Thanks
Paul.[center][/center]
out of date.
out of date.
Can anyone recommend a good general guide to Cacti, I have several books, sadly they are all more than 30 years old. A lot of the information is out of date, a lot of plants seem to have completly different names
Thanks
Paul.[center][/center]
Thanks
Paul.[center][/center]
-
CoronaCactus
- Posts: 10421
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 6:16 pm
- Location: Corona, California USA [Zone 10]
- Contact:
The names change, but the plants stay the same 
Check here for reviews of books
http://www.cactiguide.com/ref/
The NCL (New Cactus Lexicon) is the most up to date book. However, be prepared to shell out $200 for the 2 vol. set.
The Cactus Family is also a good book. Runs $99 new, but can be found for $65(ish) used.
Check here for reviews of books
http://www.cactiguide.com/ref/
The NCL (New Cactus Lexicon) is the most up to date book. However, be prepared to shell out $200 for the 2 vol. set.
The Cactus Family is also a good book. Runs $99 new, but can be found for $65(ish) used.
Darryl is right, but I'll add to it:
It is my opinion that Anderson's "The Cactus Family" is still the best book available for a treatment of the entire cactus family.
It is written in encyclopedia/reference style and it organized in a clear and intuitive fashion.
The classification within is what you might call "out of date", however, with the list of synonyms that are included, it doesn't really matter.
There is no single authority on nomenclature because there is no system of classification that is fully agreed upon. In fact much of it is in dispute and not just on the little details.
As a result, using only one reference will give you an incomplete picture. The more resources, the better. But Anderson's work is an easy starting point.
For example: If I want to know more about Mammillaria grahamii, I'll first check The Cactus Family, then I'll check Pilbeams "Mammillaria" book and see how he treats it and why. Then I'll check the NCL (mostly for pictures), and then mammillarias.net and so on.
So I guess that's a long way of saying, Anderson's book is an excellent go-to reference, but does not stand alone as the final word on the subject. Which, even Anderson admits often times in the text.
It is my opinion that Anderson's "The Cactus Family" is still the best book available for a treatment of the entire cactus family.
It is written in encyclopedia/reference style and it organized in a clear and intuitive fashion.
The classification within is what you might call "out of date", however, with the list of synonyms that are included, it doesn't really matter.
There is no single authority on nomenclature because there is no system of classification that is fully agreed upon. In fact much of it is in dispute and not just on the little details.
As a result, using only one reference will give you an incomplete picture. The more resources, the better. But Anderson's work is an easy starting point.
For example: If I want to know more about Mammillaria grahamii, I'll first check The Cactus Family, then I'll check Pilbeams "Mammillaria" book and see how he treats it and why. Then I'll check the NCL (mostly for pictures), and then mammillarias.net and so on.
So I guess that's a long way of saying, Anderson's book is an excellent go-to reference, but does not stand alone as the final word on the subject. Which, even Anderson admits often times in the text.
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
Which "out of date" books do you have? Some of them can be highly valuable in clarifying the utter hash that has recently been made of cactus taxonomy. (Older books were themselves utter hash as well, but they do shed light on newer classifications- sort of like combining hash to make a useful breakfast).
Every book or resource I use has its own unique purpose (or perhaps a few fairly narrowly defined purposes). Perhaps the most cross-referenced and complex task is identifying unnamed plants. This often takes consulting several different books or sources, including odd ones such as the Mesa Garden seedlist, etc.
I do appreciate The Cactus Family by Anderson, yet I often find it nearly useless for identifying plants. The photographs are inadequate and the synonymy is out of control, over the top reductive, "vanishing" many different forms that may or may not deserve taxonomic recognition but certainly have significance for us as growers. Referring to several different books (including the very valuable "out of date" books) is often the only way to identify a plant. Web resources are excellent now as well, especially this site. I don't have the New Cactus Lexicon. Friends of mine claim that a great many descriptions in the NCL are simply copied, often word for word, from The Cactus Family. It seems a shame to spend $200 on this. The web-based Flora of North America uses an identical classification system, so if I want to know how that system names a plant I can just use the internet.
I use regional cactus flora a lot to plan habitat trips and to get a clearer understanding of the distribution of various forms, etc. Del Weniger's original Cacti of the Southwest and Neighboring States is fascinating. The taxonomy is very idiosyncratic indeed (he uses mega-genera, placing Escobaria, Coryphantha in Mammillaria, for example), but his biosystematic history of the plants and their names is more extensive than I've read in any plant book, let alone a cactus book, and his level of detail on the species level is extraordinary. I still consult Britton and Rose's The Cactaceae from the 1920s, usually to get a sense of the history of a name. In tough questions I've gone to the library at the Desert Botanical Garden and looked at Borg, Backeberg, etc.
In other words, I guess my answer simply is there isn't a single book that I would recommend. The best approach in my opinion is to rely on a wide variety of print and digital sources.
peterb
Every book or resource I use has its own unique purpose (or perhaps a few fairly narrowly defined purposes). Perhaps the most cross-referenced and complex task is identifying unnamed plants. This often takes consulting several different books or sources, including odd ones such as the Mesa Garden seedlist, etc.
I do appreciate The Cactus Family by Anderson, yet I often find it nearly useless for identifying plants. The photographs are inadequate and the synonymy is out of control, over the top reductive, "vanishing" many different forms that may or may not deserve taxonomic recognition but certainly have significance for us as growers. Referring to several different books (including the very valuable "out of date" books) is often the only way to identify a plant. Web resources are excellent now as well, especially this site. I don't have the New Cactus Lexicon. Friends of mine claim that a great many descriptions in the NCL are simply copied, often word for word, from The Cactus Family. It seems a shame to spend $200 on this. The web-based Flora of North America uses an identical classification system, so if I want to know how that system names a plant I can just use the internet.
I use regional cactus flora a lot to plan habitat trips and to get a clearer understanding of the distribution of various forms, etc. Del Weniger's original Cacti of the Southwest and Neighboring States is fascinating. The taxonomy is very idiosyncratic indeed (he uses mega-genera, placing Escobaria, Coryphantha in Mammillaria, for example), but his biosystematic history of the plants and their names is more extensive than I've read in any plant book, let alone a cactus book, and his level of detail on the species level is extraordinary. I still consult Britton and Rose's The Cactaceae from the 1920s, usually to get a sense of the history of a name. In tough questions I've gone to the library at the Desert Botanical Garden and looked at Borg, Backeberg, etc.
In other words, I guess my answer simply is there isn't a single book that I would recommend. The best approach in my opinion is to rely on a wide variety of print and digital sources.
peterb
Zone 9
Peter makes a good point. The Cactus Family is not the best for ID. One would certainly be lost if that was the only source. But I have come to appreciate it as directory and a good starting point.
Certainly, the true value of the NCL is the image atlas. Many species are pictured that you can't even find pics of on the web. (Of course, in those cases those are all species that you are not going to see outside of habitat.)
Not exactly - the text is encrypted first.peterb wrote: Friends of mine claim that a great many descriptions in the NCL are simply copied, often word for word, from The Cactus Family. It seems a shame to spend $200 on this.
Certainly, the true value of the NCL is the image atlas. Many species are pictured that you can't even find pics of on the web. (Of course, in those cases those are all species that you are not going to see outside of habitat.)All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
It might seem that way but it's more likely that both books' descriptions come from the first published description. If the concept of a species has been broadened to include plants which don't match that description (eg a plant that had red flowers but was otherwise the same as a species originally described as having yellow flowers) then the description is often tweaked to show this.peterb wrote:Friends of mine claim that a great many descriptions in the NCL are simply copied, often word for word, from The Cactus Family.