Re: Strukto 2012
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:52 am
yes, that is normally my viewpoint too
first of, it may seem that they don't look alike, however I have Sulcorebutia species that look a LOT like a Weingartia, for example look up: sp. HS213, sp. torotoro or W. nadae
in the case of Weingartia the following thing happened and imo made it impossible to ignore plant relationships except for nostalgic reasons:
the new cactus lexicon lumped all Rebutia, Sulcorebutia, Weingartia and Cintia plants into one genus, that was (like most lumping in the NCL) provisional.
that is why a lot of people still firmly believe these plants to be Rebutia, scientific research has caught up with that though... so to answer that, the NCL is outdated on these plants.
research has shown that Weingartia, Cintia and Sulcorebutia can not be seen separately, and that Rebutia isn't related at all, thus the revision into one genus.
so these plants were lumped, splitted and then lumped again, however this time on a more solid ground.
if you want to know more about the how and why, here are some articles about it, I recommend you use google translate, english summaries are probably available but I don't have them myself:
the revision of the genus:
http://www.english.sulcopassion.be/0039_2008.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
taxonomic changes based on the revision:
http://www.sulco-gertel.de/media/33a810" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 144226.pdf
an article in english on the relations between the genera rebutia, weingartia and echinopsis:
http://www.english.sulcopassion.be/0107_2001.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
the research by Ritz et. al, including a very clear cladogram:
http://www.amjbot.org/content/94/8/1321.full.pdf+html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
first of, it may seem that they don't look alike, however I have Sulcorebutia species that look a LOT like a Weingartia, for example look up: sp. HS213, sp. torotoro or W. nadae
in the case of Weingartia the following thing happened and imo made it impossible to ignore plant relationships except for nostalgic reasons:
the new cactus lexicon lumped all Rebutia, Sulcorebutia, Weingartia and Cintia plants into one genus, that was (like most lumping in the NCL) provisional.
that is why a lot of people still firmly believe these plants to be Rebutia, scientific research has caught up with that though... so to answer that, the NCL is outdated on these plants.
research has shown that Weingartia, Cintia and Sulcorebutia can not be seen separately, and that Rebutia isn't related at all, thus the revision into one genus.
so these plants were lumped, splitted and then lumped again, however this time on a more solid ground.
if you want to know more about the how and why, here are some articles about it, I recommend you use google translate, english summaries are probably available but I don't have them myself:
the revision of the genus:
http://www.english.sulcopassion.be/0039_2008.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
taxonomic changes based on the revision:
http://www.sulco-gertel.de/media/33a810" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 144226.pdf
an article in english on the relations between the genera rebutia, weingartia and echinopsis:
http://www.english.sulcopassion.be/0107_2001.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
the research by Ritz et. al, including a very clear cladogram:
http://www.amjbot.org/content/94/8/1321.full.pdf+html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There will be more next year! 
