thought we could post ideas taht would help the guide.
i have one idea that would help a Lot....but i thinks its like opening pandoras box and the work would be unthinkable.....putting the things that are used to describe the specie on the guide. flower/spine etc morphology info......i think this would be invaluable to the guide, and make it incredibly useful (although it already is).
im just thinking, when lots of people see a picture of say 2 echinopsis that are different species....they may not realize why they are different....many look the "same", but if there was a description describing WHY they are different (ie "This specie" has XXX spines and flower is XXX, "That specie" has this many spines and the ovary is like this etc.
jsut a thought....i hate to think of the amount of work and how hard it would be.....especially with cactus taxonomy....but listing the species description with a source, can at least help in most cases.
ideas for improving the guide.
ideas for improving the guide.
Stephen Robert Irwin: 22 February 1962 – 4 September 2006. Rest In Peace.
Ha! Pandora's definitely laughing.
Descriptions are useful but generating the truly useful ones rather than just a bunch of very general info that could apply to a dozen different plants is wickedly hard work.
The descriptions in Anderson's _The Cactus Family_, for example, are sometimes frustratingly vague. This is not really Anderson's fault.Some of the key distinguishing info between close species is omitted. Etc.
For example, take Echinocereus coccineus and Echinocereus triglochidiatus as described in _The Cactus Family_.
coccineus:
"Plants usually branched and forming mounds of few to many stems, to 1 m (3,3 ft.) in diameter. Stems ovoid to cylindrical, light green, to 40 cm(16 in) long, 2.5-5 cm (1-2 in) in diameter. Ribs 5-12, often forming tubercles. Spines difficult to distinguish as centrals and radials, yellow to blackish. Central spines 0-4, angular in cross section, the main one often flattened, to 7 cm (2.8 in) long. Radial spines 5-20, round in cross section. Flowers borne below the stem tips, sometimes unisexual (plants dioecious), broadly funnelform, orange-red, 3-10 cm (1.2-3.9 in) long, 2.5-8 cm (1-3.1 in) in diameter. Fruits globose, becoming red, with spines falling away."
triglochidiatus:
"Plants nearly always much branched, often forming mounds more than 1 m (3.3 ft.) wide with as many as 500 stems. Stems ovoid to cylindrical, light to bluish green, 5-40 cm (2-16 in) high, 5-15 cm (2-5.9 in) in diameter. Ribs 5-12, tuberculate or smooth edged. Central spines 1-4, not easily distinguishable from radials. Radial spines 0-22, yellow to dark, 1-7 cm (.4-2.8 in) long, round or flattened. Flowers borne well below the stem tips, remaining open for several days, tubular funnelform, brilliant orange-red to dark red, with white throats, 3-9 cm (1.2-3.5 in) long, 2.5-7 cm (1-2.8 in) in diameter. Fruits globose to ovoid, becoming pinkish or reddish, with deciduous spines."
Neither of these descriptions mentions the overall differences in appearance or the difficulty in telling them apart. (The clumping characteristics of the two species are reversed, also. coccineus is the real clumper and triglochidiatus is actually more often a less branched and more open plant). In just about every morphological feature of the two plants each section could apply just as easily to the other plant! Taxonomists have sometimes thrown their hands in the air in frustration over this and just called them the same species, but after a bit of experience with the two species its usually obvious which is which. The fault lies in our descriptions.
So my two cents is that including descriptions will only increase the number of posts to the forum like "I thought I had a certain plant but it has 15 radials instead of 12...." etc.
peterb
Descriptions are useful but generating the truly useful ones rather than just a bunch of very general info that could apply to a dozen different plants is wickedly hard work.
The descriptions in Anderson's _The Cactus Family_, for example, are sometimes frustratingly vague. This is not really Anderson's fault.Some of the key distinguishing info between close species is omitted. Etc.
For example, take Echinocereus coccineus and Echinocereus triglochidiatus as described in _The Cactus Family_.
coccineus:
"Plants usually branched and forming mounds of few to many stems, to 1 m (3,3 ft.) in diameter. Stems ovoid to cylindrical, light green, to 40 cm(16 in) long, 2.5-5 cm (1-2 in) in diameter. Ribs 5-12, often forming tubercles. Spines difficult to distinguish as centrals and radials, yellow to blackish. Central spines 0-4, angular in cross section, the main one often flattened, to 7 cm (2.8 in) long. Radial spines 5-20, round in cross section. Flowers borne below the stem tips, sometimes unisexual (plants dioecious), broadly funnelform, orange-red, 3-10 cm (1.2-3.9 in) long, 2.5-8 cm (1-3.1 in) in diameter. Fruits globose, becoming red, with spines falling away."
triglochidiatus:
"Plants nearly always much branched, often forming mounds more than 1 m (3.3 ft.) wide with as many as 500 stems. Stems ovoid to cylindrical, light to bluish green, 5-40 cm (2-16 in) high, 5-15 cm (2-5.9 in) in diameter. Ribs 5-12, tuberculate or smooth edged. Central spines 1-4, not easily distinguishable from radials. Radial spines 0-22, yellow to dark, 1-7 cm (.4-2.8 in) long, round or flattened. Flowers borne well below the stem tips, remaining open for several days, tubular funnelform, brilliant orange-red to dark red, with white throats, 3-9 cm (1.2-3.5 in) long, 2.5-7 cm (1-2.8 in) in diameter. Fruits globose to ovoid, becoming pinkish or reddish, with deciduous spines."
Neither of these descriptions mentions the overall differences in appearance or the difficulty in telling them apart. (The clumping characteristics of the two species are reversed, also. coccineus is the real clumper and triglochidiatus is actually more often a less branched and more open plant). In just about every morphological feature of the two plants each section could apply just as easily to the other plant! Taxonomists have sometimes thrown their hands in the air in frustration over this and just called them the same species, but after a bit of experience with the two species its usually obvious which is which. The fault lies in our descriptions.
So my two cents is that including descriptions will only increase the number of posts to the forum like "I thought I had a certain plant but it has 15 radials instead of 12...." etc.
peterb
Zone 9
i see your point, but those extra points will send us on a learning curve 
i have to say, i have always wanted a good all in one (or close to one) source describing species, although some species dont seem to be described well at all....
i have to say, i have always wanted a good all in one (or close to one) source describing species, although some species dont seem to be described well at all....
Stephen Robert Irwin: 22 February 1962 – 4 September 2006. Rest In Peace.
I must admit that, in many of my butterfly and moth books, THIS is the most valuable info they provide. In most of my "good" books, after morphology and biology of the species described, they have a section of "Similar species" - then go thru explaining and/or showing how to tell the main species from the similar ones. Of course, in moths, sometimes it take genitalia dissections (which is kind of ridiculous in my opinion as if we did that with humans, John Holmes and myself would be 2 separate species!!) I have a rule, if you gotta look at the bug penis under a microscope to determine species, your being WAY to much of a splitter for me!!!
<i>"obsession has to have action"</i>
http://www.TheNatureDepot.com
http://www.TheNatureDepot.com
Loph - moved the post over here.
I am right there with you and have started this task with on the genus level. If you start at the top of the list, the first 7 genera have descriptions. I compared the books I had on each and if I had my own observations, I added that too. I do not want to simply copy someone else's work at all on this. So I've got to check multiple sources, make notes and then write the description. That takes a long time.
I built the database with fields in it for detailed species descriptions. I find that winter is the best time for me to work on new features on the site. So very soon, I will be back at it. I keep a running list of features that need to be added or improved on.
I certainly appreciate the contributions people have made. -Mostly pictures, but John put together the Glossary and the Etymology pages. Also the Cacti articles are handy references too. Your grafting articles, the "tools of the trade" article, the Hypertuffa planter, etc. are some that I've got to make into an official article yet. So I guess I'm a bit of a bottle-neck on some of these things.
But as you say, more info is better than less. This is a never-ending project and so approaching it as a collection of data is helpful as opposed to a work to be completed some day.
I am right there with you and have started this task with on the genus level. If you start at the top of the list, the first 7 genera have descriptions. I compared the books I had on each and if I had my own observations, I added that too. I do not want to simply copy someone else's work at all on this. So I've got to check multiple sources, make notes and then write the description. That takes a long time.
I built the database with fields in it for detailed species descriptions. I find that winter is the best time for me to work on new features on the site. So very soon, I will be back at it. I keep a running list of features that need to be added or improved on.
I certainly appreciate the contributions people have made. -Mostly pictures, but John put together the Glossary and the Etymology pages. Also the Cacti articles are handy references too. Your grafting articles, the "tools of the trade" article, the Hypertuffa planter, etc. are some that I've got to make into an official article yet. So I guess I'm a bit of a bottle-neck on some of these things.
But as you say, more info is better than less. This is a never-ending project and so approaching it as a collection of data is helpful as opposed to a work to be completed some day.
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
Iann, are you referring to the lexicon or andersons? or another? like the post above, it seems many descriptions are somewhat vague...or is this just how cacti classification is?
sounds great Daiv! thats exactly what i was thinking, just a collection of data. this guide is already incredibly helpful (and the forum helps sort out any further confusion, especially with the members who post here).
thats cool you already planned to do this, must make life a little easier rather than editing all the pages to add in the proper fields....probably still have to anyway a bit
are you wishing your hobby was a family with few species now?
sounds great Daiv! thats exactly what i was thinking, just a collection of data. this guide is already incredibly helpful (and the forum helps sort out any further confusion, especially with the members who post here).
thats cool you already planned to do this, must make life a little easier rather than editing all the pages to add in the proper fields....probably still have to anyway a bit
are you wishing your hobby was a family with few species now?
Stephen Robert Irwin: 22 February 1962 – 4 September 2006. Rest In Peace.
(Something tells me I'm not alone on that one....)-
CoronaCactus
- Posts: 10421
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 6:16 pm
- Location: Corona, California USA [Zone 10]
- Contact:
time = blown big block V8 with a stuck throttle!daiv wrote:(Something tells me I'm not alone on that one....)
Descriptions would be great, but for myself personally, if a photo does not acompany the description, it's useless. Since the guide has plenty of photos, i don't see it as a problem. Just that some sites don't have pics and it drives me nuts.
I think with the current pics, additional pics of the flowers and buds along with seed pics... a brief general description is really going to *complete* the guide. Cross-section pics of flowers would just be icing on the cacti cake
One day i hope to go through my terabyte of pics and help supply the guide
-
John P Weiser
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:08 pm
- Location: Sparks, NV
One Day!!One day i hope to go through my terabyte of pics and help supply the guide
Thats not much time!! 
Your good Darryl, but not that good.
Forgive me.
It was just such an easy target! 
From the High Desert Steppe
of the Great Basin and foot hills
of the Sierra Nevada Range
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sierrarainshadow/
sierrarainshadow
of the Great Basin and foot hills
of the Sierra Nevada Range
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sierrarainshadow/
sierrarainshadow
-
CoronaCactus
- Posts: 10421
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 6:16 pm
- Location: Corona, California USA [Zone 10]
- Contact: