Some of the issues raised by the recent discussion on zucchini have continued to percolate in my brain, and I still have a few questions.

Although I assumed that the poster (I'm sorry, I don't recall who it is) who said zucchini is not paleo was referring to its Western Hemisphere origin, it was never confirmed that this was in fact the issue.  Are there other reasons?

But a bigger question has to do with the definition of paleo diet: is something paleo because it is what paleo man ate, or because it is good for us (or at least not actively bad)?  To argue that nightshades, for instance, are not paleo because they contain toxins assumes the second criterion - but then why call it paleo rather than simply healthy? 

Granted, a possible working definition of paleo diet is, "My best guess at what paleo man actually ate under optimum conditions, adjusted according to what reliable scientific studies (as defined by what fits my preconceived notions) have shown to be healthful or otherwise and subject to what my individual body appears to work best on." Is this what we are talking about, or am I missing the point?

Andrea