Fred the Red Shirt schreef
Because they are? Like, just because _I_ don't like them doesn't mean
the aren't cherries. If you like bitter, then you would think they are good
for eating. The birds evidently think they're good eating. All a matter of
taste I suppose.

Would you say that Pacific bigleaf maple is not a maple because the
sap doesn't make good syrup?

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote
Maple is a genus, Acer, and was that long before maple syrup was
invited.

Fred the Red Shirt schreef
That's a good argument, mind if I use it?

+ + +
If you think it will help: go ahead
+ + +

Prunus is a genus, and was that long before cherries were cultivated.

+ + +
That is not so. What we now know as maple was also known as such to the
Romans, and to the Greeks before them and propably many before them. When
Men came to the New World he found new species of maple, but these clearly
were maples. Maples have always been maples (for the last fifty million
years or so). At one time the ones with pinnate leaves went into business on
their own (Negundo) but this did not last. At the moment there is the
question if Dipteronia should be included, but that is it. No other
questions.

Prunus has been all over the place and has had its present (wide)
circumscription for a decade or two or three or so. Not to be compared to
the century (or two) of decades of recognizing maple. Obviously this is
because it is unpopular to put plums, peaches, almonds, cherries and the
small stuff together. They sure taste different. It is possible that in
future Prunus will be split again. I believe there are quite a few people
making a living by speculating (read: researching DNA and using lots of
statistics) on how 'Prunus' species are related to one another.
+ + +

A little googling reveals to me that prunus avium, the succulent sweet
cherry native to Eurasia was first cultivated around 300 B.C. What I
haven't found is a description of the fruit of those early orchard trees
nor of prunus avium as it may still grow in the wild.

+ + +
I took a look in a book in a bookstore (Pomona Brittanica) that had it that
cherries were found in human habitats archeologically back to the Stone
Age. This is not cultivation but association. The wild cherries should
occur here natively (according to the local Flora, NL) and do indeed have
smaller fruits than nowadays in the shops. No surprise there!
+ + +

It is typical of cultivated fruits and vegitables that careful selection
of seedstock has resulted in larger and sweeter fruits in the cultivated
varietals than what one finds in the wild counterparts. Even before
cultivation there was a selection effect. The more succulent fruits
were more likely to be gathered and brought to the human settlements
so that trees springing up from the discarded pits near those
settlements were more likely to be of the more succulent variety.
It may well be that 3000 years ago the fruit of prunus avium was
not much different from that of prunus serotina (North American black
cherry).

Aside from which, most orchard varietals these days are hybrids,
often hybrids of avium and serotina so that the cherries you eat
may be as closely related to the black cherry as to any other cherry.

+ + +
would be quite surprised if present day orchard trees were hybrids between
Prunus avium and Prunus serotina. I could find nothing of the sort, either
on the net or in the books at hand. However, stranger things have happened,
and plant breeders will stop at nothing ;-)
+ + +

Cherry is an edible fruit, born by a cherry tree. It too once was a
genus (Cerasus), and Padus serotina / Prunus serotina certainly did not fit
in.
======
My sources indicate that Prunus cerasus is the sour cherry. Not good
eating, unless you like sour, but good for wine and cooking. Birds
like those too, though as you noted, that isn't really releveant.

+ + +
Prunus cerasus is the sour cherry. For quite a while it was Cerasus
vulgaris. Likely it is not a real species but a hybrid.

Prunus avium is the sweet or wild cherry. For quite a while it was Cerasus
avium.

The genus Cerasus counted a few more species but never was a big genus.
+ + +

This belonged to Padus, the bird cherry.

======
Well, is the bird cherry a cherry or not?

+ + +
Tell us about the time you tasted Brazilian cherry!
+ + +

If not, what is it?
For that matter, if the fruit borne by serotina is not a cherry,
what is it? Surely not a plum!

+ + +
Nevertheless plums are Prunus too!
Prunus also has Prunus cerasifera, the Cherry plum.
+ + +

For that matter, what about the cherries common to Japanese gardens
and that grow around the tidal basin in Washington DC?

+ + +
These are called cherries because of the flowers
+ + +

It seems to
me that the quality of the fruit is simply not particularly relevent
to classification of the trees--or of the fruit they bear.

Thanks for the discussion.
--
FF