English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

If not, what would be a more appropriate word?

Those potatoes had been potatoes eaten by worms. Now, they were nothing more than lumps of flesh with nothing inside.

share|improve this question
The flesh is what inside the skin (in fruits but normally tubers) so "flesh with nothing inside" doesn't really make sense. – Andrew Leach Apr 30 '14 at 9:19
also, "they are" -> "they were" – ars-longa-vita-brevis Apr 30 '14 at 12:24
@neeraj2608 Why? Doesn't the sentence say "Now"? – Pierre Arlaud Apr 30 '14 at 13:38
@ArlaudPierre: It also says had been rather than have been, indicating the past. – TimLymington Apr 30 '14 at 17:23
@ArlaudPierre, like TimLymington says, the first sentence sets the context in the past. – ars-longa-vita-brevis Apr 30 '14 at 19:37
up vote 11 down vote accepted

For your case, I think you mean what is called the "skin" of the potato, not the flesh. The skin is the thin outer layer of the potato, which is what would remain if worms had eaten the inside.

The word flesh can be used to mean some part of a plant which is fleshy. However, fleshy things are things which are somewhat like meat in texture, not things which are somewhat like skin. It refers principally to their texture not taste or location. An example would be the centre of some stems in plants which can contain material which is a tough mass, or the contents of some fruits.

share|improve this answer
Good. Explaining the different, conflicting, connotations of 'flesh' (outer and inner). – Edwin Ashworth Apr 30 '14 at 9:31
How would you describe the stuff inside the skin of the potato? Would you call it flesh? I think I might call the insides of a jackfruit flesh, but not those of a potato. Then what would the word be? – Tragicomic Apr 30 '14 at 9:41
If someone were to say "flesh of the potato" I would understand it to be the main body, but think it was an odd usage. I would probably call it the "pulp" or "mass" of the potato or use some construction to mean the potato /per se/, eg "There was no actual potato left, only the skin". I think for something to be flesh it needs to have a certain integrity (non-crumbliness) or umami taste, which potatoes lack. – Dan Sheppard Apr 30 '14 at 9:45
I agree. Mass sounds more appropriate than flesh for a potato. – Tragicomic Apr 30 '14 at 9:51
Re "pulp" or "mass", also see Mari-Lou A's reply. – Dan Sheppard Apr 30 '14 at 11:18

Yes, you can call the inside of potatoes flesh. It is the technical term used by potato farmers and also by nutrition experts.

Only about 20% of the potato’s nutrition is found in the skin. In fact, most of the vitamin C and potassium are found in the potato’s flesh, but that good for-you fiber is found in the skin.

Usage: Fresh market potato with low to medium gravity that is great for baking, boiling, and processing. Tuber Appearance: Oblong with russet skin and golden flesh.

Please note that the terms, pulp and mass are not mentioned once in the Wikipedia article entitled, potato.

share|improve this answer
The example given by the questioner (with the worms) suggests that this is not how they are trying to use it, quite the opposite. "Those potatoes had been potatoes eaten by worms. Now, they are nothing more than lumps of flesh with nothing inside." doesn't make any sense unless the user is taking flesh as synonymous with skin, unless they have some very odd potatoes. There is good reason to make that mistake: flesh and skin are almost synonymous elsewhere. – Dan Sheppard Apr 30 '14 at 11:10
I take your point re pulp or mass, though. I'll edit my comment. I was really only replying to Tragicomic's question as to what I would call it and this isn't a forum, after all. – Dan Sheppard Apr 30 '14 at 11:18
@DanSheppard I believe that the OP phrase is poorly formulated, but how can the "skin" of potatoes be described as lumps? If the potatoes had been completely consumed by worms, then I would describe the tubers as being shrivelled or shrunken in appearance e.g. Now, they were nothing more than shrivelled/shrunken potatoes. OR Now, they were nothing more than skin. – Mari-Lou A May 1 '14 at 6:19

I guess you can:

Botany : The edible pulpy part of a fruit or vegetable: (halve the avocados and scrape out the flesh) flesh

share|improve this answer

Speaking as an American with no special expertise in botany or agriculture, I would understand that the "flesh" of a potato was the starch inside the skin, but it's a weird construction. Flesh of a fruit, like a peach, is a more common usage. See Josh's answer, which includes "pulpy" as part of the definition. Potatoes aren't pulpy.

The inside of a nut, that you can call "meat".

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.