Talk:Aesculus hippocastanum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Where in the Balkan mountains Horse chestnut lives? Is there some specific high?--Hannu 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Are horse chestnut leaves really 1/2 a metre across?

Note -- parts of this article seem to be taken directly from a work called The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction, Volume 10, No. 280 (published October 27, 1827), by various authors -- The article is public domain in the U.S., but it's still kosher to give credit where credit is due.

Conker tree[edit]

Maybe we should mention somewhere that this tree is often called "conker tree"[1]. Marnanel 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC) --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Spider Repellent?[edit]

I was wondering if we could add that horse chestnuts are a natural spider repellent. Usually their being placed around the perimeter of the house and along windowsills is enough to keep the spiders at bay, however some people claim - based on their experiences- that this does not work. In many stubborn cases however (particularly with large wolf spiders) if one or two horse chestnuts have a puncture hole in them that is often enough to drive the spiders away. I think that this would be something worth looking into further and possibly adding to the page. Litlest amazon 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The article is about the horse chestnut, not silly old wives' tales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Northernmost location[edit]

The article says it can grow in Tromsø, Norway. Is there any source for this? I know it grows well as far north as Steigen and also can grow further north in Harstad, possibly not quite fully developed at the latter location.

Recent move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was that the article was moved back to Aesculus hippocastanum, per WP:NC (flora). GTBacchus(talk) 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Horse chestnut treeHorse chestnut — If we are going to go for the common name, there is no need for the "tree" on the end. I'd do the move except that it is being camped by one of the many redirects that moving the various Aesculus pages around has spawned. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I had the same difficulty and the move seems fine as Horse chestnut doesn't have any significant history - it has always been a redirect. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Colonel Warden just moved the dab page to its current location.[2] --Una Smith (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with reverting the apparently undiscussed move of Aesculus hippocastanum. "Horse chestnut tree" is ambiguous: it could mean Aesculus hippocastanum or some other species of Aesculus or even the genus as a whole. --Una Smith (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. The move was reverted, see below. cygnis insignis 03:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Aesculus hippocastanum" appears to be the most commonly used name according to reliable sources; and it is precise, whereas the proposed alternative is horribly ambiguous: I get 94,000 Google hits for '"species of horse chestnut"', a phrase that only occurs in the context of multiple species having that name. e.g. "There are 15 recognized species of horse chestnut.", "Infection of species of Horse Chestnut (Aesculus) in Europe by powdery mildew", "There are 25 different species of Horse-Chestnut", "complete death of the tree in certain species of horse chestnut.", "The best-known species of horse chestnut is the common, or European, horse chestnut (A. hippocastanum)", etcetera.[3] And on top of all that there is Chestnut (horse anatomy) and Horse Chestnut (horse). The current title is consistent with the other contents of Category:Aesculus and indeed most other plant articles, and I can see no reason to change it. Hesperian 01:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    Do a search on UK sites and the majority are for the tree which gives conkers. See for example the Royal horticultural society which chooses to name an article Horse chestnut problems not "Aesculus problems" and starts the article "The main host is common horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) and some other Aesculus species" not "The main host is Aesculus hippocastanum (common horse chestnut) and some other Aesculus species. Chestnut (horse anatomy) is a red-herring, people may say a "chestnut horse" or a "dun horse" or a "bay horse" but never a "horse bay" a "horse dun" or a "horse "chestnut" when describing the colour of a horse. As for one horse called "Horse Chestnut" would you seriously suggest that it a racehorse is called "Aesculus Hippocastanum" you would support this page becoming a dab page? --PBS (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    You obviously haven't bothered to read Chestnut (horse anatomy), PBS. How about some due diligence before you comment here?

    Since the above post is a response to mine, I guess you think you're refuting me? Nothing you've written addresses my evidence that "Horse chestnut" is horribly ambiguous. You appear to responding to my comment about the most commonly used name with "not in the UK". Is that the substance of your response. Hesperian 04:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

    I have read the article. One might write a chestnut on the right fore was infected, or "horse's chestnuts", or a "horse's chestnut" but in no case can I think that one would write "horse chestnut" as the name. Even if one could come up with such an unlikely scenario (it is hardly common usage) a hatnote {{otheruses}} would take care of that. --PBS (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    English-speaking horsemen commonly do say "horse chestnut", to make clear they do not mean "chestnut horse". By itself, "chestnut" is simply too ambiguous. They have similar problems with the word "bay". --Una Smith (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    Do you have a source to back up that claim? Because speaking from personal experience I can equally state that no one I know would not say "horse chestnut" when talking of the anatomical feature, as one would state the "chestnut on the near foreleg is ..." I can not imagine a real case where one would state "horse chestnut" in context of a discussion of a horse's anatomy or colour. One might say a "horse's chestnuts" or "his chestnuts" or "her chestnuts", but that is clearly distinguished from the colour chestnut where would say "he is a chestnut" or "a chestnut gelding for sale". --PBS (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    The necessity of disambiguation comes up in routine conversation like this: "Did you trim the chestnut horse?" and "Did you trim the horse chestnut?" --Una Smith (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Very well. If you had read the article I don't know why you were talking about "horse bay" and "horse dun"; but let that pass. The fact remains that the term "Horse Chestnut" is used for the entire genus (or perhaps some subgroup within the genus) so often that the specific phrase "species of Horse Chestnut" gets 94,000 Google hits. That is pretty compelling evidence that "Horse Chestnut" often means something other than the species. If "Horse Chestnut" were to become the name of the species article, how would you propose to prevent confusion about the subject of the article, and resolve ambiguity with respect to the broader taxon also known as "Horse Chestnut"? Hesperian 13:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose and revert back to scientific name.Chhe (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - nobody in Ireland bar an botanist would know what Aesculus hippocastanum is! Common that name is not. Horse chestnut is the universal name hereabouts. Sarah777 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • The article on the species, , was moved 09:12, 13 September 2009 to this title with the summary "common name". The next edit altered the lead, essentially changing "Conker tree" to "whose fruits are conkers. The revision history of Aesculus shows the first idea was to move the genus 08:56, 13 September 2009 to Horse chestnut (tree), which was later reversed. The dabs and redirects seem to have also changed, just to make it interesting there is also Chestnut (horse). This proposal is to move a recently moved page, from one common name to another. cygnis insignis 03:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Both common names being ambiguous. --Una Smith (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
To say the least.
  • I have changed some of the incoming redirects,[4] to link to the dab page. Others remain that need to be checked. If they unambiguously refer to the species Aesculus hippocastanum I suppose they can stay as they are, or be fixed once the species page is moved back. However, if they are ambiguous, or wrong, then they need to be fixed so they link where they should. --Una Smith (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reversed move with the summary Reverse move, obvious ambiguity and opposition. WP:BRD. Conflicts with NC (flora) and a miasma of equine and botanical referents. Requested move needs to be reformatted. ... and redirects sorted. cygnis insignis 03:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Another one! I was redirecting to Aesculus until the dabs were sorted. Another question, does Horse Chestnut have different referents to Chestnut, are they potentially separate dabs? cygnis insignis 04:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Chestnut, unqualified, more often than not refers to sweet chestnut (Castanea) (It transpires that the Castanea article is currently at Chestnut, and Castanea is a dab page.) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I had seen that before, I was trying to ignore it. I see two pages hosting census data and templates, will little scope for more, and an article on an important genus at one of the common names. Chestnut is problematic, it should contain information on the genus without digressing too much into 'specific'; stubby information on species such as those called chinkapins, is swamped by facts on two or three different products of the most chestnutty species. The reader would have several reasons for searching on chestnut, so this requires more than a dab. The article is stuffed with useful facts that are bigamously wedded to a common name and a taxon. cygnis insignis 09:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Once this requested move closes, then it is high time to propose moving Horse chestnut (disambiguation) over Horse chestnut. I had been thinking Chestnut and Horse chestnut are distinct enough for two dabs, so move the sans-horse chestnut pages in parallel. But now I'm not so sure if they should be separate. Thoughts? --Una Smith (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I changed Chestnut (disambiguation): Horse chestnut, member of the genus Aesculus. This old chestnut with common names needs discussion to be centralised and ... hang on! the community has had this discussion!
It is the way that articles on other topics link these terms is my current concern; horse chestnut could be linked by directing it to the genus. If a citation at Anne Frank tree gives the species it can be linked to that with a pipe, but what if it doesn't? cygnis insignis 05:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a hard nut to crack? --Una Smith (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I chased up the species of the tree, it was noted in a study on its preservation. The lead said 'horse-chestnut tree', the translation implies she called it a "chestnut", the study says "De Anne Frankboom is een volwassen witte paardenkastanje, Aesculus hippocastanum", a "white horse-chestnut". cygnis insignis 12:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I seem to have initiated this flurry of activity. The trigger was my reading that horse chestnuts were used to make Lucozade during WW2. I wanted to edit the relevant article but found myself at an article about the genus which didn't seem right. This article was picking up lots of similar material about horse chestnuts in particular so I tried to restructure the titles and redirects to separate the horse chestnut article more clearly from the botanical article about the many species in the genus, which only loosely relate to the topic of ordinary horse chestnuts. At this time of year - the conker season - we can expect many reader/editors to likewise enter this maze.

The botany project has advice on this situation:

Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same species (eg. brussel sprouts, cabbage & broccoli). In such a case, a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea).
Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preferred.

Please note that horse chestnuts have a significant economic and cultural history as a crop, having being used to produce soap, starch, glucose, medicine, wood and, of course, conkers. We therefore require an article under the English name of horse chestnut, just as we have articles like Barley, which I have helped towards FA status. An article of this kind will serve the general reader/editor well, while the finer points of botany may be addressed under other titles such as the genus Aesculus.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Barley is about a single species. The products of several species are variously called chestnut or horse-chestnut and their uses differ with economic, cultural, ethnological and historical context. They were native to different continents, where they were used by peoples who knew nothing of any other 'chestnuts'. They are the source of different timbers, garden plants, nuts (so called), and fond childhood memories that have become associated with these interchangeable terms. These are not 'finer points of botany'. cygnis insignis 13:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Colonel Warden, if you want to create an article about the nut known as "horse chestnut", I think you are unlikely to encounter any opposition from anyone here. Hesperian

Colonel Warden mentioned this page, and so I will not consider expressing an opinion on the move, but I do have several queries on some of the comments made above

  • If WP:NC (flora) is not an exception to the naming conventions, then one should be arguing that "Aesculus hippocastanum" meets the naming conventions and not the justify it on that guideline.
  • Una Smith you stated "Both common names being ambiguous" how so?
  • Both "horse chestnut" and "horse chestnut tree" can refer to the genus, the Eurasian species (plural), and the common horse chestnut aka Aesculus hippocastanum. --Una Smith (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Una Smith you propose to move "Horse chestnut (disambiguation)" yet not one of those names is "horse chestnut". For example one can have a chestnut horse but a "horse chestnut" means the tree. There is no other example given in the Horse chestnut (disambiguation) which is for the name "horse chestnut" with the exception of "Horse Chestnut (horse) which is clearly a minor usage.
  • To many people, a "horse chestnut" is not a tree, nor even a plant. --Una Smith (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
a "chestnut horse" is not a tree, a "horse chestnut" is a tree, who uses "horse chestnut" for anything but a tree? --PBS (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, you need to read Chestnut (horse anatomy) before you proceed with this line of reasoning. It is obvious that you haven't bothered to read it and are therefore confusing it with Chestnut (coat). Hesperian 05:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
A "horse's left foreleg chestnut" is not a "horse chestnut". I had a look at Google books for ["horse chestnuts"] and ["hose chestnuts" leg] and after looking at verious searches the only book I found was this one, which suggests that it is not exactly a common phrase. --PBS (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
How can it be true "to many people, a "horse chestnut" is not a tree, nor even a plant." if as you assert "Horse chestnuts (conkers) may be may be "culturally significant" to a tiny fraction of the English-speaking world" surly if your second assertion is correct then it would be more accurate to write "to a tiny tiny fraction of the English-speaking world, a "horse chestnut" is not a tree, nor even a plant." -- PBS (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact that we have an article at "Horse-chestnut leaf miner" clearly suggests that the common name for the tree is horse chestnut.
  • The "common name" here is at best a neologism, and I doubt it is common. --Una Smith (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In Britain and Ireland, there are probably millions of boys and girls out collecting conkers from horse chestnut, all of the young ones are being warned that unlike sweet chestnuts the are not edible. The tree is culturally significant to the populations of Britain and Ireland, and should be under the common name for the tree even by the exceptionally bad WP:NC (flora) guideline. --PBS (talk)

Nuts! See Conker (disambiguation) and Conker, which redirects to Conkers. --Una Smith (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why what? Why is WP:NC (flora) an exceptionally bad guideline or why is the tree culturally significant? -- PBS (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
? -- PBS (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Horse chestnuts (conkers) may be "culturally significant" to a tiny fraction of the English-speaking world, but how does that in any way justify "should be under the common name"? --Una Smith (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh I see, if it is not significant to the population of the United States it is not significant. I would have thought that the population of the United Kingdom and Ireland was more than a tiny fraction of the English speaking world? Besides which, see Wikipedia:NC#National varieties of English -- PBS (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The question is, does PBS's special interest (whatever it may be) qualify as a primary topic? --Una Smith (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Quite the contrary who but a small minority see a 'conker tree' and say to them selves "Oh there is an Aesculus hippocastanum"? Not having this tree under "[common] horse chestnut" would seem to me to fly in the face of "Article names should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." -- PBS (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth in Ireland "chestnut tree" is the near universal common name for Aesculus hippocastanum and if a dab is required it is known as the "horse chestnut" to distinguish it from the only other tree commonly known as "chestnut", Castanea sativa, which is known as the "Spanish chestnut". If someone says "conker tree" or "chestnut tree" it is always taken to mean Aesculus hippocastanum unless the Spanish chestnut is specifically mentioned. Nothing else is commonly known as "chestnut", horse or otherwise. Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
So in Ireland what are chestnuts on horses' legs called? --Una Smith (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Genetic mutants. Sarah777 (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Chestnuts or the "chestnuts on horses' legs", but even in Ireland (a country where horses are plentiful) the majority of the population are not that familiar with a horses' anatomy.[5] Horse Chestnut trees and conkers are common enough to get a page on RTE Radio. --PBS (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Parts of this may be plagiarized, as some of the language is highly non-encyclopedic, and reads very, very much like cutesy journalistic prose/dialog, e.g. "Nowadays guests enjoy the shade to keep their heads cool - even after the second Maß (a mug with a liter of beer)." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of British Isles[edit]

TFOWR 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Medicinal uses need references[edit]

The first two external references to pages discuss medicinal uses and support usefulness in treating venous insufficiency but not other conditions. Should they be given reference numbers and the medicinal uses section rewritten to reflect what they say? Gjames04 (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjames04 (talkcontribs) 06:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


Isn't it part of the Hippocastanaceae family (instead of the Sapindaceae)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)