Talk:Water caltrop

Invasiveness information

Water chestnut has become such a nuisance in the US as to be declared a noxious weed in Arizona, Massachusetts, North Carolina and South Carolina, even though it has not been found growing in all of those states yet (AZ, NC, SC). It shares this honor with kudzu, another plant native to Asia. Presently, water chestnut can be found in eastern Canada, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland, with most problematic populations occurring in the Connecticut River valley, Lake Champlain region, Hudson River, Potomac River and the upper Delaware River.

Water chestnut can form dense floating mats, severely limiting light -- a critical element of aquatic ecosystems. This plant can also reduce oxygen levels, which may increase the potential for fish kills. It competes with native vegetation and is of little value to waterfowl. Water chestnut infestations limit boating, fishing, swimming and other recreational activities.

This plant underwent a remarkably short period between introduction into the wild (~1875) and identification as a potential nuisance (1879).David notMD (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  - Do you mean water chestnut (https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Eleocharis_dulcis) or water caltrops?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:135F:FAF2:71B1:E2ED:27A5:5C1 (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC) 

Old name: Water calthrop ?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you expand? Are you asking about the spelling, "caltrop" vs "calthrop"? — Pekinensis 18:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

i found this name written like above in piekarski- medical parasitology about 1962.

old form of the name ?

see morew names !:http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q=%22water+calthrop%22&btnG=Suche&meta=

I believe it is only a misspelling of caltrop, but of course I can't be sure. — Pekinensis 14:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Confusion?

The photograph used seems to show Trapa bicornis, not Trapa natans as the legend implies. Would a botanist confirm, please? --Gak

I'm not a botanist, but I think I can explain: many botanists consider Trapa bicornis to belong to the same species as Trapa natans(see [1], for instance). Since Trapa natans was published first, both Trapa natans in the strict sense and Trapa bicornis would be called Trapa natans. Thus the caption is correct if one considers them to be the same species, though one might also refer to it as Trapa natans bicornis (as opposed to Trapa natans natans). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Which photo are you talking about?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

After taking a closer look, it would appear that the "legend" referred to is actually the type species name in the taxobox for the genus, and there's not really any problem after all. I was just assuming there was a mismatch from the way it was described. It's true, though, what I said about some references considering them to be the same species- but not everyone agrees. It's one of those lumper-vs.-splitter differences in taxonomic philosophy that will never be resolved as long as there are scientists left to carry on the debate. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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) 17:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

T. natans in Washington...

Very doubtful - In fact I believe the intention was to mean Washington, DC - not Washington State. Yes it is listed as "Washington" on the Reference Note#4 . Note that is a USDA document {Federal Government}.

Haven't really found a "Trapa" reference in Washington State documents. Particularly of note, neither the 2008 and/or 2010 Noxious Weed List of Washington State. Additionally, any reference to "Trapa" is for the 'East Coast'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.89.179 (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Misunderstood Ideas

At the end of the biology section is the following phrase; "(though, the genus went extinct in the last prior to the Pleistocene)." Two points are confusing me and I believe need rework to clarify.

First, "the genus went extinct in the last prior..." age, era?? I am uncertain what is implied here.

Second, "the genus went extinct..." One of the unlisted species may have become extinct, but the section is talking about two living species, therefore the entire genus cannot be extinct.

71.15.80.251 (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The phrase was intended to state/imply that water caltrops went extinct in North America prior to the Pleistocene.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does "saligot" redirect here?

Unused, unexplained. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What's a saligot?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Trapa bispinosa

What about Trapa bispinosa ? Wikiombudsman (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Water Chestnut?

Is this article confusing water chestnuts with water caltrops? The two are not related. Is the 'History' section actually about water chestnuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:135F:FAF2:71B1:E2ED:27A5:5C1 (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No, and no.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Antifungal properties

The edits claiming antifungal properties have three problems. First, they are linking to a promotional website; this is a problem both because it is promotional as well as because it is not a reliable source. Second, the website being used as a source links back to this page -- this is a circular reference. This claim needs to be backed by an independent, reliable source to be included. Paisarepa (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And then there's the problem of how the IP is being used to evade the ban put on Home2bath (talk · contribs) for spamming and conflict of interest.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Article doesn't mention other use mentioned in other wikipedia articles.

Namely, it says that dried seed pods of this can be used as actual caltrops (a kind of weapon that when scattered on the ground can injure people who step on them.) In particular, it mentions these being used in Japan in the article on "makibishi", where it says ones made out of this plant instead of iron are specifically called "tennenbishi". Thus presumable that is how this plant has the same name as those weapons.--108.86.123.80 (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)