Growth Over Time - (16) Lobivia arachnacantha

[WayneByerly]

I have NO idea where I got the Blossfeldia liliputana (what I THOUGHT it was) Identification. But it's there in plain sight on the first picture, (spelled incorrectly with an extra "I" in the photo below. So I guess I'll just show you the timeline and then go to Cactus Identification to see if I can verify that this is a good ID and then come back here to correct it in case its necessary.

I've changed the topic name from "what I THINK is Blossfeldia liliputa" to what is correct, "Lobivia arachnacantha".

APR 2014
These were pretty small when I first got them, but there were a few more of them than there are now.

2014-04-19.jpg (116.68 KiB) Viewed 1856 times

DEC 2015
I killed some of them by overwatering them (they were not the first, nor were they the last to suffer so) but took the survivors and repotted them in a different container in a soil mix that was a little greater mineral content. The cactus on the far right is a differenrt cactus altogether but is of no importance as it too has since succumbed to the affliction entitled "too much water".

2015-12-27.jpg (85.03 KiB) Viewed 1856 times

OCT 2016
Not much more than the dime is in focus on this pic. Sorry.

2016-10-05.jpg (61.47 KiB) Viewed 1856 times

DEC 2017
My greenhouse, unknown to me, developed a small pinhole and this container sat right under it. So I brought it in so that it would dry out and not sit in damp/wet soil in winter temps. It seems to have thought it was spring, and took off on a massive growth spurt.

2017-12-28.jpg (94.45 KiB) Viewed 1856 times

DEC 2018
Well, maybe not MASSIVE, but you can see that the offsets are definately bigger.

2018-01-15.jpg (107.29 KiB) Viewed 1856 times

[mdpillet]

Hi Wayne,

Good looking seedlings! This is a species of Echinopsis or Lobivia.

[WayneByerly]

I just got an ID from Cactus Identification of Lobivia arachnacantha

[ElieEstephane]

More accurately echinopsis ancistrophora ssp. arachnacantha. It's exciting to see what flower color you get

[DaveW]

See:-

http://www.cactiguide.com/forum/viewtop ... =3&t=40128

[WayneByerly]

Good looking seedlings! This is a species of Echinopsis or Lobivia.

Take note of the change of color between the last two pictures... From the point that i brought it in through an extra 4-6 hours of light daily through another watering with fertilizer. In just a month it's a discernable, much richer green.

[WayneByerly]

More accurately echinopsis ancistrophora ssp. arachnacantha. It's exciting to see what flower color you get

cactus-art.biz tells me that Echinopsis ancistrophora ssp arachnacantha is a synonym for the preferred name Lobivia arachnacantha ... so I think that is what I will use.

it also tells me that the flowers can be white, yellow, pink, orange, red

[ElieEstephane]

Look at the accepte scientific name

[DaveW]

Whilst Echinopsis (Lobivia) arachnacantha ssp. arachnacantha maybe a synonym for L. arachnacantha, so is Echinopsis (Lobivia) arachnacantha. All Lobivia's were lumped into Echinopsis in the "New Cactus Lexicon", but classifications are not mandatory. As long as the name is validly published under the "Rules" you can use which classification you want. There are often more than one classification in current use at any time. At the moment the David Hunt "New Cactus Lexicon" one and Joel Lode's "Taxonomy of the Cactaceae". One a "lumpers" treatment based on morphology and the other a "splitters" based more on DNA Sequencing.

Making the type form a subspecies of itself it is just a way of indicating the type form arachnacantha in keys. In the past they used to write E. arachnacantha type, or other words to indicate this, but I think the "Rules" no longer allow that. Therefore the type form now retains it's name through all subspecific ranks, hence L. arachnacantha ssp. arachnacantha v. arachnacantha forma arachnacantha, ad infinitum, to how many places needed in the key to species. Normally of course we dispense with all the lower ranks and just write it L. arachnacantha and only use the lower ranks for it's subspecies, like L. arachnacantha ssp. torrecillacensis.

[WayneByerly]

L. arachnacantha ad nauseum

Well I appreciate having a way to identify my cacti and succulents I think some of the taxonomical folderol has gone just a bit too far. Taxonomy for the sake of taxonomy is just a tad ridiculous. And if I can interpret what you're saying above properly, I think that is partially what you're saying too. At least I think so. Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened once or twice before...

At one point it's nothing more than just non-sensical hair splitting...

[WayneByerly]

Look at the accepte scientific name

Hello Elie
Sorry to have taken so long in responding with this, but I have not been doing extremely well recently. So here goes.

Yes I see the "Accepted Scientific Name". But I had thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the name the cactus was listed under, in this case Lobivia arachnacantha, was the preferred use name. It really makes no difference to me whether we use (1) the name that the cactus is listed by or (2) a synonym, or (3) an accepted scientific name, as long as we can all agree on one name to call it by.

I think a lot of this taxonomical folderol is just ludicrous in its hair-splitting detail. While I appreciate having a name that I can identify Cactus with, and one that I can use that is known to other people so that they know what I'm referring to when I use it, I do think that a good deal of it is going way too far. It's taxonomy for taxonomy's sake.

So... for this particular Cactus, which name should we all agree on to use? I've looked at a considerable number of pictures under Google search for three different names--1- Echinopsis ancistrophora ssp arachnacantha, 2- Lobivia arachnacantha and, 3- Echinopsis arachnacantha--and I find no distinction to make between any of them.

Recall that I consider myself a newbie at this and that I depend heavily on the experts here at this forum to help me identify my cacti. I Also rely heavily on the pictures provided by a Google search. And for another www.cactus-art.biz (I really have no idea why I have chosen that site above others that provide pictures except, perhaps that they provide a great deal of textual information along with their pictures).

(( please excuse any peculiar capitalization that you may see in my postings, as I use my tablet's voice-to-text transcription for text entry, as I can speak faster than I can type. And I do not always feel it's necessary to go back and correct every mistake that it makes.))

[DaveW]

In normal usage you only use the required levels to identify a plant, as I said Lobivia arachnacantha or Lobivia arachnacantha ssp. torricillacensis. I was trying to clear up the confusion as to why you may occasionally see a double barrelled name where the species is repeatedly listed through all the different subspecific ranks. In a formal key to identify species (as in Britain and Rose) they may be written one above the other to indicate the type form along with other subspecies as:-

Lobivia arachnacantha ssp. arachnacantha
Lobivia arachnacantha ssp. torricillacensis

Being listed with the required number of infraspecific categories required.

These days most new collectors don't even seem to buy authoritative books on the subject, as we had to do in the past, let alone consult keys or original descriptions as botanists do in order to identify species. Just rely on finding an image on the Web that looks similar. You have to remember formal taxonomy was constructed by botanists for botanists, not for amateurs, in order to internationally recognise exactly what plant was being described. Replacing the misleading local common names those from other areas would not know such as "Pincushion Cactus", which could mean many different plants according to the area you came from. For instance if we call a plant a Bluebell, what the Americans would call a Bluebell is a different plant to what would be referred to as a Bluebell in England and a Scottish Bluebell is a different species entirely. This comes about because people moving to another country called anything similar looking to the ones they had at home the same name.

Therefore if you are holding international conversations names like "Bluebell" or "Pincushion Cactus" are confusing since everybody is talking about different species and even genera, which is why internationally recognised Latin names are used.

As said previously, classifications are not obligatory, it is only required that the plant name was formally published correctly to be valid. Therefore if it was first validly published as an Echinocactus you can still call it that if you wish. You may hear people saying "We must now call it so and so" when a new classification comes out. There is no compulsion on you (or any botanist) to follow any new classification, since one does not automatically supersede all those that went before it. Classifications are merely the classifiers opinion, which depending how much credence they are given determines how widely it is accepted. There can be more than one classification in use at any time, as at present with the David Hunt and Joel Lode ones. Neither legally has to be followed, it is a matter of personal choice.