Jump to content

Talk:Juglans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wood Strength

[edit]

The following text was removed, because I don't believe it is true, at least in Europe. It is the common (English) walnut that is slow growing and hardwooded. The black walnut grows at a much faster rate, and its timber is less valuable. If it is not so in the US, this section ought to be modified accordingly.

<quote> The English walnut is a fast-growing tree compared to other trees in its family. Therefore, walnut wood is a soft material compared to oak. The black walnut is slower-growing and the wood harder, is highly valued for its durability and unique colour. The American butternut, Juglans cinerea, is similar to black walnut in many ways, but the wood is much weaker. <end quote>

In my yard in the US, the English walnuts (Juglans regia) grow faster than the black walnuts (Juglans nigra). Jay L09 (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to Pecans

[edit]

Has anyone noticed that walnuts basically look like lighter-colored, more corrugated pecans? Even the taste, while not identical, has similarities. Is this purely coincidental, or are these trees related?ThVa (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer posted to ThVa's talk page:  They are all members of the family Juglandaceae. Jay L09 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


----

[edit]

I came here wondering why a walnut is shaped the way it is. Extensive Google searching yielded nothing helpful. Are their any good theories?


Storage

[edit]

"They need to be kept dry and refrigerated to store well; in warm conditions they become rancid in a few weeks, particularly after shelling." I keep 'm shelled in a vacuum container; they are perfectly edible after well over a year of storage. 83.160.162.119 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping oxygen out will certainly reduce the rate of deterioration. But they still won't be as good as fresh walnuts; try germinating one to see if it will grow (that's the best test for quality) - MPF 10:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone know how to harvest them? I just moved into a house that has a beautiful tree and I would like to take advantage of it.

Nutrition?

[edit]

I came to this page looking for nutritional information, but found nothing significant. Octothorn 12:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page covers the entire genus Juglans. Nuts from different species in the genus have different nutritional profiles. In particular, the tropical members of Juglans have a higher proportion of palmitate (a/k/a "saturated fat") in their seed oil than the temperate ones. A nutritional profile for the English walnut can be found on the Juglans regia page, where it belongs. Jay L09 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega-3

[edit]

"Walnuts are also an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids, and have been shown as helpful in lowering cholesterol." This is in direct contradiction with Omega-3_fatty_acids, which states: "Walnuts (Juglans regia) contain small amounts of omega-3 yet high amounts of omega-6, so are likely to be detrimental in a diet already rich in omega-6.[3] Black walnuts (Juglans nigra) have a marginally more favorable omega-3:omega-6 ratio, but are still a poor means of improving the omega-3:omega-6 dietary ratio." 83.160.162.119 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the common ratio in people's diets overall can be as high at 30:1 in favor of omega-6, and walnuts offer a 4:1 ratio, that's an improvement. If you ate nothing but 4:1 foods you'd be shrinking that enormous gap. It's still a diet with more omega-6 than omega-3, but given that it's a far larger proportion of the whole than other foods (say, a food that's 26:1)you're receiving more 3s and less 6s in terms of the nutritional density. At the very least, then, it's logical to say they are an excellent source of the acid, at least in relative terms. I can't speak to the second half about cholesterol. I couldn't find the quote or source any longer in the article you mentioned, so I can't be sure what they're referencing when referring to walnuts as a detriment, but semantically the argument doesn't wash unless it's substantiated somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.233.86 (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega 3's — Case? Plural? Remove?

[edit]

The "Nuts" subsection contained the statement

One ounce of black walnut has 16.7 grams of total fat and .57 grams of omega 3’s. One ounce of English walnuts has 18.5 grams of total fat and 2.6 grams of omega 3’s.

with the reference

http://www.walnuts.org/walnuts101/faq.php#menu9

which appears to be a trade organization trying to make a convincing claim that you should buy its product.
On 2009Apr30, Flibirigit tried to fix the slipshod phrase "omega 3’s" (a contraction of "omega-3 fatty acids") by removing the "'s", citing something about the genitive case and plural tense. I have put the direct quote of the industry site back in its original form, and surrounded it with quotation marks. Perhaps we should completely delete the two sentences. Or find a more reliable reference for this alleged information (I have tried and failed). In any case, we should not try to fix a sales pitch of unclear veracity to make it seem more reliable than it is. Jay L09 (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Omega 3's — Case? Plural? Remove?

[edit]

On 2 Feb 2010, Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) removed the cautionary clause about a commercial source and unidentified black walnut species, and replaced it with an apparently irrelevant statement that there are 17 species of black walnut, together with a "fact" tag disputing the new assertion. Heroeswithmetaphors left the slipshod commercial statement. 128.84.183.111 subsequently added some commercial messages that were even more clearly POV, and spread the tag to several of the species that had earlier been identified as "black walnuts", and Favonian (talk, recognizing the blatant POV hidden inside the additional spurious "fact" tags, reverted the changes by 128.84.183.111, but left the old POV material. (summary by Jay L09 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have now removed the questioned claim that there are 17 species of black walnut, together with the commercial claim about "omega 3’s". A longer discussion about the fatty acid contents of various walnut species, organized by section, has been retained. Jay L09 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aphrodisiac effects ?

[edit]

The link alleging aphrodisiac effects[1] was placed here without a signature. The article, which seems to be suggesting that (English) walnuts are some sort magical cure for erectile dysfunction (ED) actually shows that extreme malnutrition can cause ED, and that walnuts contain protein—no news. Jay L09 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Pruning

[edit]

I came to find the right time in the year to prune a walnut tree and can't find anything.

http://www.walnutcouncil.org/pruning.htm-69.87.204.105 (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

This needs a cite: ;Herbal Treatment

In Italy, the outer green shell is taken off the walnut skins while they are growing, and made into a tonic. Used for intestinal disorders, various symtpoms we call diseases, ie IBS, etc, as part of various bitters, or appertifs, the tonic is known for its anti-parastic value.

Health benefits

[edit]

Stumbled upon this article: A Walnut Diet Improves Endothelial Function in Hypercholesterolemic Subjects. A Randomized Crossover Trial (PMID 15037535). If the information is true, it would be good to include the health claims of walnut consumption in the article.--CopperKettle 02:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. A quote from the article: Nuts are fatty foods rich in unsaturated fatty acids.1 Epidemiological studies have shown that frequent nut consumption decreases the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), with adjusted relative risk reductions approaching 50% for nut intakes of >4 to 5 servings per week compared with little or no intake.2–4 Feeding trials have demonstrated that healthy diets enriched with a variety of nuts consistently reduce total and LDL cholesterol by 5% to 15%.1,4–8 The lipid effects of nut intake only explain in part the CAD risk reduction observed in prospective studies, suggesting that nuts might have antiatherosclerotic effects beyond cholesterol lowering.[reply]

Besides having a favorable fatty acid profile, nuts are a rich source of bioactive compounds with potential benefit on CAD risk such as dietary fiber, folic acid, and antioxidants.1 Nuts also contain sizeable amounts of L-arginine, the precursor amino acid of the endogenous vasodilator nitric oxide (NO).9 Walnuts differ from all other nuts by a high content of -linolenic acid (ALA), a vegetable n-3 fatty acid,10 which might confer them additional antiatherogenic properties.11--CopperKettle 02:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the journal article referenced by CopperKettle, I have "cleaned" the treatment of this study, as follows:

  • Replaced "unhealthy" with "saturated" fat.
  • Replaced "researcher" with "researchers" in second mention to make the statements parallel.
  • Replaced "8" with "40 g" shelled walnuts to follow the referenced journal article.
  • Removed "the following week". The order of the meals was randomized.
  • Changed statement about dangerous inflammation and oxidation to deny any changes, in accordance with the referenced journal article. Replaced the apparently claimed effects on the arteries with the concentrations in the blood samples, in accordance with the referenced journal article.
  • Removed second mention of saturated fat.
  • Removed "helped" phraseology which was typical of advertising copy: either there was an effect or there was not; the experimental conditions did not "help" to produce an effect.
  • Increased detail in discussion of arterial flexibility discussion.
  • Added professional connection between the lead researcher and the walnut industry.
  • Changed "said" to "speculated that" to more accurately reflect the following content.
  • Removed "plant-based" as unnecessary. Jay L09 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section seems to deal with English walnuts (Juglans regia). I have moved the section on health benefits from the Juglans page to the Juglans regia page. Jay L09 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Nutrition Comments

[edit]
Then maybe you ought to move some of it back? I just came to this page to find out something about walnuts. I assumed that any available information on the nuts, what their composition is and health benefits would be in an article titled 'walnut', which is what people call what they buy in shops. I only realised I maybe ought to look in a different article because of this comment here, which isn't going to help most readers. The article elsewhere seems to equate 'English walnuts' with 'common walnuts', implying they are the normal sort people will meet. Sure, if different varieties have different composition, then explain this, but if you say nothing, people will assume there is nothing known.
The article currently says
which I found unhelpfull, since it states the number of grams of omega 3 in one ounce? perhaps we can have %fat (suit both ounce and gram users) or at least grams of fat per 100 gram walnut (consistent units). Also typical weight of one walnut, and a note that different species differ. I can't agree that a general article should not mention composition. particularly if this differs for different species. The place to explain about differences between them would be in the generic article, ie here. There also seem to be health benefits associated with arginine, vitamins and minerals, all of which must be in some degree generic and ought to be mentioned here. Whether there are any definite health benefits is also beside the point, because the composition ought to be mentioned. Sandpiper (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandpiper, you have touched on several different topics, and seem to be confusing nutrition with some advertising masquerading as science. I will try to address a few of your concerns (taxonomy, units, general articles, and composition)
Please consider moving your comment, Sandpiper, and my responses under the heading "Nutrition?"Jay L09 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

[edit]
This page deals with the entire genus Juglans (Juglans redirects to the "Walnut" page). As such, it would be inappropriate to deal in great detail with only one species of walnut. Perhaps the title should be changed? (However, in English at least, most of these species are described as walnuts.) If I wanted to learn about the walnuts as a group, I would be quite disappointed to see a page about only one, the "English walnut."Jay L09 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the page seems to suggest that the English or Persian walnut is the walnut "commonly" found, by repeated references to Juglans regia as the "common walnut." This is probably an artifact of the many nations where English is the most used language. (Didn't Shaw note that England and The United States are two nations separated by a common language?) Juglans regia may indeed be the most "common" walnut in England. (Perhaps that is why so many speakers of English from around the world call it the "English" walnut, to distinguish it from the walnuts which are common where they live.) Where I live, in the US, English Walnuts are quite uncommon: I see far more Juglans nigra (one of the many "black walnut" species) and Juglans cinerea trees than the (Englishman's) "common" walnut trees.Jay L09 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a complete section titled "Species and classification" which lists Juglans regia, among others. I don't know how to make it easier for someone to realize that this article is not about Juglans regia exclusively.Jay L09 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Units

[edit]
I also find the combination of ounces and grams rather disconcerting. This is, however, standard usage here in the US. Thus, it is not surprising that such usage would enter the article, particularly when a source from California is quoted. (As I have said before, perhaps the entire walnut - black walnut quote should simply be removed. In particular, the "black walnut" referenced is probably Juglans hindsii, a very different nut from the Juglans nigra which is commonly called the "black walnut." Except in northern California.) Furthermore, the use of the term "omega 3's" or "omega 3s" displays a gross misunderstanding of the referenced concept.Jay L09 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General Articles and Composition

[edit]
This is not a "general" article. It is a generic article. (That is, about a genus) It would make little more sense to discuss the nutritional value of all walnuts in this article than it would to discuss the nutritional value of all "roses" in an article about the Rosaceae. (In this sense, "roses" would include apples, pears, quinces, cherries, many different species of plums, almonds, strawberries, blackberries, medlars, and many other diverse foods, potential foods, and plant parts which are unsuitable for consumption as foods.)Jay L09 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spiny hull or husk

[edit]

I am not sure how to distinguish between the unshelled nuts of the walnut tree, butternut tree, pecan tree, and almond tree. Can anybody help me here? All I have to go on, is a big paper sack full of unhulled nuts, and they are encased in these thick spiny or thorny hulls. I think that there exist machines that can peel off the thorny hulls before revealing the nut within, but I am reluctant to do anything along those lines until I buy a pair of gloves. I don't have the slightest idea what the trees look like; all I have is the sack of unhulled nuts to go on.

Are the nuts of all of these trees characterized by thorny hulls or spiny husks?

The main article would be improved if somebody posted a picture of a nut inside its original spiny hull.

The nuts with spiny husks are possibly beechnuts or chestnuts. Walnuts, butternuts, pecans, and almonds do not have spiny or thorny hulls. -- Jay L09 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that all walnut husks are smooth on the outside.

The article needs pictures of real walnut husks, and what the nuts really look like inside. They seem to be green and yellow colors. -69.87.204.105 (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is walnut really a nut?

[edit]

It might not be common knowledge, but it was at least hinted from the front page that there is a covering outside of the corrugated walnut shell. Wouldn't that be called the drupe, and technically (botanically) make walnut not really a nut? It would be the same as almonds, from the genus Prunus. - cymbol

The walnut nut is most certainly a nut—but not in the botanical sense of a kind of fruit. The walnut fruit (which includes the nut) is a Tryma, as explained under the heading Fruit. The walnut tree is not a nut. You may believe that I am a nut—that is a matter of opinion. Jay L09 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this botanical article (in German) the walnut is in fact also botanically a nut.Isron (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resources relevant to the page

[edit]

To avoid WP:OR we would have to come up with verifiable references. I found this one from Ohio State (and others);

"Butternuts and walnuts are deciduous trees with scaly, furrowed bark. Pith is chambered and colored. Buds have few scales. Flowers are monoecious. Male flowers are borne in long catkins. Female flowers are rounded and have conspicuous, red-fringed stigmas. Fruit is a large drupe with a two- to four-celled nut."

--ComplexEndeavors 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is a list for good resources. As they become incorporated, either strike them or cut them out. Feel free to add, but be brief.

II | (t - c) 20:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like another article with a suspicious point of view. The "Discussion" section ends "The versatility of walnuts, which allows their ready use in the diet as snacks or components of desserts, breads, or entrees, suggests that their consumption would be acceptable to most as part of a cholesterol-lowering diet. [paragraph]Supported by a grant from the California Walnut Commission." Jay L09 (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(spam from chinese exporter removed) 82.31.207.100 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The health benefits of walnuts

[edit]

I've npov-tagged this new section. It's far too large, missing key information (such as what types of walnuts were studied), and is based upon individual studies rather than reviews indicating medical consensus. See WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the section to the article on Juglans regia, because the commonly available food called "walnut" is the meat of the Juglans regia fruit. Jay L09 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a nutty thing to do, at least without a very prominent link. Most people interested in health aspects of walnuts would just read this main article and have no way of knowing all the info is squirreled away elsewhere. And much of the info on health aspects available does not specify which kind of walnut was studied, so where is the fact basis for just throwing it all into Juglans regia?-71.174.187.200 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the nuts of walnut tree are nutty. There is a prominent enough link in the taxonomy section to allow "most people" to find out that the information about J. regia is "squirreled away" in the J. regia article. — Jay L09 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too am frustrated that much of the literature on the health aspects of walnuts does not specify which species is being described. However, such articles do not deserve more widespread citation just because of their low quality. Perhaps, per the comments of 71.174.187.200 (talk), I (or other editors) should be more bold in deleting such unclear content. — Jay L09 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durability

[edit]

No mention yet of the durability of the timber 82.31.207.100 (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


is this page sponsored?

[edit]

no negative health aspects, no negative environmental aspects? wow the walnut is amazing... (sarcam) Markthemac (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion of juglone under "Parkland and garden trees." Perhaps it should be more prominent? — Jay L09 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The exaggerated claims of health benefits make me suspect that commercial interests are being supported (Miimno (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

No, Miimno, commercial interests are not being supported. However, commercial interests can buy an editor to boldly add their commercial message. You can be just as bold and remove it. But not this time. I already have. — Jay L09 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Because the health benefits section has been replaced, I have moved it here for discussion: "Scientists from Pennsylvania recommend walnuts as part of a healthy diet.[1] Of the nine different nuts studied, walnuts were found to have antioxidants of the greatest quality and potency. The walnut's antioxidants are between two and 15 times as powerful as vitamin E.[1] Health benefits are greatest from raw walnuts because the heat from roasting reduces antioxidant quality.[1]" — Jay L09 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I first removed it (in response to the comment above by Miimno (talk), I made the note: "Remove imprecise advertising content. Which walnuts? Which doctors? Also "how to" statement." When the section was replaced, it bore the comment (by 209.183.22.169) "since when is the BBC an advertiser?". I see several issues here to address:
  • Is the source and its summary imprecise? (no objection so far) There is no identification of the "Doctors" in the summary, or the venue in which the claim was put forward. An industry meeting? A marketing meeting? An off the cuff comment at the amusement park? In an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (which should be cited instead of the BBC)? There is certainly no discussion of the way in which the "potency" of the "walnuts" was assayed, in-vitro or in-vivo which is an important consideration for any health claims. Indeed, the only reference to any consensus is that "nuts" are good for you. The other "nuts" (which the consensus says are healthful) which are disparaged are also not identified. To be useful, this section needs to be much more specific— Jay L09 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this advertising content? The objection is that the BBC does not publish advertising content. Of course it does. Most stuff published in health news columns is advertising content, especially if it is hawking the health benefits of some food. If 209.183.22.169 wishes to prove that the BBC does not publish advertisements, this is the place to discuss it. — Jay L09 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the summary say which walnuts? No. Also no objection by 209.183.22.169. Since this is a generic article about the genus Juglans, the species of walnut addressed in this summary of an advertisement should be identified. — Jay L09 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The summary ends in a "how to" statement. These are prohibited in Wikipedia. (no objection by 209.183.22.169 so far) — Jay L09 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the statement so it's no longer "how to". You could have edited it further yourself if it was still not to your satisfaction. There is no justification for removing the entire paragraph containing information from a presentation to the American Chemical Society. It's strange that you would remove sourced material published in the BBC and Time Magazine http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/29/the-supernut-walnuts-pack-a-powerful-dose-of-antioxidants/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12865291 while completely unreferenced advertising material does not seem to bother you at all. Why haven't you removed this material if you're so genuinely concerned about advertising? It doesn't have even the apparently unreliable BBC to support it:

"said to tonify kidneys, strengthen the back and knees, warm and hold qi in lungs and help kidneys to grasp the qi, moisten the intestines and move stool. It is believed to stop asthma and is prescribed to be taken between bouts of asthma, but not for acute asthma. It is also used by the elderly to relieve constipation." 64.56.228.62 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added many more sources, including universities. Much better referenced than that section on Chinese medicine which you left alone.64.56.228.62 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the blatant commercial content about a foodstuff from this page about a plant genus to its own new article, Walnut. I am also copying this topic and the next to the talk page. — Jay L09 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Walnuts are the healthiest nut, say scientists". BBC News. March 27, 2011. Retrieved March 28, 2011.

Nutritional information

[edit]

Three tables containing extensive information on all the nutritional characteristics of three different species seems excessive. Right now the nutrition data goes all the way into the external links section and displaces several images. I guess I don't mind the three species being present, but I really don't see the need for that level of detail for three species, which is why I only included basic information like fat, protein, carbohydrates and total energy. Including three tables with this brief summary makes sense to me, but three full ones with all the available vitamin and mineral information seems like something you would include in the daughter articles. Makes sense to me to have only the information from the English walnut or whichever is most commonly eaten. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more sense to me to have only comparative information on nutrition on a generic page. Perhaps, (as suggested above) it would make more sense to change the name of this page to "Juglans" and have "Walnut" redirect to "Juglans regia": several talk editors (above) seem to think that "Walnut" means the fruit of the Persian walnut.

Also note that the USDA database information is about the English walnut, dried black walnut and the butternut, not the Persian. The picture is also of an English walnut, not Persian. I also removed the caffeine, alcohol, B12 and any other fields that were empty. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More modest information should be presented than the exaggerated and partially substantiated assertions vis-á-vis "health benefits" and "antioxidants". I am thinking along the lines of the previous comment to include only generic nutritional information for certain species commonly produced specifically for food. (Miimno (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

More modest? If the shoe fits, why not wear it? Of course, the shoe probably does not fit in this case. The exaggerated, allegedly substantiated (Doctors agree? Which doctors?), and imprecise section has been removed. By the way, Miimno, you can also boldly remove advertising content. — Jay L09 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need THIS 'Walnuts' page

[edit]

It should not just be redirected to Juglans, but should be a page in its own right for the nut (as well as the juglans page, comparable with the other food/nut pages, such as Almond and Hazelnut pages, with the info box of nutrition. Would people favour creation of this page?

IceDragon64 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which page is "THIS page", IceDragon64? — Jay L09 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added most probable 'THIS' that is being referred to (walnuts) , since I stumbled upon the discussion on walnuts (Juglans) from 2008, and then saw the actual Walnut page had a discussion that only started in 2010.Richard416282 (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

I know it is sourced, but asserting the "glans" in "Juglans" necessarily refers to the "glans penis" is a bit of a stretch, since Lewis & Short's A Latin Dictionary, seen at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=glans&la=la#lexicon, gives as their first definition for "glans" in Latin: "I. an acorn, and, in gen., any acorn-shaped fruit, beechnut, chestnut, etc." 192.4.0.12 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that myself and am changing it. I already knew that glans meant some kind of a nut [not the kind that people ask me if I'm some kind of ;-) ], but I had forgotten the details and gone to Perseus myself. Here's the sourced text I'm replacing, with the "ref" nowikied and the URL exposed. The refname is not used elsewhere in the article, and that source obviously has some problems.
The genus name "Juglans" comes from Roman mythology, and means glans of Jupiter.
<ref name=NUTS>http://usawalnuts.com/?page_id=263</ref>
I'm also cleaning up the etymology of "walnut" and re-sourcing it from the American Heritage Dictionary. Whoever put it in there corrected the source's misspelling of wealhhnutu ("wealhknutu", twice) but went into needless detail about the hypothetical source of the first component:
The trivial name walnut derives from Old English wealhhnutu, literally 'foreign nut,' with wealh meaning 'foreign' (coming from the prolific Germanic term Walhaz 'foreign, strange, different').<ref name=OED>Online Etymology Dictionary - "Walnut"</ref>
--Thnidu (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see etymology of Juglans anymore, just that of walnut.

Tone

[edit]

The fruits of the Juglandaceae are generally confused with drupes but are actually accessory fruit because the outer covering of the fruit is technically an involucre and thus not morphologically related to the carpel; this means it can not be a drupe but is instead a drupe-like nut. These odd nuts fall into two different types: in the walnut genus (Juglans), it is a pseudodrupe and in the hickory genus (Carya), it is a tryma.

Can this perhaps, be re-written. I would suggest starting

The fruit is a pseudodrupe....

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 12:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Nvm, I changed it. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 12:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Move?

[edit]

Any reason not to have this page at "Walnut trees", per COMMONNMAME? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Juglans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction and addition to section "Hybrids"

[edit]

The last three hybrid taxa, "Juglans × sinensis, paradox and royal" are in need of correction respectively explanation.

"J. regia var. sinensis C.DC", synonym "J. sinensis (C.DC) Dode" was treated by Krüssmann as hybrid "J. mandshurica × regia". I do not know of any relyable confirmation to Krüssmann's opinion, but other sources will regard Candolle's taxon as synonym to Persian walnut, J. regia. The hybrid "J. mandshurica × regia" will certainly exist in East Asian regions where both species' may hybridize, but we got no assurance that "J. regia var. sinensis C.DC" will truly represent this hybrid.

Luther Burbank's hybrid named by himself 'Paradox' does represent the crossing Juglans hindsii × regia, his name 'Royal' has been given to J. hindsii × nigra so far. In fact both names will not represent some distinct clonal cultivar, furthermore Burbank's names are no validly usable hybrid names to binominal taxa. In other words there is no "Juglans × paradox" and "J. × royal" at all, this got to be corrected. Anyone out there who liked to care? Stamnariophilus 12:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamnaria0568 (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Juglans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juglans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juglans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

Mention how people are supposed to pronounce the J, and the rest of it while you're at it. Jidanni (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janka hardness comment in systematics section

[edit]

in the table in the systematics section under section Rhysocaryon, there is a comment that “The wood can be extremely hard (Brazilian walnut Janka hardness test of 3684).”

I can’t tell where this reference comes from, but I am a bit skeptical. There’s at least one other wood that is commercially known as Brazilian walnut (somewhat misleadingly) and that is extremely hard: Ipe (Hydroanthus spp., formerly Tabebuia spp.). The only hits I could find on the internet with the quoted 3864 Janka hardness seem to refer to this species, which is not a Juglans walnut. And in fact, wood database lists the common name Peruvian walnut as containing J. australis and a Janka hardness of only 960 which is much more typical of other Juglans species. https://www.wood-database.com/peruvian-walnut/ I am removing this comment pasted on the above. Blazotron (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juglans&oldid=1212527280"