Oddities

All posts relating to the CactiGuide.com Big Picture Project
Post Reply
iann
Posts: 17184
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: England

Oddities

Post by iann »

I was prompted to visit the missing species list today for the first time in a while and found several oddities. A number of very common Echinocereus species (eg. E. coccineus) are showing as having no pictures, but when I go to look they have many.

I spotted three Eriosyce species which I can supply pictures of small plants or seedlings. Better than nothing to be going on with.

Last strange thing is no pictures of Mammillaria stella-de-tacubaya! Do people just have this under other names, its not that rare.
--ian
daiv
Site Admin
Posts: 23625
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Long Prairie, MN
Contact:

Post by daiv »

Ian,
You found a bug! This bug stems from the Custom Nomenclature feature that I've been working on.

The oddity is the result of my working through the NCL system and having to add subspecies that I either neglected in the past or are missing from Anderson's system.

Thanks to your note, I was able to locate the error and fix the code.

The list will include the subspecies, varieties, and forms now.

Of course there are even more of those than what it listed here and depending on how you sit with a certain classification, the names may seem absurd. But in that sense they are of more historical interest than current classification understanding.
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
Christer Johansson
Posts: 2452
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Christer Johansson »

I've found that I've been promt to log in on the mainsite, but fail to do so with my ordinary password?
/Christer
daiv
Site Admin
Posts: 23625
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Long Prairie, MN
Contact:

Post by daiv »

Christer,
That login is different than the forum. It is a side thing I am working on and not ready yet for everyone.

Daiv
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
User avatar
John C
Posts: 3743
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:23 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Post by John C »

daiv wrote:Christer,
That login is different than the forum. It is a side thing I am working on and not ready yet for everyone.

Daiv
Yes, I saw that to and tried a few times to see if it would take to me to the forums but it didn't work so I was wondering what it was there for. Now I know.
John In Fort Worth, Texas
"Where the West begins"
User avatar
hob
Posts: 4425
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: sfk england z 8

Post by hob »

i was looking at the missing species list and saw Stenocactus rectispinus and did a little searching

desert tropicals has it as a valid species but with no info or images :dontknow:

http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/ ... pinus.html

and also as a Synonym of Stenocactus vaupelianus :x :roll:
http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/ ... ianus.html

Pilbeam in his book ariocarpus et cetera although dealing with the genus makes no mention of rectispinus :dontknow:

cactus art have it as a Synonym of Echinofossulocactus albatus :shock:

http://www.cactus-art.biz/schede/ECHINO ... lbatus.htm

is it a valid name :? does it exist in current taxonomy :dontknow:

and is this it :?:

Image
Image
Image
incurable cactoholic
growing rebutia's with a mix of others.
iann
Posts: 17184
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: England

Post by iann »

Stenocactus rectispinus is a validly published name but I have no idea if that is your plant. It is not generally accepted as a species today but I don't know what the correct current synonymy would be. Your plant is vaguely similar to the original description but not really a good match. The original description is somewhat lacking.

Cactus Art considers S. albatus and S. vaupelianus to be synonyms and this is widely accepted today, so it is really agreeing with Desert Tropicals about what S. rectispinus is. S. vaupelianus is the current valid name although S. albatus is widely used. Your plant matches.
--ian
daiv
Site Admin
Posts: 23625
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Long Prairie, MN
Contact:

Post by daiv »

Well the current CactiGuide.com site reflects Anderson's work as you know. And from everything that I've seen, Desert-tropicals also a reflection of Anderson's "The Cactus Family".

Now, the NCL lists S. albatus as S. vaupelianus, but makes no mention at all of S. rectispinus.

This is what I meant in the other post on the NCL about many names in Anderson are non-existant in the NCL. Not even a note saying, "invalid" or anything like that.

What I didn't realize when I made that post, is that it goes both ways. I'm finding many names in the NCL that are absent in "The Cactus Family". I have a strong feeling that this would be even more so with older publications such as Britton and Rose and Backeberg. And I suspect that more specific references like "Ariocarpus Etc." will lead to even more disparaging information.

It seems the more one looks at cactus taxonomy, the less one understands it. :?
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
peterb
Posts: 9516
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:19 am
Location: Chandler, Arizona, USA

Post by peterb »

Hob, I'd say your plant is a very nice Echinofossulocactus vaupelianus. I have no idea if albatus is really a synonym for vaupelianus or not. (really as in should it still get some taxonomic rank or not). E. rectispinus I haven't heard of.

Daiv, perhaps the most thorough systematic history of various cacti I've ever read is the original _Cacti of the Southwest_ by Del Weniger. Many Texas plants have several pages of historical taxonomical information, tracing the various names given by various authors up to the 1970s. It was a real eye opener for me, years ago, to realize how much history many of the forms have.

peterb
Zone 9
iann
Posts: 17184
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: England

Post by iann »

Eriosyce napina ssp fankhauseri (name published after NCL)
Image

Eriosyce napina ssp tenebrica
Image

Eriosyce (Pyrrhocactus) umadeave
Image

Eriosyce recondita (=Pyrrhocactus vexatus)
Image

Eriosyce aspillagae
Image

Eriosyce vertongenii
Image
--ian
daiv
Site Admin
Posts: 23625
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Long Prairie, MN
Contact:

Post by daiv »

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the mysterious E. rectispinus has a similar story to this one:

http://www.cactiguide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12078
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
Saguaro123
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:17 am
Location: SF Bay Area (Zone 9b)

Post by Saguaro123 »

No wonder why it didn't work when I tried logging in on the guide. I'm looking forward to the new feature. :)
daiv
Site Admin
Posts: 23625
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Long Prairie, MN
Contact:

Post by daiv »

Saguaro123 wrote:No wonder why it didn't work when I tried logging in on the guide. I'm looking forward to the new feature. :)
Sorry to confuse guys. I've got to add in the security on the pages so that hackers can't access the data without a valid login. Lots and lots of testing!
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
daiv
Site Admin
Posts: 23625
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Long Prairie, MN
Contact:

Post by daiv »

Ian,
In a follow up, I saw that I missed these images and they are now added. I see some places list "fankhauseri" as

E. napina ssp tenebrica f. fankhauseri
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
iann
Posts: 17184
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: England

Post by iann »

E. napina ssp fankhauseri has a confused history and was only recently named as a subspecies when its habitat range was properly determined and separated from other similar subspecies.
--ian
Post Reply