For North Americans: "groundnut" is what the British call "peanut".

The article is about Apios americana (groundnut), rather than Arachis hypogaea (peanut). They share the same order and family, but are a different genus.

The article comments that "groundnut" is ambiguous, and refers to a variety of different plants (including peanuts):

> "The plant was Apios americana, also known as wild bean, Indian potato, potato bean, and, most commonly, groundnut (though other plants, including peanuts, are also called groundnuts)."

Both are from family Papilionaceae (Oh, my. I really said Apiaceae?) but two different plants. It seems that here you eat the root and in the classical peanut (mani, cacahuete) you eat the seeds. Interesting plant in any case I didn't know it.

You need to be careful with this family, is not so directly brutal as the Apiaceae or Solanaceae that are poison maker masters, but can be tricky. Some "edible" wild species are dangerous for the health at long term (Damages in the nervous system). This is also the reason for not having "peas flour". You can't eat it raw and need to cook almost all legumes, poisonous in raw.

This could be the reason for the plant being relatively obscure and unknown.

Peanuts are called peanuts in Britain.

Peanuts are called peanuts in the US too.

I'm growing one of these this year! A friend gave me a 2 inch wide tuber and it sent up an 8 foot vine real fast this spring. Attractive foliage. I'm hoping to grow enough tubers to be able to eat some in a few years...

I'm also growing them, on year 2 now. Weeds tend to get ahead of them in early spring, but they're vigorous once they get off the ground. I'm also growing edible air potato one bed over.

Anybody who's interested in this stuff should check out the books Paradise Lot and Perennial Vegetables, both by Eric Toensmeier.

http://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=APAM explains why they are not more popular:

"Because of their vining nature, groundnut would be hard to grow on a field scale, and their annual yield appears to be quite low in comparison to other crops. Groundnut is difficult to cultivate mechanically, because each tuber can sprout and grow in the spring, filling in spaces between rows."

Another interesting tuber I just found out about recently (although more popular in some parts of the world) is "Tiger Nuts": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyperus_esculentus

Neat. Speaking of stubborn, usually desirable plants: mint. Plant it separately in a container.

What a fascinating article! I wonder if the reaction to it is simply a latex reaction?

Yeah, Sam Thayer's comments about racism with respect to eating native plants are what made me want to post this. I hadn't heard that before.

In terms of the allergy, I agree that it's most likely either the latex or something else that's present when they're not fully cooked. I'd also be curious as to whether either the person digging them up or the person cooking them is more likely to have an allergic reaction than the people merely eating them.

> Yeah, Sam Thayer's comments about racism with respect to eating native plants are what made me want to post this. I hadn't heard that before.

They were interesting, but I wasn't convinced. I think it's not so much racism as those plants not fitting into traditional European methods of large-scale food production (unlike e.g. potatoes, corn, peppers, tomatoes, squash &c.). If you look at the traditional cuisine of e.g. the Tidewater region (up until the 1950s), you find an amazing amount of aboriginal foods in the diet.

I think that if they could have included something in their methods of cultivation, they would have.

FWIW, lotus stems (mentioned in the article as an extinct food in the Americas) are widely eaten in India. They're delicious.

I think that's a different lotus; Nelumbo nucifera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelumbo_nucifera) for India and Nelumbo lutea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelumbo_lutea) for America.