Two problems with grute2 being the species which bears the fruit grute1.
1) It breaks the frame/analogy. xance is also a body-part, but we do not
have xance2 being a species. My hand is not a hand separate from your hand
on a species level, just an individual organism level. "xance mi" does not
imply that I am a species. With grute, I cannot say "this is an apple
from this tree"; I have to say "this is a fruit of species apple" and I
cannot get more specific than that (well, I personally believe that almost
all 'species' terbri are actually taxa/culticar/breed terbri, but the point
is that I cannot specify an individual organism which produced the fruit).
By this definition, the frame is almost that of gerku or cifnu, except
the latter is not considered to be a body-part of the mother (which may
have been removed).
2) It makes usage difficult. As I said in (1), the species must fill
grute2. This means that neither "lo vi tricu" nor "lo plise (co'e)" will
do. It must be akin to plise2. The sumti would have to be "la'o zoi lin.
Malus pumila .lin", which is much less convenient. (Note: if this were a
normal body-part word, then the species could be be-linked into plise2;
no specificity is lost - it would just be easier to say the more common
desired usage and two words harder to say the more specific, rarer desired
I recommend reframing this word such that (only) the second terbri is
redefined so as to not specify that the type is a species (instead being
implicit defined, according to English grammar, as accepting only an
Body-parts belong to individuals, not species.