Oddities
Oddities
I was prompted to visit the missing species list today for the first time in a while and found several oddities. A number of very common Echinocereus species (eg. E. coccineus) are showing as having no pictures, but when I go to look they have many.
I spotted three Eriosyce species which I can supply pictures of small plants or seedlings. Better than nothing to be going on with.
Last strange thing is no pictures of Mammillaria stella-de-tacubaya! Do people just have this under other names, its not that rare.
I spotted three Eriosyce species which I can supply pictures of small plants or seedlings. Better than nothing to be going on with.
Last strange thing is no pictures of Mammillaria stella-de-tacubaya! Do people just have this under other names, its not that rare.
--ian
Ian,
You found a bug! This bug stems from the Custom Nomenclature feature that I've been working on.
The oddity is the result of my working through the NCL system and having to add subspecies that I either neglected in the past or are missing from Anderson's system.
Thanks to your note, I was able to locate the error and fix the code.
The list will include the subspecies, varieties, and forms now.
Of course there are even more of those than what it listed here and depending on how you sit with a certain classification, the names may seem absurd. But in that sense they are of more historical interest than current classification understanding.
You found a bug! This bug stems from the Custom Nomenclature feature that I've been working on.
The oddity is the result of my working through the NCL system and having to add subspecies that I either neglected in the past or are missing from Anderson's system.
Thanks to your note, I was able to locate the error and fix the code.
The list will include the subspecies, varieties, and forms now.
Of course there are even more of those than what it listed here and depending on how you sit with a certain classification, the names may seem absurd. But in that sense they are of more historical interest than current classification understanding.
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
-
- Posts: 2452
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:57 am
- Location: Västerås, Sweden
- Contact:
Yes, I saw that to and tried a few times to see if it would take to me to the forums but it didn't work so I was wondering what it was there for. Now I know.daiv wrote:Christer,
That login is different than the forum. It is a side thing I am working on and not ready yet for everyone.
Daiv
John In Fort Worth, Texas
"Where the West begins"
"Where the West begins"
i was looking at the missing species list and saw Stenocactus rectispinus and did a little searching
desert tropicals has it as a valid species but with no info or images
http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/ ... pinus.html
and also as a Synonym of Stenocactus vaupelianus
http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/ ... ianus.html
Pilbeam in his book ariocarpus et cetera although dealing with the genus makes no mention of rectispinus
cactus art have it as a Synonym of Echinofossulocactus albatus
http://www.cactus-art.biz/schede/ECHINO ... lbatus.htm
is it a valid name does it exist in current taxonomy
and is this it
desert tropicals has it as a valid species but with no info or images
http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/ ... pinus.html
and also as a Synonym of Stenocactus vaupelianus
http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/ ... ianus.html
Pilbeam in his book ariocarpus et cetera although dealing with the genus makes no mention of rectispinus
cactus art have it as a Synonym of Echinofossulocactus albatus
http://www.cactus-art.biz/schede/ECHINO ... lbatus.htm
is it a valid name does it exist in current taxonomy
and is this it
incurable cactoholic
growing rebutia's with a mix of others.
growing rebutia's with a mix of others.
Stenocactus rectispinus is a validly published name but I have no idea if that is your plant. It is not generally accepted as a species today but I don't know what the correct current synonymy would be. Your plant is vaguely similar to the original description but not really a good match. The original description is somewhat lacking.
Cactus Art considers S. albatus and S. vaupelianus to be synonyms and this is widely accepted today, so it is really agreeing with Desert Tropicals about what S. rectispinus is. S. vaupelianus is the current valid name although S. albatus is widely used. Your plant matches.
Cactus Art considers S. albatus and S. vaupelianus to be synonyms and this is widely accepted today, so it is really agreeing with Desert Tropicals about what S. rectispinus is. S. vaupelianus is the current valid name although S. albatus is widely used. Your plant matches.
--ian
Well the current CactiGuide.com site reflects Anderson's work as you know. And from everything that I've seen, Desert-tropicals also a reflection of Anderson's "The Cactus Family".
Now, the NCL lists S. albatus as S. vaupelianus, but makes no mention at all of S. rectispinus.
This is what I meant in the other post on the NCL about many names in Anderson are non-existant in the NCL. Not even a note saying, "invalid" or anything like that.
What I didn't realize when I made that post, is that it goes both ways. I'm finding many names in the NCL that are absent in "The Cactus Family". I have a strong feeling that this would be even more so with older publications such as Britton and Rose and Backeberg. And I suspect that more specific references like "Ariocarpus Etc." will lead to even more disparaging information.
It seems the more one looks at cactus taxonomy, the less one understands it.
Now, the NCL lists S. albatus as S. vaupelianus, but makes no mention at all of S. rectispinus.
This is what I meant in the other post on the NCL about many names in Anderson are non-existant in the NCL. Not even a note saying, "invalid" or anything like that.
What I didn't realize when I made that post, is that it goes both ways. I'm finding many names in the NCL that are absent in "The Cactus Family". I have a strong feeling that this would be even more so with older publications such as Britton and Rose and Backeberg. And I suspect that more specific references like "Ariocarpus Etc." will lead to even more disparaging information.
It seems the more one looks at cactus taxonomy, the less one understands it.
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
Hob, I'd say your plant is a very nice Echinofossulocactus vaupelianus. I have no idea if albatus is really a synonym for vaupelianus or not. (really as in should it still get some taxonomic rank or not). E. rectispinus I haven't heard of.
Daiv, perhaps the most thorough systematic history of various cacti I've ever read is the original _Cacti of the Southwest_ by Del Weniger. Many Texas plants have several pages of historical taxonomical information, tracing the various names given by various authors up to the 1970s. It was a real eye opener for me, years ago, to realize how much history many of the forms have.
peterb
Daiv, perhaps the most thorough systematic history of various cacti I've ever read is the original _Cacti of the Southwest_ by Del Weniger. Many Texas plants have several pages of historical taxonomical information, tracing the various names given by various authors up to the 1970s. It was a real eye opener for me, years ago, to realize how much history many of the forms have.
peterb
Zone 9
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the mysterious E. rectispinus has a similar story to this one:
http://www.cactiguide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12078
http://www.cactiguide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12078
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
-
- Posts: 2974
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:17 am
- Location: SF Bay Area (Zone 9b)
Sorry to confuse guys. I've got to add in the security on the pages so that hackers can't access the data without a valid login. Lots and lots of testing!Saguaro123 wrote:No wonder why it didn't work when I tried logging in on the guide. I'm looking forward to the new feature.
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti