newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
Hello everyone! My name is Juan and
I am newbie to this hobby,
newbie question, why there is no trichocereus in cacti guide?
I am newbie to this hobby,
newbie question, why there is no trichocereus in cacti guide?
-
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:47 pm
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
They are now under Echinopsis.
You can use this list of synonyms to find what they became.
http://www.cactiguide.com/synonyms/?initial=T
You can use this list of synonyms to find what they became.
http://www.cactiguide.com/synonyms/?initial=T
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
thanks, just getting more confused, I see everywhere in the internet and feebay Trichocereus Pachanoi, T. Bridgesii, T. etc.
and this website says that is Echinopsis
can some one explain to me please?
which scientific name is official?
and this website says that is Echinopsis
can some one explain to me please?
which scientific name is official?
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
It is kind of strange, isn't it?
Since there is a tribe with the name Trichocereeae and something like Echinops...(whatever) doesn't eksist it would be more logical that the genus Trichocereus would stay where it was and Echinopsis would change to something alse?
Or my logics doestn't make sense?
Since there is a tribe with the name Trichocereeae and something like Echinops...(whatever) doesn't eksist it would be more logical that the genus Trichocereus would stay where it was and Echinopsis would change to something alse?
Or my logics doestn't make sense?
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:39 am
- Location: Western Australia
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
yomero wrote:thanks, just getting more confused, I see everywhere in the internet and feebay Trichocereus Pachanoi, T. Bridgesii, T. etc.
and this website says that is Echinopsis
can some one explain to me please?
which scientific name is official?
It is quite confusing as most people still use Trichocereus even though the correct name now is Echinopsis. You can find this problem with a number of cacti as over time they have been moved from one classification to another.
If you are going to collect Trichocereus you will find things get even more interesting when you want to identify individual plants.
Cheers
Midlife
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
I go for San Pedro
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:39 am
- Location: Western Australia
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
Trichocereus pachanoi is also known as San Pedro
Trichocereus peruvianus is also known as Peruvian Torch cactus
Trichocereus bridgesii is also known as Echinopsis lageniformis and Bolivian torch cactus
Trichocereus knuthianus
Trichocereus cuzcoensis
Trichocereus macrogonus
Trichocereus scopulicola
Trichocereus spachianus
Trichocereus terscheckii
Trichocereus validus
They are a few of the more common Trichocereus / Echinopsis but there are many many more
Cheers
Midlife
Trichocereus peruvianus is also known as Peruvian Torch cactus
Trichocereus bridgesii is also known as Echinopsis lageniformis and Bolivian torch cactus
Trichocereus knuthianus
Trichocereus cuzcoensis
Trichocereus macrogonus
Trichocereus scopulicola
Trichocereus spachianus
Trichocereus terscheckii
Trichocereus validus
They are a few of the more common Trichocereus / Echinopsis but there are many many more
Cheers
Midlife
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
the reason is that a lot of people do not agree with trichocereus being lumped into echinopsis
as a matter of fact, I've heard about an article being published soon, reversing this
I recommend you get used to cactus names changing quite often!
another reason is that especially t. pachanoi is being sold commercially due to its psycho-active properties, the name echinopsis would make the plant unrecognizable for 'costumers'
there are indeed common names for certain trichocereus species, I for one like to keep it scientific
as a matter of fact, I've heard about an article being published soon, reversing this
I recommend you get used to cactus names changing quite often!
another reason is that especially t. pachanoi is being sold commercially due to its psycho-active properties, the name echinopsis would make the plant unrecognizable for 'costumers'
there are indeed common names for certain trichocereus species, I for one like to keep it scientific
With apologies to the late Professor C. D. Darlington the following misquotation springs to
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:39 am
- Location: Western Australia
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
I think the change from Trichocereus to Echinopsis was supposed to come into effect from around 2006 but not many people made the change. I for one still continue to label them as Trichocereus and I also think that splitting at least the Trichocereus group away from Echinopsis again would be a good thing but that's just my humble opinion.
Cheers
Midlife
Cheers
Midlife
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
Well as mentioned, there are plenty of other examples. Notocactus -> Parodia is probably the next most common of them.
Anyway, "Trichocereus" are typically thought to be columnar species with large, white, nocturnal flowers. "Echinopsis", on the other hand are barrel-like or clumping with various flower colors - many that bloom in the day time. Now, if all these plants fit neatly into one of those two groups, the two may just well be separate today. However, they don't fit neatly and some are elongated clumping barrels (or is that small columns?). The flowers colors also don't hold true, as there are some yellow and red flowered "Trichocereus" as well as white night blooming "Echinopsis".
They both have things in common and even interbreed. So with such blurry lines, it is easier to "lump" them both into "Echinopsis" than to try and keep them separate.
That is NOT the reason why they are listed under "Echinopsis" here, however. On this site, listings are either flat-out arbitrary OR out of necessity. Either way, this makes no difference as the default nomenclature here is not meant to be anything more than convenience. Lots more about that here: http://www.cactiguide.com/nomenclature/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Finally, I often use the term Trichocereus on the forum here to describe those that fit neatly in the columnar, white night-blooming category. Even though my reasons for doing so are hardly more than a whim.
Anyway, "Trichocereus" are typically thought to be columnar species with large, white, nocturnal flowers. "Echinopsis", on the other hand are barrel-like or clumping with various flower colors - many that bloom in the day time. Now, if all these plants fit neatly into one of those two groups, the two may just well be separate today. However, they don't fit neatly and some are elongated clumping barrels (or is that small columns?). The flowers colors also don't hold true, as there are some yellow and red flowered "Trichocereus" as well as white night blooming "Echinopsis".
They both have things in common and even interbreed. So with such blurry lines, it is easier to "lump" them both into "Echinopsis" than to try and keep them separate.
That is NOT the reason why they are listed under "Echinopsis" here, however. On this site, listings are either flat-out arbitrary OR out of necessity. Either way, this makes no difference as the default nomenclature here is not meant to be anything more than convenience. Lots more about that here: http://www.cactiguide.com/nomenclature/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Finally, I often use the term Trichocereus on the forum here to describe those that fit neatly in the columnar, white night-blooming category. Even though my reasons for doing so are hardly more than a whim.
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
the cactus world is full of confusing stuff like that!
Buying a cactus a day will keep the madness away.
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
"It is quite confusing as most people still use Trichocereus even though the correct name now is Echinopsis."
Classification is simply a matter of opinion. As long as a name is validly published according to the "rules" you are allowed to use it. There never has been only one classification in use at once, so it is up to you which classification you use since non are mandatory. Therefore you are quite at liberty to call them Trichocereus or Echinopsis since both are validly published genera.
"Since there is a tribe with the name Trichocereeae and something like Echinops...(whatever) doesn't exist it would be more logical that the genus Trichocereus would stay where it was and Echinopsis would change to something else?"
Names of Botanical ranks are merely "handles" to identify them with, they are not required to be logical or appropriate. You can call a white spined plant nigrispina (black spined) if you want when naming it even though completely inappropriate, but that would remain the valid name for the species if correctly published under the "rules". As to which name to use when you combine two genera, under the "rules", the oldest name takes precedence. That was the case with the reunion of Eriosyce, where Neoporteria, Horridocactus etc were lumped under it. Botanists may have preferred to use the better known name Neoporteria for the group, as Donald & Rowley did in 1966, but then keeping the few plants in the lesser known genus Eriosyce separate, even though they thought they ought to be lumped in with the others. However when Fred Kattermann did lump them in with the others, Eriosyce being the first published genus took priority and everything not previously published as an Eriosyce had to be renamed.
You get a similar case with species. When Notocactus was lumped under Parodia (Parodia being the first published took priority for the generic name over Notocactus) as there already was a Parodia uebelmannianus, the better known Notocactus uebelmannianus had to be renamed Parodia werneri (after Werner Uebelmann).
These rules, though originally intended to stop unnecessary name changes, often do the opposite. If Notocactus was split off again from Parodia then Notocactus uebelmannianus would again take priority over Parodia werneri, which would become a synonym.
For a more complete answer see:-
http://herbarium.usu.edu/teaching/4420/botnom.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Up to now most classification has been based on morphology (the form and shape of the plant or it's organs). These similarities however are often the result of convergence caused by different groups of plants inhabiting similar habitats and climatic conditions even though unrelated. Now chemistry in the form of DNA Sequencing is starting to show many previously supposed related plants come from different lines, therefore you may find classifications like that in The New Cactus Lexicon with it's extensive lumping of genera broken up again. The classic case is Rebutia and Aylostera, long lumped together but now proving to be non-related by DNA Sequencing proving they stem from different lines.
The only reason we all try and use similar nomenclature is so everybody else knows what we are talking about. That is why we tend to use scientific rather than common names which may only apply in a single country, or even just an area of that country. For instance if an American asked me if we have bluebells in England I would say yes, but we would be talking about different plants, they would probably be referring to Mertensia virginica whereas I would be referring to Hyacinthoides non-scripta and even within the UK a Scotsman would be possibly be referring to Campanula rotundifolia (known as the Harebell in England). That is the reason it is always best to get used to using the scientific rather than common names.
Classification is simply a matter of opinion. As long as a name is validly published according to the "rules" you are allowed to use it. There never has been only one classification in use at once, so it is up to you which classification you use since non are mandatory. Therefore you are quite at liberty to call them Trichocereus or Echinopsis since both are validly published genera.
"Since there is a tribe with the name Trichocereeae and something like Echinops...(whatever) doesn't exist it would be more logical that the genus Trichocereus would stay where it was and Echinopsis would change to something else?"
Names of Botanical ranks are merely "handles" to identify them with, they are not required to be logical or appropriate. You can call a white spined plant nigrispina (black spined) if you want when naming it even though completely inappropriate, but that would remain the valid name for the species if correctly published under the "rules". As to which name to use when you combine two genera, under the "rules", the oldest name takes precedence. That was the case with the reunion of Eriosyce, where Neoporteria, Horridocactus etc were lumped under it. Botanists may have preferred to use the better known name Neoporteria for the group, as Donald & Rowley did in 1966, but then keeping the few plants in the lesser known genus Eriosyce separate, even though they thought they ought to be lumped in with the others. However when Fred Kattermann did lump them in with the others, Eriosyce being the first published genus took priority and everything not previously published as an Eriosyce had to be renamed.
You get a similar case with species. When Notocactus was lumped under Parodia (Parodia being the first published took priority for the generic name over Notocactus) as there already was a Parodia uebelmannianus, the better known Notocactus uebelmannianus had to be renamed Parodia werneri (after Werner Uebelmann).
These rules, though originally intended to stop unnecessary name changes, often do the opposite. If Notocactus was split off again from Parodia then Notocactus uebelmannianus would again take priority over Parodia werneri, which would become a synonym.
For a more complete answer see:-
http://herbarium.usu.edu/teaching/4420/botnom.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Up to now most classification has been based on morphology (the form and shape of the plant or it's organs). These similarities however are often the result of convergence caused by different groups of plants inhabiting similar habitats and climatic conditions even though unrelated. Now chemistry in the form of DNA Sequencing is starting to show many previously supposed related plants come from different lines, therefore you may find classifications like that in The New Cactus Lexicon with it's extensive lumping of genera broken up again. The classic case is Rebutia and Aylostera, long lumped together but now proving to be non-related by DNA Sequencing proving they stem from different lines.
The only reason we all try and use similar nomenclature is so everybody else knows what we are talking about. That is why we tend to use scientific rather than common names which may only apply in a single country, or even just an area of that country. For instance if an American asked me if we have bluebells in England I would say yes, but we would be talking about different plants, they would probably be referring to Mertensia virginica whereas I would be referring to Hyacinthoides non-scripta and even within the UK a Scotsman would be possibly be referring to Campanula rotundifolia (known as the Harebell in England). That is the reason it is always best to get used to using the scientific rather than common names.
Last edited by DaveW on Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
Great post - thanks for taking the time to type that out. I was just going to post a reminder on the site that the species listings on CactiGuide.com are NOT my own invention and that this site does NOT pretend to be a taxonomic authority. I simply reflect (or parrot as I was accused) the information based on other people's work. In this case, the primary information comes from Anderson's "The Cactus Family" and also "The New Cactus Lexicon" (NCL), however it is not limited to those two.
In any case, as you rightly pointed out, if the name is validly published, then it is fair game even if later research shows that the name is not the best choice. The beauty of a computer database, is that it can be updated instantly and that it can be inter-related. So in this example, the keyword search or the synonyms list will reveal BOTH the Echinopsis names and the Trichocereus names.
My goal has been to include any names that have been used for any given plant. The idea is that I want people to be able to find that name - even if nobody really uses it. Then the name can be traced to the currently used name. Easy in some cases where everybody refers "Cereus giganteus" to "Carnegiea gigantea" and nobody gets worked up about it. However, there are a number of genera which don't enjoy such universal clarity. You mentioned perhaps the most notorious - Rebutia, Parodia and Eriosyce.
There is a mind-boggling amount of human emotion tied up in which particular name a person chooses to use. While the plants offer plenty of mysteries for people to puzzle over, there is nothing in taxonomy that is a bigger mystery than the personal vendettas that spring up out of it. There are people who are so intensely "married" to one name or the other, that they react to any "nomenclatural adultery" with as much vehemence as the would to an actual human-human spousal infidelity. In fact, I occasionally get what can rightly be called "hate mail" because I have a list of synonyms for a given plant that came directly from the NCL or some other name they don't agree with. Fortunately these are few and far between.
Looking forward, I'd like to document the systems of Britton and Rose, Katterman, Backeberg, and others as I think it would be interesting to compare them and also for people to have the ability to instantly take a peek at these ideas - as on this page:
http://www.cactiguide.com/compare_publications/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In any case, as you rightly pointed out, if the name is validly published, then it is fair game even if later research shows that the name is not the best choice. The beauty of a computer database, is that it can be updated instantly and that it can be inter-related. So in this example, the keyword search or the synonyms list will reveal BOTH the Echinopsis names and the Trichocereus names.
My goal has been to include any names that have been used for any given plant. The idea is that I want people to be able to find that name - even if nobody really uses it. Then the name can be traced to the currently used name. Easy in some cases where everybody refers "Cereus giganteus" to "Carnegiea gigantea" and nobody gets worked up about it. However, there are a number of genera which don't enjoy such universal clarity. You mentioned perhaps the most notorious - Rebutia, Parodia and Eriosyce.
There is a mind-boggling amount of human emotion tied up in which particular name a person chooses to use. While the plants offer plenty of mysteries for people to puzzle over, there is nothing in taxonomy that is a bigger mystery than the personal vendettas that spring up out of it. There are people who are so intensely "married" to one name or the other, that they react to any "nomenclatural adultery" with as much vehemence as the would to an actual human-human spousal infidelity. In fact, I occasionally get what can rightly be called "hate mail" because I have a list of synonyms for a given plant that came directly from the NCL or some other name they don't agree with. Fortunately these are few and far between.
Looking forward, I'd like to document the systems of Britton and Rose, Katterman, Backeberg, and others as I think it would be interesting to compare them and also for people to have the ability to instantly take a peek at these ideas - as on this page:
http://www.cactiguide.com/compare_publications/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
- Peterthecactusguy
- Posts: 8862
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:49 am
- Location: Black Canyon City, Arizona
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
one that pesters me tho, is Mammillaria microcarpa. It wasn't ever really published as a name. It's sort of interesting tho, and I knew they were M. grahamii from looking at them.
Here's to you, all you insidious creatures of green..er I mean cacti.
Re: newbie question, why there is no trichocereus
as Daiv explained this site follows the nomenclature of the cactus family and the NCL.
bear in mind that unlike what some people think the cactus family and NCL are NOT authorities on cactus nomenclature, they are merely an opinion among many others.
bear in mind that unlike what some people think the cactus family and NCL are NOT authorities on cactus nomenclature, they are merely an opinion among many others.
With apologies to the late Professor C. D. Darlington the following misquotation springs to
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)