Talk:Juglans

message: 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)
thread_title: Wood Strength

message: 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)
replies: text: Answer posted to ThVa's talk page:  They are all members of the family Juglandaceae. Jay L09 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compared to Pecans 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Storage

message: 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)
thread_title: Omega 3's &mdash; Case? Plural?  Remove? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Update to Omega 3's &mdash; Case? Plural?  Remove? 

message: The link alleging aphrodisiac effects 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)
thread_title: aphrodisiac effects ?

message: 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)
thread_title: Pruning

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Taxonomy

message: ::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)
thread_title: Units

message: ::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)
thread_title: General Articles and Composition

message: 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)
thread_title:  spiny hull or husk 

message: 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)
replies: text: According to this botanical article (in German) the walnut is in fact also botanically a nut.Isron (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is walnut really a nut? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Resources relevant to the page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The health benefits of walnuts

message: No mention yet of the durability of the timber
82.31.207.100 (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Durability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Nutritional information 

message: 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)
replies: text: Which page is "THIS page", IceDragon64? — Jay L09 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need THIS 'Walnuts' page 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nvm, I changed it. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 12:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Juglans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121018232341/http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/Hort_Circular/2004/12-10-04/12-04%20Walnuts.pdf to http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/Hort_Circular/2004/12-10-04/12-04%20Walnuts.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090803161811/http://www.walnuts.org:80/walnuts101/history_cultivation_processing.php to http://www.walnuts.org/walnuts101/history_cultivation_processing.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090826070300/http://www.walnuts.org:80/walnuts101/faq.php to http://www.walnuts.org/walnuts101/faq.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150716151528/http://www.padil.gov.au/viewPestDiagnosticImages.aspx?id=601 to http://www.padil.gov.au/viewPestDiagnosticImages.aspx?id=601
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131101232043/http://ohioline.osu.edu/b700/b700_22.html to http://ohioline.osu.edu/b700/b700_22.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150623011249/http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/hortcult/fruits/blkwalnt.htm to http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/hortcult/fruits/blkwalnt.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correction and addition to section "Hybrids" 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903221625/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1082/is_n4_v40/ai_18629649 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1082/is_n4_v40/ai_18629649
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808203247/http://counties.cce.cornell.edu/yates/mg%20articles/MG4.25.01.htm to http://counties.cce.cornell.edu/yates/mg%20articles/MG4.25.01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025130635/http://www3.asu.ru/science/journal/chemwood/volume6/2002_04/0204_043.pdf to http://www3.asu.ru/science/journal/chemwood/volume6/2002_04/0204_043.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Janka hardness comment in systematics section