You’ll get my wildrice (which is neither) when you pry it from my cold, unheated pot.
Almost sounds like it could be a cheese of some sort…
Some plants and animals have an accepted common name that is regarded by those who study the field to be correct. Like crayfish, for example. In some locales these animals are referred to as crawfish, crawdads, craydads, freshwater lobsters, or mudbugs. This is because people often invent their own plant/animal nicknames.
Getting back to trees, some do have two accepted common names, like Larix laricina, which goes by the name Tamarack (Native American name) or American Larch (European settlers name).
But since the example we are talking about, horsechestnut, also contains in its common name that of another properly accepted common name for a tree, chestnut - which is not closely related to horsechestnut as it hails from not only a different genus but a different family - it is proper to distinguish it from that which it is not closely related - like the other examples I gave.
Another example of a misnomer common name: some folks refer to Liriodendron tulipifera as “Yellow Poplar” - but the accepted common name is Tuliptree - which should be maintained since it is not closely related to poplars, is from a different family.
As someone who has studied trees, wanted to take the opportunity to point out the accepted common name for Aesculus hippocastanum - as I was taught by professor John Vanderploeg who in his teachings extensively uses as reference the text books of Michael Dirr - Wikipedia - a renowned horticulturist and dendrologist who has a doctorate in plant physiology and is an expert on woody plants.
If these professors insist, for the reasons I gave, that horsechestnut should be properly written as one word, it is not only good enough for me but thought I should point it out. 
Yup, and it is distinguished, by adding another word.
Perhaps if you’re writing for them or an organization that has those spellings in its style. Otherwise, for me, it’s always going to be “horse chestnut” and “tulip tree.” Nothing about smushing the words together makes it more “proper” except maybe in some arbitrary style that arborists follow.
I know that, but it was too good a straight line to pass up!
Nope.
Red Oak is an Oak. Silver Maple is a Maple. But Redcedar is not a Cedar, nor is Horsechestnut a Chestnut. Did you even bother to read my post?
Yes, I read your post. I’m just saying that the thrust of your post is wrong. A horse chestnut is not a chestnut, and if you want to make that point you say that “a horse chestnut is not a chestnut”. You don’t have to invent a new name for the tree that nobody else uses to make that statement. In fact, inventing a new name makes it less likely that your statement will be understood, not more.
Mom has one of the few surviving American Chestnut trees in her yard.
Neener neener neener.
- I have heard of horse chestnuts before, but had no idea what they were or that they were the same thing that I call buckeyes (California native, with picking up Aesculus californica as a kid).
-
I have not heard of this oneword convention, but I have seen the same justification for twoword-withdash. Another such plant is the oregon-grape, and see the convention description there. So while most people don’t use the dash/no space, Ostrya isn’t making things up. FWIW The Russian olive page doesn’t do that.
-
Brutus Buckeye is fucking creepy.
Was i the only one who thought this topic was about horse testicles and was going to reply “need answer fast?”
Well, yes, but that covers every single language nitpick ever given on this board. Ultimately it’s all about some style organization declaring it as proper. I don’t see why this one should be disregarded any more or less than the rest.
I personally like it when I can get a concrete rule like this, and will use his advice. As for readability problems, the hyphenated variant seems fine to me.
I actually wish that the scientists who came up with the term “dwarf planet” would have followed this rule. Because, when I see the term, I see it as a planet that is a dwarf–but the word actually means “too small to be a planet.”
I thought a horse chestnut was a dried up lump of horse shit.
That’s horse apples.
Because it’s niche style and potentially confusing to the 99.9% of English writers who don’t use it.
And how do we distinguish it in speech? You still have the same problem, whether one word, hyphenated, or two words. It hardly solves any problems. Referring to it as “horsechestnut” vs “horse chestnut” doesn’t obscure the “chestnut” root of it at all. And then what happens to words like “peppermint” and “spearmint,” which are both real mints, but happen to be written as one word instead of two? Do they now become “pepper mint” and “spear mint”?
You just have to know that “horse chestnut” is not a real chestnut, just like you have to know that “spearmint” is a real mint, just like you have to know that “cinnamon” usually is not real cinnamon in the US (depending on where you are), but cassia.
No, no. Apparently, it’s “horseapples,” because they’re not really apples. 
As someone who has studied trees, I would have thought you could tell the difference between Cyprus and a Cypress.
I can almost accept horsechestnut as an alternative, but russianolive and redcedar are patently ridiculous.
Well, you got me on the Cypress, I admit. But I was just trying to shed some spelling though on some trees. You are free to call the spelling ridiculous, of course. I tried to explain the reasons for the spelling, make of it what you’d like. It has nothing to do with rules of English, anymore than calling a Canada Goose a Canadian Goose. Some people have an interest in nature, and like to spell the names correctly, even if you don’t give a shit, Mr West. But thanks for the correction on Cypress, you are correct and that one got past me.
There are far too many people around here that are less interested in learning, rather than stirring up drama and trying to pick a fight. The message board has a bad reputation as a whole for this kind of thing, and it’s really too bad. It chases a lot of potentially interesting people away.
Bit o’ irony there. We’re not trying to pick a fight. Just saying that what you say is “correct” is not recognized universally in English as “correct.” It’s just (apparently, if you’re right) in one niche context where it is perhaps standard. For most publications and style guides, it would be considered “incorrect.”
But if we’re going that way, what do we do with “peppermint” and “spearmint”? And “Mexican oregano” or “long coriander”? Or “wild rice” for that matter? It’s not usual to write the first two as separate words or the last three as compounds.
Put it this way, you can say that in dendrology/botanical circles one tries to disambiguate true members of a genus vs. “false friends” (or whatever you want to call them) through orthography. When a common name is compounded, it indicates an unrelated genus (or whatever the taxonomical granularity is.) When the words are left as two separated by a space, it indicates a closer relationship. That’s kind of interesting to know, I suppose, although my googling of dendrology and botanical publications seems to indicate that it’s not a universal convention.
This is fine. But it’s not correct to say it’s “incorrect” in English. It’s absolutely correct. A “horse chestnut” may not be a chestnut, and may mistakenly be called that, but if you write “horsechestnut” for any mainstream publication, it will be changed to “horse chestnut,” as that is not the usual spelling of it.