CactiGuide.com

Even though cactus and euphorbia have only a distant common plant relative, it is obvious that they developed over time to have similar appearance and function. Cactus developed in South America and euphorbia developed in the southern parts of Africa. Wouldn't it make sense to change the topics here to join euphorbia to cactus instead of grouping euphorbia with succulents? For example, you could have forum topics like:

Cactus and Euphorbia Identification
Succulent Identification

Euphorbia have more in common with cactus in many important ways than differences. I think the conversations here would be better organized to have plants with common features grouped together.

By Euphorbia you mean that section of Euphorbia that are stem succulents and spiny and are relatively leafless? Not the poinsettia, crown of thorns, caper spurge, snow on the mountain, candelilla, etc.? What about Euphorbia neriifolia from India? It has succulent stems and thorns but also has plentiful leaves.

What about the cactiform stapeliads? Pachypodium? The hard desert and salt-water chenopods?

Botanically, the succulents and xerophytes of the Caryophyllales are all closer to cacti than Euphorbias would be. Aizoaceae, Amaranthaceae, Basellaceae, Didiereaceae, Molluginaceae, Montiaceae, Nyctaginaceae and Portulacaceae, for example.

One Windowsill wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:27 pm By Euphorbia you mean that section of Euphorbia that are stem succulents and spiny and are relatively leafless? Not the poinsettia, crown of thorns, caper spurge, snow on the mountain, candelilla, etc.? What about Euphorbia neriifolia from India? It has succulent stems and thorns but also has plentiful leaves.

What about the cactiform stapeliads? Pachypodium? The hard desert and salt-water chenopods?

Botanically, the succulents and xerophytes of the Caryophyllales are all closer to cacti than Euphorbias would be. Aizoaceae, Amaranthaceae, Basellaceae, Didiereaceae, Molluginaceae, Montiaceae, Nyctaginaceae and Portulacaceae, for example.

Even within the cactus family you will find plants that do not have much in common with common cactus. So whether you group based on function, or group based on botanical family, you will have cases where something has different function within your grouping. Why insist on grouping based on botanical relationships alone? Many euphorbia have the appearance and similar function to cactus.

This shift wouldn't make work of ID-seekers and identifiers easier. These both groups are quite numerous anyway. Other thing: scientists now discover more and more species and varieties of these plants and also are trying to prove that even those looking similar or almost identical are totally different things because of their DNA...

I come here to read about and discuss cacti. I don't want to have to sift through any Euphorbia posts. So I vote "Cacti" and "Everything Else."

pone wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:24 am Many euphorbia have the appearance and similar function to cactus.

There are 2,046 species accepted in the genus Euphorbia, the majority of which are not xerophytic and even fewer of them are succulent or like any cactus.

I come here for the other succulents and usually avoid looking at cacti.

One Windowsill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:49 pm

pone wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:24 am Many euphorbia have the appearance and similar function to cactus.

There are 2,046 species accepted in the genus Euphorbia, the majority of which are not xerophytic and even fewer of them are succulent or like any cactus.

If those numbers are correct, then I have to concede my proposal does not work.

One Windowsill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:49 pm There are 2,046 species accepted in the genus Euphorbia, the majority of which are not xerophytic and even fewer of them are succulent or like any cactus.

I come here for the other succulents and usually avoid looking at cacti.

Cool. So we keep the status quo, or add a new section along the lines of Euphorbiaguide.

I don't think we need an extra section for Euphorbias, as the amount of species available in common greeneries is rather small, and usually they are cacti lookalikes, and the average beginning grower confuses them for such and posts it in the cacti ID section People who have more unusual Euphorbias usually know what they are. The rest can get help in the succulent group.

tumamoc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:54 pm

One Windowsill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:49 pm There are 2,046 species accepted in the genus Euphorbia, the majority of which are not xerophytic and even fewer of them are succulent or like any cactus.

I come here for the other succulents and usually avoid looking at cacti.

Cool. So we keep the status quo, or add a new section along the lines of Euphorbiaguide.

New section for Euphorbia would be nice. And "Other Succulents" for everything else.

Jangaudi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:21 pm I don't think we need an extra section for Euphorbias, as the amount of species available in common greeneries is rather small, and usually they are cacti lookalikes, and the average beginning grower confuses them for such and posts it in the cacti ID section

Exactly, and that was one of the motivations for my original suggestion. But if the euphorbias that are cactus-like are in the minority of all euphorbias, things get complicated.

The simplest way is to just have a single forum for Cactus and other Succulents Identification, since many beginners do not always initially know the difference and post a mixed post in either of the present sections.

The Euphporbiaceae is a vast family of which only a few are succulent, some just garden weeds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphorbiaceae

The Cactaceae by contrast are largely succulent with only a few genera like Pereskia and Pereskiopsis more like "normal" plants. That is why the whole Cactaceae as a family has been adopted whereas only parts of other plant families which show succulence. Even then there are arguments as to which plants are succulent, some maintain some of the Orchids should be included. That illustrates the problems of classifying plants on habit rather than family.

DaveW wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:23 am The simplest way is to just have a single forum for Cactus and other Succulents Identification, since many beginners do not always initially know the difference and post a mixed post in either of the present sections.

The Euphporbiaceae is a vast family of which only a few are succulent, some just garden weeds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphorbiaceae

The Cactaceae by contrast are largely succulent with only a few genera like Pereskia and Pereskiopsis more like "normal" plants. That is why the whole Cactaceae as a family has been adopted whereas only parts of other plant families which show succulence. Even then there are arguments as to which plants are succulent, some maintain some of the Orchids should be included. That illustrates the problems of classifying plants on habit rather than family.

About 10-15 years ago I was berated by the owner of a fairly well known C&S plant nursery when I told him I wanted to browse the greenhouse looking at succulents, thinking they were pretty much everything else other than cacti. I was told that succulents were a very narrow group of just a few genera, and excluded almost all of what most people consider to be succulents. To this day, I still have no idea what he was talking about, and it doesn't jive with what are considered succulents at this site.

The term Succulents is usually just used as shorthand for the so called Other Succulents since all cacti with possibly the exception of the Pereskioides (is that a word?) are Succulents.

When it comes to Other Succulents probably some of the S. American viola's (violets) have as much claim to succulence as do Echevaria's. Therefore "Succulent" is a bit of a vague term when deciding what plants qualify. That is why I stick to a single family the Cactaceae rather than growing so called Succulents.

More images if you scroll down this link. They do also grow in the same arid conditions as cacti:-

http://www.chileflora.com/Florachilena/ ... EH2148.htm

As to what is a "Succulent" many attempt to define it:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succulent_plant

Maybe the nursery owner did not consider geophytes where the top growth falls off or dries up in droughts and they exist as a caudex or underground tubers Succulents? Some cacti also do this, for example Pterocactus. Things like Welwitschia have crept in to many cactus journals but it is not really a succulent as it does not store water but produces a very long tap root that goes down until it taps into the water table that exists well below the arid area where it grows.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=we ... &FORM=VIRE

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eco.2039