Second time around

[iann]

May 1st and this is the second flush of flowers.

knizei-0501.jpg (62.84 KiB) Viewed 753 times

[Brunãozinho]

What a beauty, I don't notice the areoles on this one.

[DaveW]

They are where the wool is Bruno, the spines on young plants tend to disappear as the plant gets older:-

http://www.cactus-art.biz/schede/CINTIA ... knizei.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cintia was lumped into Rebutia as Rebutia cintia in the New Cactus Lexicon, but I believe Joel Lode has put it in Weingartia which is far more sensible.

[iann]

Cintia was lumped into Rebutia as Rebutia cintia in the New Cactus Lexicon, but I believe Joel Lode has put it in Weingartia which is far more sensible.

Except that Weingartia has been demonstrated repeatedly to be non-viable as a genus. The old "flowers on top" definition looks good until you start trying to find the dividing line to the "flowers on bottom" Sulcorebutias and find it isn't just a fine line, it is completely obliterated by crossovers. Unless someone comes up with some new ideas, it isn't a helpful name to keep using.

I thought Gordon Rowley's approach to this was classic. Split Rebutia (sl) into just Aylostera and Rebutia because Sulcorebutia and Weingartia cannot be separated in any sensible way. Then define Weingartia and Sulcorebutia as subgenera using the same criteria that proved unsuitable for separating them as genera. Not sure if that was an attempt to please everyone or getting halfway through an idea and forgetting what the initial thought was.

[DaveW]

Certainly Sulcorebutia and Weingartia should be a single genus. I think it was Martin Cardenas who first described what we would now call Sulcorebutia's as Rebutia's, but few followed him at the time.

As I understand the "rules", the generic name attaches to the species you nominate to be the type of the genus. If that was first published as the type of Weingartia, that is the oldest name available for any genus incorporating that species. You can then amend the original diagnosis of Weingartia if you wish, as long as the new definition still fits the chosen type species.

Scrapping generic names just because you don't like them is not always valid. From what I understand the generic name merely attaches to the type species chosen, rather than to the original generic definition, which can be amended by later authors to suit any species they wish to place in it? Also if you incorporate the type species of any genus into a "lumped" genus the oldest generic name will take priority, just as when Kattermann lumped Eriosyce sensu stricto into what was Donald & Rowley's 1966 Reunion of Neoporteria that had previously excluded it since being the oldest generic name it required far more new combinations for the present species under Eriosyce.

[Brunãozinho]

Thanks Dave.