Talk:Rowan

Missing References

(Frazer, p. 718). (Murray, p. 26) neither appear in the references list. --Nantonos 01:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frazer might be Sir James George Frazer (1922) The Golden Bough - A Study in Magic and Religion, but I don't know for sure. - MPF 11:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Rowans

I can't find the scientific name of the giant rowans growing at Luther Burbank's Gold Ridge Farm in Sebastopol, California. The biggest fruit are almost 2" across, and yellow or green, sometimes with a red blush. Some are pear-shaped, others more like apples. All are extremely bitter until bletted. After bletting and cooking, the concentrated juice is very mild, like apple and maple syrup.

User:9tmaxr

That doesn't sound much like the Shipova, but perhaps you'd want to check it to be sure. Some of Luther Burbank's publications are available online here, but I don't see a listing for Sorbus in the index. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common name in North America

Regardless of whether the common name "mountain ash" is confusing, it is a fact that mountain ash is the only common name applied to native Sorbus species in North America. The use of the term "American Rowan" is unknown. A quick check of any North American field guide or an authoratative reference such as Gleason and Cronquist "Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada" will verify this. Common names are established by usage and not fiat.

Steve Baskauf, Ph.D., Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee, USA Steve Baskauf 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The common name of Sorbus aucuparia is Rowan in Britain, although the name Mountain Ash is known it is less common. Please see the various pages published by the charity restoring the Caledonian Forest - Rowan, Mythology and Folklore of the Rowan, Factors Affecting the Spatial Distribution of Rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) Regeneration in the Caledonian Pine Forest. Zen Cyfarwydd (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any sources for the statement that witch-hazel was used as a name for the Rowan Tree. I think this should be removed unless a source is found, it could be misleading especially for someone who is, like me, not an expert. Claire T. (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Medicinal Uses

The way the folk medicinal uses section is written is not appropriate. There needs to a be a clear distinction made between historical/traditional uses and evidence-backed uses, both cited appropriately. This reads as if it was copy-pasted out of some Wizard's Guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.45.177 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous statement. The section does not tell us if its claims apply to the beliefs and practices of pre-Roman British, or the modern attempts at reinventing or re-imagining the practices of the druids. It should be sourced and if it applies solely to Neo-druidism, removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip72 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology and folklore

The documentation concerning folk belief of the rowan in the Nordic countries is conflicting. Of course not all beliefs were held by all members of any given community, nor would the belief have been identitical and involved identical practices for all those who believed in it or were aware of it. Importantly, there is literature to demonstrate that the belief about the rowan berries boding heavy snow, harsh winter, etc. in both Finland and Sweden are conflicting. I edited that section to accordingly. Vidyadhara (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbus subgenus Sorbus ??

What's that? Pliny (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sorbus gives some explanation. This page from GRIN might also help (scroll down to "Subdivisions of genus Sorbus"). Hamamelis (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merger of Sorbus aucuparia-specific content with Sorbus aucuparia

Much of the content of this article is specific to Sorbus aucuparia and is reiterated in that article. Is there any good reason why this material should not be merged with Sorbus aucuparia, thereby shortening Rowan into a disambiguating hub article for the Rowans? Plantsurfer (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the S. aucuparia specific content is getting added (and will continue getting re-added) because the article is titled by the common name Rowan. I support moving S. aucuparia content to that article. This article should be moved to Sorbus subg. Sorbus, and Rowan should redirect to Sorbus aucuparia (with a hatnote for the subgenus article). Rowan is a common name for one species, not a subgenus (most species of which are either called mountain ashes, or don't really have commonly used names in English). I'm not sure that an article on the subgenus is particularly valuable, but there is also an article at Whitebeam on another subgenus of Sorbus.Plantdrew (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have this page linked with the other language articles that have the same root (Rönn in Swedish, Rogn in Norwegian), but this is not possible because only one article in each language can be linked. In the other European languages that I checked the article appears under the common name, but they are all only linked to Sorbus aucuparia for the English article. This seems to be a mistaken policy in general. perhaps a cross reference on the disambiguation page?Nlight2 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaves arranged alternately?

The article states that rowan/Sorbus leaves are alternate; but the leaves in the photographs all look opposite to me. Am I misunderstanding something? —Ruakh_TALK 05:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The leaves are arranged alternately. What the images show are the leaflets of individual leaves, which are opposite Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]