Talk:Acorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
Acorn is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] dis or no?

Hi Jim - someone moved acorn to acorn (seed) and then made a disambig page out of acorn, including 3 other items which have acorn as part of their name (but not their full name). As all of the links pointing at acorn referred to oak seeds, not any of the other items, I've moved the disambig content to a new page acorn (disambiguation), but the wiki software only allows an admin person to move acorn (seed) back to acorn - could you do so, please? (also posting this to one or two other admin folk as well, in case you're not around at the moment) Thanks - MPF 09:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF 09:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the Acorn page and the disambig. MPF wasn't quite correct there are a number of links to the seed that actually refer to the computer, but I should be able to correct those by hand. Sorry to you and MPF for any inconvience. -- LegCircus

Would it not be better for all inquiries to "Acorn" go to the disambiguation, and people specify from the disambiguation? If not, please explain why. -- LegCircus

If articles are of equal status, eg US towns sharing the same name, a disambiguation page titled with that name would be appropriate. If one use is clearly more important than the others, eg Paris France, then that holds the name, while all the other uses of Paris go on the disambiguation page. Another example is Penguin.

It is my view that the large majority of people searchinging for acorn will be expecting the seed of the oak tree, so that should be the direct link, with other uses on the disamb page. It also avoids having to change so many links. Jim

Thank you for your reply.

Google returns ACORN the community organization as being more requested than infomation on acorns, as is the computer company. To justify bypassing the nut you'd have to believe the nut by itself accounts for over half of requests for acorn. I would have trouble believing this. By using the disambiguation all topics are equal, whereas refering straight to the nut may causes people unfamiliar with disambig to perhaps think what they are looking for isn't there, or too difficult to find. --LegCircus 05:43, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think my Beatle beats your Penguin. --LegCircus 05:47, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of ACORN, and if it's normally capitalised, that distinguishes it anyway. As I indicated, and I think you agree, some articles are more equal than others, so the question is whether this is the case for acorn. Jim

I think that (all meanings of acorn other than the nut) > (acorn the nut). As far as ACORN is concerned, you've probably heard of predatory lending and living wage. The campaigns associated with these terms were started by ACORN.

Additionally, more people are familiar with Homer as a cartoon character (father of Bart) than with the blind guy. You see where I'm going with this...

LegCircus

Hi Leg - of the 50 or so links pointing at acorn, all but two referred to oak seeds, various oak species pages, animals that eat acorns, etc, etc. And as Jim points out, it makes far more sense to leave all these as they are. When you'd been changing them to acorn (seed), you'd only picked up about a quarter of them, leaving most still pointed at your disambig page. If I was looking for the computer in a search, I'd not look for "acorn", I'd look for "acorn computer". And for those who do look under acorn, the disambig page is clearly posted; that is the normal proceedure for Wikipedia, as witness the {{alternateuses}} way of directing automatically to a disambig page (this wouldn't work your way round). - MPF 14:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had not finished yet, I was working on it.

Just because you would search for "acorn computer" or "acorn community organiztion" doesn't mean everyone should have to.

However, I will yield if you and Jim will allow the convention apple embodies.

--LegCircus 20:36, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've no problem with an expanded disambig sentence like the one at apple, if that's what you're meaning - MPF 23:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] resolved

Then I believe the issue is resolved.

--LegCircus 15:44, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I added more recent nutritional and ecological information. Nan Hannon 01:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ACORN SEED GERMINATION

Nearby where I work stood a very large tall Oak tree. Majestic. Today I discovered it was being cut down. Why? I am clueless. There were at least 7 workers to remove this Oak tree. As I watched it come down, acorns were being strewn all over the place. I collected a few that fell my way. How can I get them to grow or germinate to one day become a tree again? I hope someone out there can answer this question. Thanks

Hi , are you still looking for info? I have grown some oaks from acorns (acorns planted 4 years ago, the resulting oak tree shoots are now strong, and about 3 feet tall ). Date when you wrote query was not specific, so don't know if you still need info.

Veduny 22:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added to project

WP:IPNA

[edit] Native Americans eating them

Doesn't that seem kind of unrealistic, despite being true? I mean, what, a group of them has acorns for lunch, they all die, so one of the dudes that didn't have any tries boiling them, despite the relative difficulty in procuring water, fire, and a vessel; and this time only half the people that eat them die.. so they boil them twice, etc etc... until finally they've hit upon a safe food? What kind of people would even try a poisonous food a second time?


The citation seems lacking on that part too. I don't necessarily DISbelieve it, so I'm not going to get uppity & take it off, but the citation's badly done at best and nonexistent at worst.70.61.22.110 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

What sort of people try a poisonous food a second time? Hungry people, that's who. This sort of trial and error process is exactly how hunter gatherers have always found out what foods can be eaten, everywhere in the world. Bear in mind the accumulation of this knowledge would have taken a long time, and taken place over a wide area - the people in one place hear that someone in the next valley tried eating acorns in one particular way that got certain results, or that their grandparents tried eating them in another way and got different results; etc etc; until they gradually build up a picture of what methods work and what ones don't. --86.144.101.134 13:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But it has to start somewhere. Where can it start if everyone who ate it died? Who's stupid/hungry/brilliant enough to give it another try? Europeans were scared to even TRY tomatoes and potatoes because they RESEMBLED a poisonous plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So many foods out there can be poisonous if not prepared correctly. Off the top of my head, cassava (yucca) and ackees. How they figured out how to adequately prepare them is a mystery lost in time. Though in just 5 minutes here pondering the issue, I think one way they could've found out is by having a guinea pig eat them (i.e. pet dogs, monkeys, other animals that normally can't eat acorns, including captured war prisoners). There were no ethics in experimentation back then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.85.211 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC) BTW I learned about the California Ohlone method of preparing acorn in school... we once made acorn bread in 1st grade, and I remember it being delicious. Al

I think they probably didnt just go eating a whole lot of some food as soon as they found out they could. They probably incorporated these things into their diet slowly, and did not simply remove them once they found they could be toxic in volume, they probably cutback on consumption, and eventually found a way to prepare them so that they could consume more without causing their own death. In the case of acorns, the toxic component, tannic acid tastes like crap, so they more than likely tried removing it before anyone ever died of tannic acid poisoning. Thats another wonderful part of being the product of millions of years of primate evolution, allot of plant chemicals that are toxic in moderate dosages, taste like crap to us. Modern survivalism wouldnt tolerate any bitter taste in a questionable food source... but if you are hungry enough, and it doesnt kill you immediately, i can see a good reason to persist in eating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.46.106 (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, how did Europeans then find out what mushrooms are good to eat if they'd never touch mushrooms again after the first one who had mixed toadstool casserole passed away. As far as leaching to get the tannic acid out goes, I bet the first ones who started the idea just came across some acorns that had fallen into a stream, or collected acorns after a prolonged period of rain. As far as poisonous foods go I'd say you had better not look too closely at what you eat. (Particularly not at your spice cabinet.) Giving up eating is very detrimental to health, though. ... and acorn bread with berries in it is just plain yummy, that's why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.23.111 (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispersal - Cause or Effect?

In the text it says "Acorns, being too heavy to blow in wind, do not fall far from the tree at maturity. Because of this, oaks depend on seed dispersal agents to move the acorns beyond the canopy of the mother tree". Yet I'm wondering, maybe they evolved to be heavy (i.e. chock full of nutrition value) in order to recruit squirrels and birds to disperse the seed? If they were on the thin and fluffy side, what self-respecting scrub jay would want to hoard that? The wording in the article seems to imply the thought that acorns are heavy for no good reason and luckily jays and squirrels are there to help, when IMO their bulkiness reflects and is crucial to the oaks' seed dispersal method of choice. Al

Wow, I didn't know the "chicken or egg" story had an acorn twist. Such developments are usually synergistic. Small oak makes small acorns, some fall far enough out, or get washed away in the rain to make new oaks. Of those some bigger and stronger ones survive, the bigger oaks need surviving sprouts to be farther out. Enter birds and squirrels that get hungry and starts eating acorns. Other birds and squirrels want what they are eating, a fight ensues and the acorn gets dropped far enough from the tree to make a new tree. Then the animal found a bigger acorn. Big acorn survives and makes new oak-tree etc. (And this story is probably already missing a couple of thousand years.) From what I read, no two acorns are exactly alike. There's a constant ongoing experiment of genetic variation on a major theme going on. Each year a whole oakt-ree full of slightly different acorns enter the race and rot or get eaten. Of those that sprout most will get eaten by pests and herbivores, unless they are really unpalatable and contain just the right chemicals to protect them from the bugs. While the "thin and fluffy" oak version doesn't seem to be a major streak, I'd not rule it out yet. Just, would we still call the tree that results an oak? High tannic acid concentration was probably not in the original design plan either, but proved successful. Saying that they evolved to be heavy to attract squirrels would sound as though the tree were looking around and saying "Hey who could I get to disperse my seeds and what type of fruit would they want?" That's just as misleading, if not more so. Lisa4edit--71.236.23.111 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melting point?

I recently heard someone was doing research into the melting point of acorns perhaps if a relevant article can be cited we should add this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.199.233 (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)