In the Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers (Vol.
1 [1751], p. 191), Denis Diderot's article about the plant is listed under the heading Aguaxima, a common Portuguese name for the plant.
The entry is notable not for its one-sentence description of its subject ("Aguaxima, a plant growing in Brazil and on the islands of South America."),
but for Diderot's editorializing that follows it.
Frustrated by the uselessness of such a poor article, he muses about what audience it could possibly serve.
His conclusion is a succinct critique of the popular assumption that encyclopedias should be measured according to their breadth or comprehensiveness rather than quality.

Aguaxima, a plant growing in Brazil and on the islands of South America.
This is all that we are told about it; and I would like to know for whom such descriptions are made.
It cannot be for the natives of the countries concerned, who are likely to know more about the aguaxima than is contained in this description, and who do not need to learn that the aguaxima grows in their country.
It is as if you said to a Frenchman that the pear tree is a tree that grows in France, in Germany, etc .
It is not meant for us either, for what do we care that there is a tree in Brazil named aguaxima, if all we know about it is its name?
What is the point of giving the name?
It leaves the ignorant just as they were and teaches the rest of us nothing.
If all the same I mention this plant here, along with several others that are described just as poorly, then it is out of consideration for certain readers who prefer to find nothing in a dictionary article or even to find something stupid than to find no article at all.
In the Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers (Vol. 1 [1751], p. 191), Denis Diderot's article about the plant is listed under the heading Aguaxima, a common Portuguese name for the plant. The entry is notable not for its one-sentence description of its subject ("Aguaxima, a plant growing in Brazil and on the islands of South America."), but for Diderot's editorializing that follows it. Frustrated by the uselessness of such a poor article, he muses about what audience it could possibly serve. His conclusion is a succinct critique of the popular assumption that encyclopedias should be measured according to their breadth or comprehensiveness rather than quality.
Aguaxima, a plant growing in Brazil and on the islands of South America. This is all that we are told about it; and I would like to know for whom such descriptions are made. It cannot be for the natives of the countries concerned, who are likely to know more about the aguaxima than is contained in this description, and who do not need to learn that the aguaxima grows in their country. It is as if you said to a Frenchman that the pear tree is a tree that grows in France, in Germany, etc . It is not meant for us either, for what do we care that there is a tree in Brazil named aguaxima, if all we know about it is its name? What is the point of giving the name? It leaves the ignorant just as they were and teaches the rest of us nothing. If all the same I mention this plant here, along with several others that are described just as poorly, then it is out of consideration for certain readers who prefer to find nothing in a dictionary article or even to find something stupid than to find no article at all.
Urena lobata