that the words "fruit" and "vegetables" have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce, they must receive their ordinary meaning. Of that
Page 149 U. S. 307
meaning the court is bound to take judicial notice, as it does in regard to all words in our own tongue, and upon such a question dictionaries are admitted not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Brown v. Piper,91 U. S. 37, 91 U. S. 42; Jones v. United States,137 U. S. 202, 137 U. S. 216; Nelson v. Cushing, 2 Cush. 519, 532-533; Page v. Fawcet, 1 Leon. 242; Taylor on Evidence (8th ed.), §§ 16, 21.
Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.
The attempt to class tomatoes as fruit is not unlike a recent attempt to class beans as seeds, of which Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for this Court, said:
"We do not see why they should be classified as seeds any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds, in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance. On the other hand, in speaking generally of provisions, beans may well be included under the term 'vegetables.' As an article of food on our tables, whether baked or boiled, or forming the basis of soup, they are used as a vegetable, as well when ripe as when green. This is the principal use to which they are put. Beyond the common knowledge which we have on this subject, very little evidence is necessary or can be produced."
Robertson v. Salomon,130 U. S. 412, 130 U. S. 414.
Judgment affirmed.
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.
Jadi apakah keputusan anda tentang tomato, adakah ia buah atau sayur? Keputusan di tangan anda untuk memutuskan jawapannya.
Dengan ini maka terhasil nama baru bagi tomato iaitu SOLANACEAE LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM atau lebih dikenali dengan nama LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM.
Mengikut sejarah perkembangan tomato ini, tomato mengalami perjalanan yang begitu panjang sekali dengan pelbagai pandangan dan persepsi yang berlaku di kalangan masyarakat semasa di awal kemunculan tomato ini. Tomato ini dikatakan telah mula berkembang sekitar tahun 1800 masihi keseluruh pelusuk dunia dengan begitu pesat sekali. Malah di awal kemunculan tomato ini, masyarakat dunia telah menggunakan tomato ini dengan pelbagai kaedah dan cara seperti untuk perubatan dan makanan dan sebagainya. Makanan sebagai contoh, diperingkat awal kemunculannya, masyarakat menggunakan tomato sebagai rempah ratus dan juga dijadikan sebagai cuka untuk menyedapkan lagi masakan.
KISAH TOMATO, BUAH ATAU SAYUR?
Anda pasti tidak dapat jawapan lagi kepada persoalan yang saya timbulkan di awal artikel blog saya ini bukan? jadi mari kita ikuti kisah ini untuk mengetahu dengan lebih lanjut sama ada tomato ini tergolong dikalangan buah atau sayur.
Kisahnya bermula di Amerika Syarikat pada tahun 1887. Di mana pada ketika itu, Amerika Syarikat mengalami perkembengan ekonomi yang begitu pesat didalam pelbagai sektor. Sektor pertanian tdiak terkecuali. Dan apabila berlakunya eksport dan import bagi sektor pertanian, pihak imegresen akan melakukan pemerikasaan bagi setiap barang yang di import. Termasuk tomato yang telah didagangkan di pelabuhan Amerika Syarikat.
Pada tahun tersbut iaitu 1887, menurut undang-undang Amerika Syarikat, 10% duti dan cukai akan dikenakan kepada semua jenis sayur-sayuran tetapi tidak pada buah-buahan. Maka berlaku perselisihan faham diantara seorang pengimport yang bernama John Nix dengan seorang pemungut cukai yang bernama Edward L. Hedden. Pertelingkahan mereka adalah apabila pemungut cukai mengatakan bahawa tomato adalah sayur-sayuran manakala John Nix mengatakan bahawa tomato adalah buah-buahan. Dan John Nix berkeras mengatakan bahawa tomato adalah buah-buahan. Dan harus dikecualikan cukai. Dan apabila pertelingkahan ini berlaku, maka kes ini terus dibawa ke mahkamah Amerika Syarikat. Sila baca artikel
Nix v . Hedden , 149 US 304 ( 1893 ) yang dipetik dari laman web supreme.justia.com
U.S. Supreme Court
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)
Nix v. Hedden,No. 137,Submitted April 24, 1893,Decided May 10, 1893,149 U.S. 304ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
The court takes judicial notice of the ordinary meaning of all words in our tongue, and dictionaries are admitted not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court.
Tomatoes are "vegetables," and not "fruit," within the meaning of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121.
Page 149 U. S. 305
This was an action brought February 4, 1887, against the collector of the port of New York to recover back duties paid under protest on tomatoes imported by the plaintiff from the West Indies in the spring of 1886, which the collector assessed under "Schedule G. -- Provisions" of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, imposing a duty on "vegetables in their natural state, or in salt or brine, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, ten percentum ad valorem," and which the plaintiffs contended came within the clause in the free list of the same act, "Fruits, green, ripe, or dried, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act." 22 Stat. 504, 519.
At the trial, the plaintiff's counsel, after reading in evidence definitions of the words "fruit" and "vegetables" from Webster's Dictionary, Worcester's Dictionary, and the Imperial Dictionary, called two witnesses, who had been for thirty years in the business of selling fruit and vegetables, and asked them, after hearing these definitions, to say whether these words had "any special meaning in trade or commerce, different from those read."
One of the witnesses answered as follows:
"Well, it does not classify all things there, but they are correct as far as they go. It does not take all kinds of fruit or vegetables; it takes a portion of them. I think the words 'fruit' and 'vegetable' have the same meaning in trade today that they had on March 1, 1883. I understand that the term 'fruit' is applied in trade only to such plants or parts of plants as contain the seeds. There are more vegetables than those in the enumeration given in Webster's Dictionary under the term 'vegetable,' as 'cabbage, cauliflower, turnips, potatoes, peas, beans, and the like,' probably covered by the words 'and the like.'"
The other witness testified:
"I don't think the term 'fruit' or the term 'vegetables' had, in March, 1883, and prior thereto, any special meaning in trade and commerce in this country different from that which I have read here from the dictionaries."
The plaintiff's counsel then read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word "tomato."
Page 149 U. S. 306
The defendant's counsel then read in evidence from Webster's Dictionary the definitions of the words "pea," "egg plant," "cucumber," "squash," and "pepper."
The plaintiff then read in evidence from Webster's and Worcester's dictionaries the definitions of "potato," "turnip," "parsnip," "cauliflower," "cabbage," "carrot," and "bean."
No other evidence was offered by either party. The court, upon the defendant's motion, directed a verdict for him, which was returned, and judgment rendered thereon. 39 F. 109. The plaintiffs duly excepted to the instruction, and sued out this writ of error.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The single question in this case is whether tomatoes, considered as provisions, are to be classed as "vegetables" or as "fruit" within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1883.
The only witnesses called at the trial testified that neither "vegetables" nor "fruit" had any special meaning in trade or commerce different from that given in the dictionaries, and that they had the same meaning in trade today that they had in March, 1883.
The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word "fruit" as the seed of plaints, or that part of plaints which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants covering and containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are "fruit," as distinguished from "vegetables" in common speech or within the meaning of the tariff act.
There being no evidence that the words "fruit" and "vegetables" have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce, they must receive their ordinary meaning. Of that
Page 149 U. S. 307
meaning the court is bound to take judicial notice, as it does in regard to all words in our own tongue, and upon such a question dictionaries are admitted not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Brown v. Piper,91 U. S. 37, 91 U. S. 42; Jones v. United States,137 U. S. 202, 137 U. S. 216; Nelson v. Cushing, 2 Cush. 519, 532-533; Page v. Fawcet, 1 Leon. 242; Taylor on Evidence (8th ed.), §§ 16, 21.
Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.
The attempt to class tomatoes as fruit is not unlike a recent attempt to class beans as seeds, of which Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for this Court, said:
"We do not see why they should be classified as seeds any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds, in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance. On the other hand, in speaking generally of provisions, beans may well be included under the term 'vegetables.' As an article of food on our tables, whether baked or boiled, or forming the basis of soup, they are used as a vegetable, as well when ripe as when green. This is the principal use to which they are put. Beyond the common knowledge which we have on this subject, very little evidence is necessary or can be produced."
Robertson v. Salomon,130 U. S. 412, 130 U. S. 414.
Judgment affirmed.
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.
Jadi apakah keputusan anda tentang tomato, adakah ia buah atau sayur? Keputusan di tangan anda untuk memutuskan jawapannya.
CUIT-CUIT
Pada tahun 1920, gelaran seorang "tomato
panas" adalah untuk seorang wanita yang mempunyai potongan yang menarik.
No comments:
Post a Comment