I was pleasantly surprised that the article didn't trot out the now-debunked watermelon painting which so often headlines the more pop-sci articles on this subject.
Considering that Brueghel proved "modern" watermelons, which are much sweeter, existed at the time, I think it's more likely Stanchi just decided it looked better with black seeds instead of white.
Possibly, but debunked suggest a degree of certainty that’s clearly missing. He may have also chosen the variety simply due to visual appeal over taste etc.
Still, "Giovanni Stanchi's painting from the 17th century shows how much watermelon has changed" is a fundamentally incorrect statement even if he was accurately depicting a variety of watermelon. It would be a now-uncommon or extinct cultivar, not the precursor to modern watermelons since they already existed. It's like showing a painting of a Salish Wool Dog and remarking on how it shows dogs have changed.
Except different breeds of apples etc are still called apples. If a type of watermelon went from common to extreme rarity that’s a change in what’s being planted and consumed. Presumably because of some issues with the earlier version of what we are now consuming.
It gives the lay reader a false impression that today's watermelons are direct descendants of Stanchi's type in the same way today's corn is a direct descendant of teosinte.
That’s really only speaking to the ignorance of readers as progressive refinement in agriculture generally involves close relatives rather than direct descendants. Disease resistance for example is frequently the issue causing such jumps. Availability is what’s important to consumers not genetic history.
Very neat. It sounds like they're curating a dataset ripe for machine learning.
> ripe for machine learning.
Yes, that might be the fruit of their labour.
> Initially, the scientist theorized that Snyders, who specialized in still-life paintings featuring fruit, vegetables and animals, lacked talent.