Finger millet (Eleusine coracana), or "ragi," is sometimes listed among "minor" or "small" millets, and sometimes among "major" millets. But do these categories make sense anymore? Years ago, I was given to understand that sorghum and pearl millet were the "major millets" and that had to do with relative size, and perhaps extent of cultivation worldwide. That distinction also took account of the nature of their seed coverings (i.e., lack of a hull on these grains). By contrast, "minor" or "small" millets were pretty much everything else, and understood to have hulled grains. So, for example, the 2025 book that David posted about - "Minor Millets: Cultivation, Breeding, Genomics and Uses" - considers finger millet among the minor millets. More recently, I've seen reference to finger millet as one of the major millets, based on its seed coat not being a hull (along the lines of sorghum and pearl millet) and, in the Indian context, its level of production (globally, however, finger millet is less widely cultivated than foxtail or proso, which are always listed among the "minor" or "small" millets). So, finger millet is alternatively grouped with other millets that are physically smaller, or with other grains that have no hard hulls ("major millets"). Enter, tiny teff and big adlay (Job's tears), which kind of break this system. Would teff's lack of a hull make it a major millet? Would adlay's being hulled (hard in wild varieties but soft in varieties cultivated for food) place it among the "small millets"? A more useful distinction seems to be that between "hulled grain" and "naked grain" millets (per ICRISAT"s Smart Food initiative). Focusing on this salient, physical aspect - whether or not the grains have inedible hulls that need to be removed before use as food - might be more useful for research and for discussions of processing. Anyway, those are some thoughts on this question. What are yours? Don Don Osborn, PhD (East Lansing, MI, US) North American Millets Alliance