Talk:Aesculus

Article title[edit]

As "Buckeye" is only the US name for the trees, and the article includes information on Europe etc, the title doesn't seem suitable to me. Would "Horse Chestnut" be OK in other forms of English, too? (Apart from British.) Or should it be Aesculus? Saintswithin 20:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Normally, the main article should be at Aesculus. However, the bulk of species, to the best of my understanding, are called buckeye. The horsechestnut (note compound form! It is NOT a chestnut, and so should be either hyphenated or compound) is an exception; it was once placed in its own genus, Hippocastanum, and is an important tree in its own right. I would support treating this either way: main article at Aesculus, or main article at Buckeye, because it's a sort of ambiguous situation, since the rules are that if the members of a genus are generally known by one common name, that's the article, whereas if members are known by various names, then the genus is the correct article. jaknouse 16:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In Britain, we call Aesculus "Horse Chestnut" as well as Aesculus Hippocastanum; it's an ambiguous name. I guess, then, that "horse chestnut" perhaps only refers to Hippocastanum in the US? If so, my addition about usage of the word needs changing; I did look it up in Webster's, though, and it had the more general meaning, so it might be regional. I'd never heard of "buckeye" before, which is why I found the redirect confusing and added the explanation. I have nothing against US English but the tree does not only grow in the US so perhaps the name should be more international.

I know what you mean about hyphenating, but English plant names, IMHO, simply do not differentiate between plant species as well as the Latin names, and I prefer using the Latin name rather than experimenting with new punctuation rules no-one else will understand (or is this punctuation rule in a dictionary? It isn't in mine.) I've hyphenated the phrase in the text, though, as User:MPF suggested, to keep the articles homogeneous, and as a sign of my willingness to compromise!

Could we agree on "Aesculus" as the title? Saintswithin 11:24, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The North American native species of Aesculus (7 species) are known as buckeyes, and the Eurasian native species (13 species) are known as horse chestnut / horse-chestnut / horsechestnut; this applies to usage on both sides of the Atlantic (i.e., Aesculus flava is known everywhere as Yellow Buckeye, Aesculus turbinata is known everywhere as Japanese Horse-chestnut). I'd agree with moving the page to Aesculus (and had already thought of doing so, just hadn't got round to it); as this seems a popular idea I'll institute it.

Of the Latin name, A. hippocastanum is the type species which defines the genus Aesculus, so the suggested transfer of it to a separate genus Hippocastanum is invalid. Some of the species (those with no spines on the fruit husk and 4, not 5, flower petals) were once occasionally split off in the seperate genus Pavia (type species Aesculus pavia), but these characters do not always match (some species have smooth husks and 5 petals, etc), and it does not align with the Old/New World divide anyway. - MPF 09:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aesculus[edit]

I'll second the move to Aesculus. I've just added some external links for the aesculus genus. Mikcohen 05:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A bit more on the move - I'm not doing a whole page move, so as to keep Buckeye as a disambiguation page with the place names, etc. Instead, I'm cutting & pasting the main botanical section across to Aesculus. That means this discussion also stays here at Talk:Buckeye instead of moving to Talk:Aesculus, but I can move this as well if people like. - MPF 09:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Name[edit]

"Horse-chestnut" or "Horse Chestnut" ? Andy Mabbett 10:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Andy - the hyphenated form is preferred, to reduce confusion with chestnuts, but unhyphenated is commonly seen, too. - MPF 12:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Injured wind[edit]

What does this mean? "horses whose wind is injured". Maybe that could be changed to be more understandable to a wider audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.169.20 (talk) 16:33, 2005 April 15 (UTC)

Fruit[edit]

The article says that the fruit of Aesculus is a nut contained in a husk. However, the nut article says that its fruit is actually the fruit (called the "husk" in the Aesculus article) which contains the "nut". If this were the case, then there would be no true "husk". Is the "nut" of Aesculus just the seed and not the fruit? SCHZMO ✍ 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Seed vs. Nut" - I'm wondering about the distinction made in the text of this entry. The parenthetical entry implies a false dichotomy, since all nuts are seeds and it isn't an "either/or" situation. There may be a better way to write this, but in the mean time, I'm going to try hotlink the nut reference to the nut entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.76.78 (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disease[edit]

Does anyone have more on the disease effecting the trees. All over London and SE England trees appear to be dying (leaves have withered and turned brown). --Vivbaker 21:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Cameraria ohridella leaf-miner - MPF 16:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See 'bleeding canker' in the article. 89.240.14.127 13:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear[edit]

"genetic evidence shows that this family, along with the maples (formerly Aceraceae), are better included in the soapberry family (Sapindaceae). Current evidence shows that both Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae are monophyletic, so they could be kept separate from Sapindaceae"

The first sentence says that Hippocastanaceae actually belong to the Sapindaceae family, while the second one says they should be kept separate. Can someone write this a bit more comprehensibly? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it as it wasn't supported by any references (and have also added a couple of references for Sapindaceae) - MPF 00:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buckeye Photo[edit]

I'm amazed that you don't include a photo of an actual "buckeye," per se (i.e., nut from a horse chestnut tree). After all, it's this beautiful and distinctive nut from whence the name buckeye originates, I'm sure. Wouldn't be that hard to include! JCNSmith 22:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black conkers[edit]

I have some black 'conkers'. Are these from the Indian Horse Chestnut? 89.240.14.127 13:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy[edit]

The homeopathy claims in this article didn't appear to have any current notability - no source from this decade mentions it's use? PouponOnToast (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm fine with the removal after I did the clarification; however, I have seen the dilution mentioned on some external web sites. I'm afraid that eventually it might come back if the pseudoscience claim is used again. ThracianSlave 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trash?[edit]

"In Michigan, the name buckeye is also synonymous for Ohio trash." Is this vandalism? 70.241.65.109 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it obviously is, so I've removed it, along with the sentence about 'dying in January' which I'd guess was slipped in with it to lend a bit of false credibility. Romit3 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

A common explanation for the name "horse chestnut" is due to the old, horseshoe-shaped leaf scars left behind on branches by fallen leaves. Ebichu63 (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves[edit]

Someone just moved Aesculus hippocastanum to Horse chestnut tree and now there is a proposal to move Horse chestnut tree to Horse chestnut. Apparently the editors involved are not aware that "horse chestnut" can refer to Aesculus as well as A. hippocastanum. See Talk:Horse_chestnut_tree#Recent_move. --Una Smith (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant talk has been moved to Talk:Aesculus hippocastanum#Recent_move. --Una Smith (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of British Isles[edit]

It has been suggested that the phrase British Isles should be included in this article. The use of this term in this article is being discussed at WT:BISE#...and Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum. If you would like to contribute to the debate please do so.

TFOWR 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image of pod[edit]

Should you find the image fitting, I can offer the following image of a pod (most probably of a Aesculus hippocastanum) which I've released under by-nc-nd. http://www.flickr.com/photos/krissen/6223945507/ /kristian (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art[edit]

Sadly, we need to delete this section, and the accompanying illustration. The capitals at Reims are most definitely not horse chestnut (look at any photo of the leaves and you'll see). Art historians say they're bryony. Horse chestnuts were probably not introduced to western Europe until the 16th century. I would have changed this myself, but I'll hold off for a while in case someone wants to research some other artistic uses of the tree. Michael Pauls (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The foliage certainly is not Aesculus but almost certainly sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). See my comment attached to the Reims Cathedral use. As a botanist and familiar with botanical carvings, I am confident in approving this correction/deletion. E. Charles Nelson (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]