bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:12 pm
Interesting, but I don’t see how this is relevant.
B. napus is already a hybrid, and canola is (or can be) a hybrid.
And three, canola is derived from B. napus, B. rapa, and/or B. juncea. An agricultural site notes that "most canola varieties grown in the U.S. are Brassica napus."
This is the same as what I said. The point is that this means canola oil is different to rapeseed oil, which should be from only
B. napus.
So rapeseed is B. napus, and US canola is B. napus. That is, exactly the same species. You said they "aren’t the same thing at all".
Canola was developed to be low in erucic acid and glucosinolates (which can be toxic in quantity), but it's not accurate to say they "aren't the same thing at all"-- if you buy "rapeseed oil" in the UK, you're buying canola oil, and that's likely true in Australia too as the original rapeseed oil was toxic.
Perhaps, but that’s just a branding issue, one of many. (cf. the way people sell gabbro rock as ‘granite’, which is incorrect from a technical point of view.)
This doesn't really make sense. The stuff on the shelf in Britain can be called rapeseed oil or canola oil-- so long as the toxin level is low, which it will be because it's not so great to sell toxins. It is technically true that it's rapeseed. It's also technically true that it's canola.
Technicians don't own language, people do. But the better analogy would be crop almonds and wild almonds. The wild almond is toxic; this has been bred out of the domesticated plant. The original rapeseed oil was used as an industrial lubricant.
In any case, all this is a response to Raphael's comment: one might expect a new term to develop for an unfortunate homonym, and that's exactly what happened.