Talk:Bleeding canker of horse chestnut

Disambiguation

Canker infections of horse chestnut by other pathogens also are known as "bleeding canker of horse chestnut". Example:

• Brasier, C. M.; Strouts, R. G. (1976). "New records of Phytophthora on trees in Britain. I. Phytophthora root rot and bleeding canker of Horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum L.)". European Journal of Forest Pathology. 6: 129–136.

--Una Smith (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. It's why I included the phrase "Previous incidences of bleeding cankers on horse chestnuts were caused by other pathogens including the fungus Phytophthora." But that was 1976, and as far as I can work out, the disease which is now threatening all the horse chestnuts in GB is the Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi infection. All the sources I have seen all call this infection bleeding canker of horse chestnut. I'll add your ref to that sentence, buyt how else should we amend the article to make it clearer? Hallucegenia (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In North America since the 1940's "bleeding canker of horse chestnut" (and variants) has referred to Phytophthora infection. So although at present there is no disambiguation required on Wikipedia, nonetheless the page name may confuse or annoy readers. I would rename this article to Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi or something like that. --Una Smith (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to rename this article, as references in the UK to "Bleeding canker of horse chestnut" are now specifically about the Pseudomonas infection. And this interpretation is getting more news coverage, so even if we did rename this article, we would still need a Bleeding Canker of Horse Chestnut redirect.

Clearly we need to expand the single sentence on Phytophthora infection, to give a more world-wide view of the subject. Perhaps the article should have two sections, one on Phytophthora and related infections, and one on the current Pseudomonas epidemic in Europe that is threatening to wipe out the the entire species in the UK. I'll give it a go, but can I ask you to review what I say about the Phytophthora infection? I don't have ready access to 30 year old issues of forest pathology journals. Thanks in advance. Hallucegenia (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum this calls for disambiguation via hatnotes, but in light of our discussion I think a disambiguation page is in order. This article would still give the UK vernacular name in its lede. The disambiguation page would look something like this:

Bleeding canker of horse chestnut may refer to:

• Phytophthora infection of horse chestnut trees in North America since 1940
• Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi infection of horse chestnut trees in Europe since ...

--Una Smith (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging by this, the current outbreak of this Pseudomonas was at first mistaken for Phytophthora, hence acquired the vernacular name of the older pathogen. This needs to be explained, but the explanation is as simple as "initially the outbreak was attributed to a different pathogen (Phytophthora) that was responsible for mass die-off of horse chestnut trees in the 1940s worldwide." Move all other content about Phytophthora to the other article or another new article. --Una Smith (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section on fungal infections. Does that address the problem? Hallucegenia (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You want the article to be about a disease symptom? The convention on Wikipedia articles on medical symptoms is to describe the symptoms and list the causes. Discussion of the causes themselves (toxin or disease biology, history, epidemiology) is in separate articles, one for each cause. So either we have 2 articles, each one about a separate pathogen that happens to share a vernacular name; or we have 3 articles, one about the symptoms and two about the pathogens. --Una Smith (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reorganized the article into disease, and separate causes. I am assuming the symptoms and treatment are properly independent of the cause. --Una Smith (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Faulty Information

Section 1.2 states that 'Phytophthora was responsible for mass die-off of horse chestnut trees in the 1940s worldwide, and is still the principal agent of bleeding canker on horse chestnuts in North America.' I am fairly certain that this statement refers to the chestnut blight fungus Cryphonectria parasitica and to the devastation of the American Chestnut, as I was unable to find any documentation to support this statement. It has already been noted that it lacks citation. 82.35.88.128 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bleeding canker of horse chestnut. 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/20091009022651/http://www.kastanjeziekte.wur.nl:80/uk/index_uk.htm to http://www.kastanjeziekte.wur.nl/uk/index_uk.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619171316/http://www.jcaac.com:80/conquer.htm to http://www.jcaac.com/conquer.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009022651/http://www.kastanjeziekte.wur.nl:80/uk/index_uk.htm to http://www.kastanjeziekte.wur.nl/uk/index_uk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)