The New Cactus Lexicon - opinions?

[TimN]

I got a copy of the two-volume The New Cactus Lexicon. I've been going through it, but it's somewhat frustrating to me. There is significant divergence from E.F. Andersen's book The Cactus Family as far as names/groupings are concerned.

I still don't "get" the organizaton of the book, it's not alphabetical. It's a little weird using the text book to find descriptions then look for the pictures in the atlas book.

Anyone else have this book? What are the opinions out there?

I don't use it when trying to identify plants, because I generally can't cross reference with the other books I use.

Is it just me?

Tim

[Christer Johansson]

Well, I can tell you I felt the same in the beginning, but when I read the intro, and so on, I found out why it is so strange organized It differs a lot from The Cactus Family, yes, but when you get used it's nice. It's too expensive, that's for sure, but if you want the latest taxon The Cactus Family are more for someone that wants to read about a cacti.

That's my 2 cents

[iann]

There is significant divergence from E.F. Andersen's book The Cactus Family as far as names/groupings are concerned.

Isn't that the whole point?

I generally can't cross reference with the other books I use.

It does lack a complete set of synonyms. It basically refers only to changes since a previous species checklist and ignores any names before that (other than the basionym).

[peterb]

Hi- The New Cactus Lexicon is absolutely worth having, if only as an eventual historical artifact. It's amazing to me how many names have simply disappeared. As for the differences from Anderson's book, that may or may not be the point, but it's jaw dropping, considering two things-- first, how much questionable synonymy was in that book already, and second, how dedicated Dr. Anderson was to the Cactaceae Working Group and the "taxonomy by committee" approach when he was alive.

I have yet to find an actual use for the NCL itself.

peterb

[daiv]

I have made use of the NCL as a cross-reference especially when trying to ID my Baja cactus pictures.

I found the abbreviations far from something I'd memorize and very much a pain to flip around to figure. As for design, I really like the layout of Anderson's book, but find Pilbeam's even better.

Certainly, cross referencing several sources is the only way to go on tough plants, but even then I'm often left wondering.

I mostly appreciate the NCL for the pictures of species that you just aren't going to find anywhere else such as several Rhipsalis or Opuntias. At least as a springboard to further investigation.

[TimN]

Thanks for the feedback all! I do tend to spend more time looking through the atlas than through the text. I think it's very well done, but a little confusing when compared to my fairly limited exposure to other references.

I found two books on Amazon that were published in 2007 that I haven't seen before. I ordered them and will let you know what I think. They should arrive next week.

Thanks again!

Tim

[daiv]

I think there lacks any definitive work on Cacti ID. Mostly because nobody really knows what should be named what.

Lots of people have strong opinions about how they think certain groups should be classified, but again without even having a definition for what a species is, we must accept the naming of our plants as an on-going learning experience. And that in itself can be rewarding thoughout a lifetime of study.

What I don't like is when those who have studied get snobbish towards those who haven't. I think the sad truth is that there are some really knowlegeable guys out there who have put insane hours into studying specific groups whose knowledge will die right along with them. Seems like one step forward, two steps back to me.

[peterb]

Hi- As in all specialized fields of knowledge, cactus researchers sort of self-select for snobbishness. The low pay, long hours in the field and lab, and detailed observation necessary to become an expert even on one group within a genus, in many cases, seems to have an effect on people's attitudes. Also, I think there's something inherently snobby about folks with a taxonomical bent (I count myself among that group and yeah I guess I can be snobby and judgmental sometimes, especially regarding mislabeling of plants by nurseries who should know better).

Mostly, I'm just a geek. My nerdy obsession with the most minute of details just makes me a dorky amateur botanist. But the names are important to me; understanding the taxonomical history, the rationales for various groupings, the misconceptions or new conceptions and the systematics of various thinkers is my idea of a good time. Go figure.

peterb

[daiv]

Peter, you are perpetually couth when interacting with your fellow man so far as I've observed.

[peterb]

Hi- Maybe "Perpetually couth" can be on my headstone?

peterb

[TimN]

A person could certainly do worse than "Perpetually Couth". I think it would also be fairly unique considering the current level of public discourse. Present company excepted, of course.

Tim

[TimN]

I was intrigued by Ian's comment "Isn't that the whole point?", so I started reading the front of the book to see what the point was. It's an interesting piece. I'm still slogging through it. There is a lot of technical jargon that I'm still coming to grips with.

One interesting tidbit is after all their re-arranging, the wound up with 124 taxa, the same as the previous work they cite. So, they did some splitting and some condensing.

The other thing I noticed while looking through the front of the book was their mention that they put the previous or old names in the text in their alphabetical places with the reference to their new categories. The other books I use have a separate table in the back to look up entries you don't find in the text.

I guess I'm finding that the more I try to understand the overall presentation, it's making a lot more sense.

I'm still not in love with some of the changes, but I understand the reference a lot better.

Tim (it's a slow day at work)