CactiGuide.com

How is Pfeiffera placed in the Echinocereinae tribe and what’s the deal with Lymanbensonia and how does it relate to Calymmanthium?

Lastly does anybody here disagree with the relatively recent change of putting some species from Hatiora into Schlumbergera?

Presumably these days it is their DNA that indicates a relationship. However they seem to then use arithmetic to decide what is closest to what, therefore that again brings in human interpretation of the results, just as previously happened with morphological classifications.

Also the "Lumper" or "Splitter" argument rears its ugly head. Do we have too many small genera that should be lumped, or are smaller genera necessary in these cases? All classifications are optional and none is mandatory. All the "Code" insists on is the genus must be validly published according to the "Rules".

However once a genus is validly published you are free to use it or lump it into an older one if you wish. In the case of "Lumping" into synonymy, the oldest name validly published takes priority, even if it is the least typical part of your new "Lumped" genus. Eriosyce being an example of the oldest name taking priority when Neoporteria etc was lumped into it, yet Eriosyce sensu stricto being least similar to the rest.

Way over my head Daniel.

Unrelated question, but I just remembered to ask: Your signature says you are 25. I'm wondering if that needs an update. (I don't use smiley's, but I am saying it with a smile on my face.)

jerrytheplater wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:07 pm Way over my head Daniel.

Unrelated question, but I just remembered to ask: Your signature says you are 25. I'm wondering if that needs an update. (I don't use smiley's, but I am saying it with a smile on my face.)

Nope that’s correct

CactusBoss wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:50 pm How is Pfeiffera placed in the Echinocereinae tribe and what’s the deal with Lymanbensonia and how does it relate to Calymmanthium?

Lastly does anybody here disagree with the relatively recent change of putting some species from Hatiora into Schlumbergera?

It would be worth your while looking at this paper from 2010 https://bioone.org/journals/willdenowia ... 40201.full and this one from 2011 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0311000029 . If you can't access the pdf files (I think you can) let me know. I'm assuming that you're familiar with these sorts of studies, which can be a bit heavy going in places! If you're not, then I'd tackle the abstract first, then intro, Figs. (particularly any phylogenetic trees) then discussion/conclusion. Much of the text in the middle can be a bit like reading a telephone directory and can be passed over unless you're a serious student of this kind of thing, which I'm not.

CactusBoss wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:50 pm How is Pfeiffera placed in the Echinocereinae tribe and what’s the deal with Lymanbensonia and how does it relate to Calymmanthium?

Lastly does anybody here disagree with the relatively recent change of putting some species from Hatiora into Schlumbergera?

Maybe you have to point the sources of your doubts like articles or websites setting these new relations.

For me more interesting thing is expanding of genus Cochemiea to include mist western hooked large-flower Mammillaria, Neolloydia, and Ortegocactus.
by Peter B. Breslin.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ammillaria
I read only Cactus and Succulent Journal 93(3) article. And that sounds convincing.