Jump to content

Talk:Crataegus

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

Removed dead link to Photos of Irish haw berries

Needs mention as an invasive species. Sprouts from underground runners, forms thickets.--Jerzy•t 19:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorn a hardwood or softwood

[edit]

I think it's a hardwood but does anyone know for sure? AllanHainey 21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely a hardwood. All Angiosperms are hardwoods, and it is one of them. It is also a particularly hard wood in the casual sense; it was traditionally used for small items that need particularly hard smooth wood, such as tool handles. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is hidden from English speakers by its (mis)naming

[edit]

The Google hit for Hawthorne is only Nathanial, because this page is hidden under a name known to vanishingly few english speakers. 99% or more will find it more easily under the English name. Hence it will serve as a useful reference if re-named, and Latin given as a parenthetical rather than the other way around.

Anyone who knows it by the Latin name will also be able to find it if the English is used.

A Good Image of Hawthorn

[edit]

There is a better Hawthorn Blossom image available, which may be of use to the originator. Regards, 213.122.28.163 (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a hawthorn but a cherry. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote

[edit]

While clever, it is neither cited nor encyclopaedic. 66.15.176.112 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would strongly support removing this; it really has no place in the article. 92.24.92.194 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Nick Churchill[reply]

I've tried to clean it up and rewrite it in a more encyclopaedic manner. Which involved cutting most of the "anecdotes" out and just sticking with the facts (if they are facts). Though personally I don't know anything about the subject, so I've no idea if what I've written was correct or not. And it's obviously still unsourced, but I think it may be notable info for the article if it can be verified. --Hibernian (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason for keeping it is that people like it. Why don't we copy it to the talk page so people can enjoy it there, but remove from the article? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hawthorn flower is the state floral emblem of Missouri, and possibly some European states and localities. 74.223.82.114 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds poisonous

[edit]

I've removed the following material

The seeds of the Hawthorn berries are poisonous.[1]

because although it is true that the seeds are poisonous (like the seeds of other Rosaceae, apples, peaches, bitter almonds, etc.), they are encased in a hard shell, the pyrene, and it would require a lot of work to extract them if you wanted to eat them. Boiling them with the fruit to make jelly is fine. Baking them in a pie as described at the link is a bit hard to believe, it would be rather like leaving the peach pits in a peach pie (though they are bigger). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the effect of chewing on the seeds, would that release the poison or are the shells that indestructible? Hamamelis (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For most species it would be quite harmful to the teeth, like eating rocks. With C. monogyna it is possible to chew off part of the endocarp (the outer layers are softer), but there's still a quite large hard part inside, definitely to be chewed only by people who don't care what their dentist would say. There are some species, such as C. phaenopyrum that have thinner endocarp. I don't know that one very well, so haven't tried chewing it. To make a pie from that species I still think you'd want to sieve the pulp, but perhaps some people would consider the stones to be not much worse than large raspberry or blackberry stones ... So perhaps raspberry and blackberry seeds are poisonous if your chew them, I don't know. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And, indeed, some rocks contain toxins too, but like these seeds, the dental damage would prohibit more than a brief attempt (unless, perhaps, if the chewer is afflicted with pica), and so the seeds (or rocks) would almost certainly be spat out before (m)any toxins could do their worst. Hamamelis (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. The blog that is linked is rather hard to explain. Perhaps it is the result of a misidentification. The only fruit I think is at all likely to be mistaken for Crataegus is Amelanchier (which has poisonous seeds, but they are eaten anyway, and can give a pleasant almond flavour in baking). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small amount of cyanide, which is de-natured upon cooking. Kortoso (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

evidence-based medicine

[edit]

The section with the term "by evidence-based medicine..." is meaningless jargon. If there is evidence, cite it.

There is a citation. It is flagged by the little superscript [6]. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence-based medicine as opposed to superstitious folk medicine. Kortoso (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore

[edit]

The passage starting "In Celtic Folklore..." it states that Celts used Hawthorn as well as Yew and Apple trees to inscribe runes. This is erroneous as they had no Runes. They had the writing system, Ogham, which they did use to inscribe upon wood as well as stone but Runes are used specifically by Germanic tribes. This lack of distinction creates a lot of Academic confusion as there are Runes in Celtic Britain on wood and stone left by Scandinavians. I will remove the word runes but I wanted to put my reasoning here. -R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.170.164 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cited reference is also extremely dubious. 2601:643:897F:6BC0:4ED:CC75:ED24:7DFC (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crataegus. 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) 05:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing reference?

[edit]

"The wood being hard it is described by Johns as the best substitute for boxwood for wood engraving." Johns being who or what? 31.52.252.182 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find that specific ref, but there are many sources indicating the wood is especially hard. Have revised the "Other uses" section. --Zefr (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/05/hawthorns-american-botany-species-conservation/678366/

Above is interesting. It says that the hawthorn population in North America has dropped drastically since the early-mid 20th century, and then suggests that there was an unnatural boom due to European colonization of North America in the earlier few centuries, clearing a lot of forest into pasture and enlarging the ecological niche of hawthorns. So they propagated and speciated unusually fast for a while. Article also discusses their speciation and genetics. Maybe it's usable directly or maybe it can help chase down scientific sources, but if the info is valid it should go in the article. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crataegus&oldid=1232676754"