fanaticactus wrote:I find all these contributions to be very informative reading and they're giving me quite an education re: taxonomy. I guess there's no bucking the historical trends, but it somehow doesn't seem right that specialists in the field can readjust the entire system based on their own opinions. With all the modern day scientific analysis of cactus DNA being done, can't something more definitive be done to resolve such a perplexing situation? I know I'm showing my naïveté, but my personality (some might call it OCD?) wants things to be clearcut and orderly.
I don't think anyone's got around to doing a phylogenetic analysis of Eriosyce yet. Lack of funding is probably an issue. Even then no hobbyists would pay any attention to the results.
You are undoubtedly right, Dan. I didn't realize all this investigation and analysis had to be funded. I thought folks did it just because they were interested and liked the hobby.
'Old fashioned hobby taxonomy' where only physical traits were examined could be done by any hobbyist if they had the time really. A good genetic analysis and phylogeny probably couldn't be carried out by your average hobbyist, more of a scientific institute thing. A lot of the equipment you need to sequence DNA is out of the price range of most people and then many of the consumables used aren't easily accessible (or cheap). Sequence aligning, and cladogram constructing software isn't cheap either. Even when the scientific work gets done, a lot of hobbyists don't like the results and don't pay attention to them.
-Dan
Happy growing!
There is always one more glochid. Somewhere. My C&S blog
CactusFanDan wrote: 'Old fashioned hobby taxonomy' where only physical traits were examined could be done by any hobbyist if they had the time really. A good genetic analysis and phylogeny probably couldn't be carried out by your average hobbyist, more of a scientific institute thing. A lot of the equipment you need to sequence DNA is out of the price range of most people and then many of the consumables used aren't easily accessible (or cheap). Sequence aligning, and cladogram constructing software isn't cheap either. Even when the scientific work gets done, a lot of hobbyists don't like the results and don't pay attention to them.
I guess there'll never be a foolproof way to classify cacti and account for all the countless variables. Sounds like we should "go with the flow" and stick with names we've become familiar with--e.g. Trichocereus, Lobivia, Echinofossulocactus, etc.
Catch a falling star--but don't try it with a cactus!
I think that most of the Eriosyce sequencing that has been done is only as a by-product of comparing them as outliers to the group being sequenced. I believe Marlon Machado did some when working on Notocactus, but I don't think that was ever published. From a limited conversation with Marlon at the Cactus Explorers some years ago now I constructed the following diagram which I think represented his at that time tentative ideas as to their relationships:-
Eriosyce-Diag.jpg (21.58 KiB) Viewed 264 times
I found this one too, but I can't remember where from now. Unfortunately they only use the first three letters of the species name, but I think you can put names to them if you know Eriosyce species since most are listed under the old generic names Hor = Horridocactus, Neo = Neoporteria and Chi = Chileorebutia:-
I thought folks did it just because they were interested and liked the hobby.
Even when the scientific work gets done, a lot of hobbyists don't like the results and don't pay attention to them. 
