While I appreciate that Daiv had to make a choice when it come to nomenclature......used copies of that book start at $280, and run up to $750.
Is there any equivalent on-line?
(Not counting the "digital equivalent" from everyone's least-favourite auction site)
-R
Anderson's "The Cactus Family" as a guide to nomen
-
Peyote Pete
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:51 am
During my trip to Tucson, I stopped over at Biosphere 2 to check out the engineering wonder. In the gift shop I saw this book, brand new for $99. I bought it without hesitation, but my mother and brother, and the clerks thought I was completely mad. Little do they know how much this book is really worth.
The book is still shrink wrapped, I am afraid to open it. I am always on the look out for another copy just so I can read it.
The book is still shrink wrapped, I am afraid to open it. I am always on the look out for another copy just so I can read it.
-Peyote Pete (CSSA Member)
"Please would you like to be somewhere floating free?
Seems my destiny, Captain Fantasy
Take a minute to go down beneath the reaches of sound
You could be with me, Captain Fantasy" --Ween
"Please would you like to be somewhere floating free?
Seems my destiny, Captain Fantasy
Take a minute to go down beneath the reaches of sound
You could be with me, Captain Fantasy" --Ween
In the Amazon UK, only two Anderson, used 222 pound, new 457 pound,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listin ... 220&sr=1-1
and there isn't any NCL.
My Anderson from Amazon UK was only 55 pound, in 2005.
Last month, I've bought a copy of NCL, in London via internet, 106 pound. I couldn't find it in the big bookstores, so in London, an UK printed book, through internet from the publisher, Hunt's himself !...
Isn't it funny ?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listin ... 220&sr=1-1
and there isn't any NCL.
My Anderson from Amazon UK was only 55 pound, in 2005.
Last month, I've bought a copy of NCL, in London via internet, 106 pound. I couldn't find it in the big bookstores, so in London, an UK printed book, through internet from the publisher, Hunt's himself !...
Isn't it funny ?
I suppose books like Anderson's are done in limited press runs, mostly for libraries and institutions, with a relatively small private customer base. The original list price of $100 was fairly reasonable considering the extensive color plates, etc.
In another few years, The Cactus Family could actually be priced lower than it is now, as the used market evens out a bit. Copies of Cacti of the United States and Canada by Lyman Benson, for example, are available for "only" about $400, and for about 5 years after Benson's book went out of print it was much more expensive.
Peyote Pete, if I were you, I'd leave yours shrink wrapped...if you might want to sell it. I saw a shrink wrapped copy being offered for $1000.
peterb
In another few years, The Cactus Family could actually be priced lower than it is now, as the used market evens out a bit. Copies of Cacti of the United States and Canada by Lyman Benson, for example, are available for "only" about $400, and for about 5 years after Benson's book went out of print it was much more expensive.
Peyote Pete, if I were you, I'd leave yours shrink wrapped...if you might want to sell it. I saw a shrink wrapped copy being offered for $1000.
peterb
Zone 9
-
Peyote Pete
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:51 am
Holy Jeebus $1000? I was sooo tempted to open it when I first bought it. But I slapped myself and took a cold shower.
-Peyote Pete (CSSA Member)
"Please would you like to be somewhere floating free?
Seems my destiny, Captain Fantasy
Take a minute to go down beneath the reaches of sound
You could be with me, Captain Fantasy" --Ween
"Please would you like to be somewhere floating free?
Seems my destiny, Captain Fantasy
Take a minute to go down beneath the reaches of sound
You could be with me, Captain Fantasy" --Ween
Next time one of these reference-guide type books comes out, I'm going to buy 1000 copies, hold onto them for a couple of years, sell them on eBay, and retire 
Seriously, I will probably use part of my tax refund to buy a copy of either Anderson (not Peyote Pete's copy though!) or the NCL...which would y'all recommend?
I'm mainly looking for an identification guide, but lots of pretty pictures don't hurt either
Thx,
-R
Seriously, I will probably use part of my tax refund to buy a copy of either Anderson (not Peyote Pete's copy though!) or the NCL...which would y'all recommend?
I'm mainly looking for an identification guide, but lots of pretty pictures don't hurt either
Thx,
-R
-
CoronaCactus
- Posts: 10421
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 6:16 pm
- Location: Corona, California USA [Zone 10]
- Contact:
![[IMG:421:60]http://hotimg23.fotki.com/a/212_156/63_ ... mall-2.jpg[/img]](http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/212_156/63_30/Banner-small-2.jpg){kind=link}
Hi- I don't have the NCL (despite complaining bitterly about it from time to time) and The Cactus Family is a maddening book in many ways. The pictures are often of absolutely no help for identification, or outright misleading. The written descriptions for certain species complexes with many synonyms/former names/varieties/subspecies are sometimes so broad that they could apply to half the cactus plants in existence. It may just be my bad luck but I can't tell you how many times the *one plant* I'm looking for a good clear photo of is the *one plant* in a particular genus without a photo. Anderson tried to be as thorough as possible in including synonyms under many of the new combinations/groups, but several old names are nowhere to be found in his book. (The NCL may provide a balance for this, and some websites such as this one and desert tropicals help).
The Cactus Family's main problem is one shared by every attempt at a comprehensive treatment of the family that's ever been published: it's loaded with errors. Anderson did an amazing job with the information available to him at the time, as have all authors of such compendious works. But it either wasn't peer reviewed enough or was run by a very select few who were the source of his information in the first place.
The errors are easily corrected with a little bit of extra sleuthing, but my beef is that Anderson uses the authoritative mode of discourse, stating as absolute and proven fact conclusions which are either flat out wrong or still under investigation. This occurs on nearly every page of the book. I would be less rankled by this if Anderson could have brought himself to say "many have a different opinion of this group of plants" or "researchers are still investigating whether this is a species or a naturally occurring hybrid," or any such disclaimers. Instead, he seems to have tried to emphasize his authority in the work by almost completely avoiding any and all such disclaimers.
Anderson is also strangely inconsistent from genus to genus or even species to species within one genus. On the one hand, for example, many of the questionable "new" names or combinations of Blum and Rutow for various plants in Echinocereus are included without question, while many of the Stenocacti have simply disappeared and are not even listed as synonyms.
It's ridiculously sloppy, really, and extra-too-bad that the book carries so much weight as a supposed "last word" on accepted taxa. It will be meticulously exploded over the next couple of decades, sharing a fate similar to Britton and Rose, Borg, Buxbaum, Backeberg, Benson et al. (why so many B's?)
And yet, hardly a day goes by that I don't look up something in the book. It *is* useful, particularly in combination with several other books. The introductory chapters are outstanding. Many of the photographs are exemplary. Many of the lists of synonyms under the "recognized taxa" are indeed helpful for further research.
Finally, I've heard that by comparison, it is much more useful for ordinary amateur growers than the NCL. But as I mentioned I don't have the NCL so perhaps someone could confirm.
peterb
The Cactus Family's main problem is one shared by every attempt at a comprehensive treatment of the family that's ever been published: it's loaded with errors. Anderson did an amazing job with the information available to him at the time, as have all authors of such compendious works. But it either wasn't peer reviewed enough or was run by a very select few who were the source of his information in the first place.
The errors are easily corrected with a little bit of extra sleuthing, but my beef is that Anderson uses the authoritative mode of discourse, stating as absolute and proven fact conclusions which are either flat out wrong or still under investigation. This occurs on nearly every page of the book. I would be less rankled by this if Anderson could have brought himself to say "many have a different opinion of this group of plants" or "researchers are still investigating whether this is a species or a naturally occurring hybrid," or any such disclaimers. Instead, he seems to have tried to emphasize his authority in the work by almost completely avoiding any and all such disclaimers.
Anderson is also strangely inconsistent from genus to genus or even species to species within one genus. On the one hand, for example, many of the questionable "new" names or combinations of Blum and Rutow for various plants in Echinocereus are included without question, while many of the Stenocacti have simply disappeared and are not even listed as synonyms.
It's ridiculously sloppy, really, and extra-too-bad that the book carries so much weight as a supposed "last word" on accepted taxa. It will be meticulously exploded over the next couple of decades, sharing a fate similar to Britton and Rose, Borg, Buxbaum, Backeberg, Benson et al. (why so many B's?)
And yet, hardly a day goes by that I don't look up something in the book. It *is* useful, particularly in combination with several other books. The introductory chapters are outstanding. Many of the photographs are exemplary. Many of the lists of synonyms under the "recognized taxa" are indeed helpful for further research.
Finally, I've heard that by comparison, it is much more useful for ordinary amateur growers than the NCL. But as I mentioned I don't have the NCL so perhaps someone could confirm.
peterb
Zone 9
peterb,
Thank you for that very thorough (if a bit discouraging ) review! Apparently Anderson doesn't include any sort of taxonomic keys, and if the pictures are that unhelpful, it doesn't sound like it would be too useful as an identification guide. I have heard that the NCL is much more technical/advanced, but now I'm leaning towards getting it instead of Anderson...plus it's a bit cheaper.
Thanks again!
-R
Thank you for that very thorough (if a bit discouraging
) review! Apparently Anderson doesn't include any sort of taxonomic keys, and if the pictures are that unhelpful, it doesn't sound like it would be too useful as an identification guide. I have heard that the NCL is much more technical/advanced, but now I'm leaning towards getting it instead of Anderson...plus it's a bit cheaper.Thanks again!
-R
-
CoronaCactus
- Posts: 10421
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 6:16 pm
- Location: Corona, California USA [Zone 10]
- Contact:
Yikes, Peter is fired up I would have to agree on the picture front, i mainly use it for names, descriptions, etc. I am not into taxa enough to know what is right and wrong, so i didn't know there could be so many errors
Good thing the CactiGuide is here to help!However, i also beleive that no one book could ever be the tell all, be all. Multiple books, with multiple descriptions and info, with (most importantly) multiple photos of the plants is the only way to go. We collect plants, time to start collecting books too
BTW, Peter, you are exactly right man! Why is the plant your looking for always the one without a pic!!
I'd guess the plant is without a pic because Anderson was looking for it too! 
I guess I do get fired up about reference books that create mis-impressions. Of course, taxonomy is a matter of philosophy and opinion, and I've gotten used to knowing several different names in different books for the "same" species or form. But Cylindropuntia viridiflora, for example, gets this treatment in Anderson:
"Cyindropuntia X viridiflora is a naturally occurring hybrid, C. imbricata X C. whipplei. Distribution: New Mexico."
That's it. Notice the flat out assertion *is*. There is no evidence one way or the other! As Dave Ferguson and others have pointed out, the evidence in favor of C. viridiflora being a valid species far outweighs the *pure speculation* without evidence that it's a naturally occurring hybrid. "New Mexico" for the distribution is about as helpful as "United States" would be: C. viridiflora is a highly restricted endemic known from only the type locality in a city park in Santa Fe and one other location approximately 20 miles north. (By the way, the nearest known location of C. whipplei is nearly 100 miles north...not that there may have been whipplei around Santa Fe long ago, but still.)
This is but one example of the problems that specialists find on nearly every page of Anderson's book.
Certainly, each individual error is small. But the cumulative effect is massive. As I said before, Anderson isn't to blame per se, it's the same flaw in every compendium of cacti that's ever been attempted by a single author.
The single best reference for the family is waiting to be written by a slew of locally knowledgeable authors joined by specialists in particular genera.
peterb
I guess I do get fired up about reference books that create mis-impressions. Of course, taxonomy is a matter of philosophy and opinion, and I've gotten used to knowing several different names in different books for the "same" species or form. But Cylindropuntia viridiflora, for example, gets this treatment in Anderson:
"Cyindropuntia X viridiflora is a naturally occurring hybrid, C. imbricata X C. whipplei. Distribution: New Mexico."
That's it. Notice the flat out assertion *is*. There is no evidence one way or the other! As Dave Ferguson and others have pointed out, the evidence in favor of C. viridiflora being a valid species far outweighs the *pure speculation* without evidence that it's a naturally occurring hybrid. "New Mexico" for the distribution is about as helpful as "United States" would be: C. viridiflora is a highly restricted endemic known from only the type locality in a city park in Santa Fe and one other location approximately 20 miles north. (By the way, the nearest known location of C. whipplei is nearly 100 miles north...not that there may have been whipplei around Santa Fe long ago, but still.)
This is but one example of the problems that specialists find on nearly every page of Anderson's book.
Certainly, each individual error is small. But the cumulative effect is massive. As I said before, Anderson isn't to blame per se, it's the same flaw in every compendium of cacti that's ever been attempted by a single author.
The single best reference for the family is waiting to be written by a slew of locally knowledgeable authors joined by specialists in particular genera.
peterb
Zone 9
One thing about the NCL is that people aren't mentioning a lot of mistakes. Maybe they can't follow all the abbreviations to work out whether they are correct
I think you would find the photographs much better than Anderson's and it is probably worth getting for those alone. I also see little point spending big bucks for "the last word" on nomenclature when it isn't the last word by a good way. If you can get the NCL, new, for less then I'd suggest doing that. I don't think you'll be using the NCL for looking up old names though, the synonym lists are far from complete although they would be sufficient if you are familiar with the taxonomy up to the late twentieth century. Definitely not for reading, little text, many cryptic abbreviations, almost entirely for reference.
There are many excellent online references for cross-referencing cactus names and I find the internet is by far the simplest way to find synonyms in 99% of cases. They aren't all 100% up to date although some are, but then if you're that addicted to having the latest names you will buy the NCL and subscribe to relevant journals where name changes tend to be published.
I think you would find the photographs much better than Anderson's and it is probably worth getting for those alone. I also see little point spending big bucks for "the last word" on nomenclature when it isn't the last word by a good way. If you can get the NCL, new, for less then I'd suggest doing that. I don't think you'll be using the NCL for looking up old names though, the synonym lists are far from complete although they would be sufficient if you are familiar with the taxonomy up to the late twentieth century. Definitely not for reading, little text, many cryptic abbreviations, almost entirely for reference.
There are many excellent online references for cross-referencing cactus names and I find the internet is by far the simplest way to find synonyms in 99% of cases. They aren't all 100% up to date although some are, but then if you're that addicted to having the latest names you will buy the NCL and subscribe to relevant journals where name changes tend to be published.
--ian
Thx iann for the info on the NCL.
If I were a rich man (hey, that could be a song!) I'd buy specialist guides for each of the genera I'm interested in...the problem is, I'm interested in most of them! So I'm leaning towards the NCL.
peterb, I agree 100% about authors pretending they're authoritative, when there's doubt.
If I may be permitted a slight digression, my other hobby is reefkeeping. There, the problem is not the constant renaming, but simply identification. Most hard corals are extremely variable in terms of morphology and coloration, and soft corals are little-studied. Even experts in a particular genus (for example, Acropora, the best-known and studied coral genus) can't identify down to the species level without microscopic examination of the coral skeleton. Yet, there are tons of books/websites/so-called experts in forums that claim to be able to ID corals at a glance. It's maddening!
(And BTW, almost all the corals I have were NOT taken from the wild...they are captive-bred!)
Sorry for my digression....but I sympathize with peterb's frustration!
-R
If I were a rich man (hey, that could be a song!) I'd buy specialist guides for each of the genera I'm interested in...the problem is, I'm interested in most of them! So I'm leaning towards the NCL.
peterb, I agree 100% about authors pretending they're authoritative, when there's doubt.
If I may be permitted a slight digression, my other hobby is reefkeeping. There, the problem is not the constant renaming, but simply identification. Most hard corals are extremely variable in terms of morphology and coloration, and soft corals are little-studied. Even experts in a particular genus (for example, Acropora, the best-known and studied coral genus) can't identify down to the species level without microscopic examination of the coral skeleton. Yet, there are tons of books/websites/so-called experts in forums that claim to be able to ID corals at a glance. It's maddening!
(And BTW, almost all the corals I have were NOT taken from the wild...they are captive-bred!)
Sorry for my digression....but I sympathize with peterb's frustration!
-R