Ferocactus acanthodes or cylindraceus?

[peterb]

Hello all- I am looking for the definitive and final answer on this one. I had heard that Ferocactus acanthodes was retained, officially, and cylindraceus is no longer the accepted name. If anyone can point me to the publication where that occurred, I would be most grateful.

Thanks,

peterb

[jp29]

Hello all- I am looking for the definitive and final answer on this one. I had heard that Ferocactus acanthodes was retained, officially, and cylindraceus is no longer the accepted name. If anyone can point me to the publication where that occurred, I would be most grateful.

Thanks,

peterb

Well, Peter, we are really back to this .......... http://www.cactiguide.com/forum/viewtop ... 86#p289386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In my 2013 copy of the New Cactus Lexicon Illustrations (if that is your cup of tea) acanthodes is omitted and cylindraceus is retained (372.6)

[peterb]

It may be that Hunt was incorrect in retaining cylindraceus. I found the only reference I have seen so far regarding this issue, Cactus Exploers #6, November 2012, page 25:

"A proposal to reject the name Echinocactus(&
Ferocactus) acanthodes submitted in 2011 has now
been voted upon and is not recommended by 16
votes to 1 with 2 abstentions. In Lindsay's 1955
thesis on Ferocactus, eventually published in 1996,
he neotypified E. acanthodes with the holotype of E.
cylindraceus, thereby making them identical, and
the earliest epithet applies.
So this means that the correct name for this
plant is Ferocactus acanthodes, not F. cylindraceus as
proposed by Nigel Taylor. His argument was
considered to be insufficient to justify overturning
the Lindsay neotypification. (Roy Mottram)
Reference
Applequist, W. L. (2012)Report of the
Nomenclature Committee for vascular plants: 64:
2021 Proposal to reject Echinocactus acanthodes Lem.
(Cactaceae) by Hodgson & al. in Taxon 60: 910.
2011. Taxon 61(5): 1113. International Association
for Plant Taxonomy, Bratislava."

Taxon is the journal of the IATP, and the IATP is the final word in accepted nomenclature.

So, it would seem, Ferocactus acanthodes it is.

peterb

[jp29]

Yes, Peter, I agree with you. The problem is that there are so many resources accessed and referenced online that are contradictory (maybe not up-to-date?) . For instance, a respected and much used resource I employ produces the following results:

http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/sear ... lindraceus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/sear ... acanthodes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And we have our own CactiGuide.com reference:

http://cactiguide.com/cactus/?genus=Fer ... lindraceus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[peterb]

The trick with taxonomy is to separate out a bunch of different strands, if you really care about it, that is. In particular, the committee responsible for maintaining the rules of priority and typification, etc., has the final say on names that are in dispute. Of course it will be a very long time before cylindraceus disappears again, as it was a very long time before acanthodes got replaced. But that is just the lag time. The question is what is the authoritative publication. That's where one has to go if one has to be concerned with using the correct name.

peterb

[A. Dean Stock]

Peter,
The taxon Ferocactus acanthodes was preserved and F. cylindraceus rejected by the International Commission on Botanical Nom. within the last year. You can look up the ruling but just now I'm not remembering the full address to do that but you have the essential information in your post above. Wendy Hodgson and others filed a request to have F. acanthodes rejected in favor of F. cylindraceus but that was soundly rejected by the commission based on published material acknowledged in the ruling. Ferocactus cylindraceus is gone "forever"; that is, it will not come back at a later time.
Dean

[Saxicola]

In particular, the committee responsible for maintaining the rules of priority and typification, etc., has the final say on names that are in dispute.

Just to make sure it is clear, that committee only applies when you are trying to do something like conserving or rejecting names or types. I guess the way to put it is that if you are following the heart of the code then there is no overseeing committee to decide things because either you are following the code or you aren't, and if you aren't you are wrong. However, if you want to try and get special permission to go against the code then it has to go through a committee. Oh, and it isn't voted on by any specially appointed group. It is anyone that goes to one of the International Botanical Congress nomenclatural sessions (held every 6 years) and wants to vote. It is kind of a self selecting thing though as few people bother to attend unless they actually care about nomenclature.