Question on nomenclature

[fanaticactus]

Using two examples here, I've seen both Parodia haselbergii and Parodia haselbergii haselbergii as well as Echinocereus viridiflorus and Echinocereus viridiflorus viridiflorus. Do they actually refer to two different species? In other words, is a Parodia haselbergii the same as a Parodia haselbergii haselbergii? It seems to me that one species name is enough unless there are obvious characteristics that would warrant a subspecies designation. Two, if it's the same name, seem redundant. I understand that there are legitimate subspecies, and those should be taken care of well enough by adding the third name (genus, species, subspecies: Echinocereus viridiflorus and Echinocereus viridiflorus canus) for example.

[jfabiao]

Whenever a group of organisms warrants the sub-species rank, the others, those that do not "diverge", are assigned to a "nominal" sub-species rank. Picking your example, until a sub-species was defined there was only Echinocereus viridiflorus. But from the moment someone decided there should be a sub-species, Echinocereus viridiflorus subsp. canus, the rest became Echinocereus viridiflorus subsp. viridiflorus (incidentally, the subsp. part had to be added to the name).

[DaveW]

As Jfabiao says the type of that rank retains that name through all lesser ranks, but we seldom ever write them out. Therefore as I understand it Echinocereus viridiflorus becomes:-

Echinocereus viridiflorus ssp. viridiflorus var. viridiflorus f. viridiflorus, ad infinitum!

Echinocereus viridiflorus ssp. canus var. canus f. canus, etc.

The only time you will usually see this done is in a key when they only wish to assign a minor rank to a distinct form, when you might see:-

Echinocereus viridiflorus ssp. viridiflorus var. viridiflorus f. viridiflorus

Echinocereus viridiflorus ssp. viridiflorus var. viridiflorus f. xxxx

But we would normally just write that Echinocereus viridiflorus f. xxxx

No matter how many times the name is repeated it's still Echinocereus viridiflorus type. You do see them occasionally written without the ssp. to just indicate it is Echinocereus viridiflorus type that is being discussed as a form of shorthand, not a subspecies, variety or form of it.

[fanaticactus]

Thank you both, jfabiao and DaveW. Your responses have cleared up this question for me. There still seems to be some redundancy involved, but I suppose rules are rules, and I don't want to mess with them. So, if I understand correctly, if I wrote about my E. viridiflorus, E. triglochidiatus, P. haselbergii, etc. people would assume I'm discussing the original, basic species without having to repeat the species name. Right? I had seen the repeated species name many times and I had to satisfy my curiosity. And, yes, if I have a subspecies I always indicate it as 'ssp'. One that comes to mind is my P. schumanniana ssp claviceps.

[phil_SK]

As Jfabiao says the type of that rank retains that name through all lesser ranks, but we seldom ever write them out. Therefore as I understand it Echinocereus viridiflorus becomes:-

Echinocereus viridiflorus ssp. viridiflorus var. viridiflorus f. viridiflorus, ad infinitum!

Well, sort of, I think, but only provided somebody has validly published a different subspecies, a different variety of the same subspecies and a different form of that same variety. More often, lower ranks are named without such a hierarchy, such as with Astrophytum ornatum f. mirbelii (which as said above automatically generates an Astrophytum ornatum f. ornatum). I don't think that automatically generates an A. ornatum ssp ornatum v ornatum with two forms. Or am I misunderstanding you?

So, if I understand correctly, if I wrote about my E. viridiflorus, E. triglochidiatus, P. haselbergii, etc. people would assume I'm discussing the original, basic species without having to repeat the species name. Right? I had seen the repeated species name many times and I had to satisfy my curiosity. And, yes, if I have a subspecies I always indicate it as 'ssp'. One that comes to mind is my P. schumanniana ssp claviceps.

When you talk about, for example, Parodia haselbergii, you could be referring to the whole of the species complex involving both ssp haselbergii and ssp graessneri. Or it could be that you don't think they are both part of the same species (ie you recognise both P. haselbergii and P. graessneri in their own right as separate species) and are talking about the white-spined, red-flowered plant that others call P. haselbergii ssp haselbergii. There are some people who don't think they merit separation at any rank but are just part of a variable species so for them there is only P. haselbergii and it has either white or green spines (or maybe inbetween) and red, orangish or yellowy green flowers (or maybe inbetween).
If the distinction matters to what you're saying it's worth making it clear some way. Widespread usage plays a part, too. For example, there are plenty of published varieties of Blossfeldia liliputana but as they're not well recognised you would never need to refer to B. liliputana v. liliputana.

[fanaticactus]

Thank you, phil_SK. All these extra details give me a much better understanding of the system. I'm not that 'scientifically' oriented to know a lot about varieties, 'formas' or cultivars of a basic species. However, I was a language teacher and that's what makes me want to clear this up in my own mind. I don't want to be referring to my cacti incorrectly. I don't have any 'exotic' or odd varieties of cacti (that I know of), so I expect that when I ask about a certain plant, I'll be talking more or less the basics. But these details you've all contributed have helped me to better decide how to (correctly) refer to a specific cactus.

[DaveW]

I have seen cacti keyed out in the way I said Phil, but don't ask me to remember where among several thousand cactus journals I have. They usually seem to key the first or original species to as many levels as they need to designate the other subspecies or forms listed below it.

I found these in the following link, if I have understood them correctly?

"The general principle embodied in all three articles is the same: the names of various taxa which include the nomenclatural type of the next higher taxon must be based upon the same stem as that name or must repeat the name or epithet unaltered."

"The problem arises, however, in the extreme breadth given to the tautonymic principle in Articles 19, 22, and 26. Under the provisions of these articles this principle applies not only to the names of the subgenus, tribe, and subtribe which include the type genus of the family name, but to those of all subgenera, tribes, and subtribes within that family; not only to the names of the subgenus and section which include the type species of a generic name, but to the names of all subgenera and sections within that genus; and not only to the names of the subspecies, variety, and form which include the nomenclatural type of the species, but to those of all subspecies, varieties, and forms within that species"

"In the name of an infraspecific taxon which includes the nomenclatural type of the species, the epithet of the species must be repeated unaltered but without citation of an author's name (see Art. 46). If the epithet of the species is changed, the names of the infraspecific taxa including the nomenclatural type of the species must be changed accordingly. This provision applies only to taxa which include the nomenclatural type of the species."

http://herbarium.ucdavis.edu/publicatio ... 45-651.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whether these rules ever came into force Phil you would need to consult the latest code to find out?

[phil_SK]

I think that's only restating what was said earlier: creating a new ssp of, say, species123 automatically creates species123 ssp species123. I don't think it's filling in extra 'empty' levels.

[DaveW]

I think I said it was done in some keys Phil when they also included multiple lower ranks of the same species. Naming the species, subspecies or variety automatically creates the same name at every inferior rank, it does not need formal publication.

"In the name of an infraspecific taxon which includes the nomenclatural type of the species, the epithet of the species must be repeated unaltered but without citation of an author's name (see Art. 46)."

[phil_SK]

That wasn't what I was querying, rather the suggestion (which I may have misunderstood) that if, for example, I published Echinocereus viridiflorus f. rubriflorus that the original becomes

Therefore as I understand it Echinocereus viridiflorus becomes:-

Echinocereus viridiflorus ssp. viridiflorus var. viridiflorus f. viridiflorus, ad infinitum!

rather than just Echinocereus viridiflorus f. viridiflorus. It was all those levels in between that you were automatically adding... why? Or wasn't that what you were saying?

[DaveW]

No, In fact I was discussing this at the Cactus Explorers Weekend yesterday with Roy Mottram. If I have understood what he said correctly as soon as a lower rank than the type is created an automatic autonym for that rank is created for the type itself.

Meaning for say Echinocereus viridiflorus if somebody creates Echinocereus viridiflorus ssp. viridiflorus f. XXX then the automatic autonyms Echinocereus viridiflorus ssp. viridiflorus f. viridiflorus are automatically created under the code, nobody has to create such autonyms and no author is shown for them. I will ask Roy for the detail's of what rule number it is.

I was making the point that no matter how many ranks are used for a lower taxon than the type of the species the autonyms for the type match them, or as I said go on ad infinitum just repeating the types name.

Found these:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonym_(botany" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/c ... c5a026.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infraspecific_name" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There have been several proposals to change the rule on autonyms but I don't know if any have been successful? I don't know if you create a minor rank like forma Phil if you automatically create all the superior ranks above it, but these will sometimes be shown in keys as I said.

[phil_SK]

Then I misunderstood you; I wasn't talking about how simple autonyms are created as that's quite clear. Those names should only appear in keys (or anywhere else) if

somebody has validly published a different subspecies, a different variety of the same subspecies and a different form of that same variety.

[ossy96]

Hello, i have the same question here, i've just bought an Echinopsis subdenudata, and im trying to figure out if by the current taxonomy it is Lobivia subdenudata or Lobivia ancistrophora?Because all of these two are recognized currently, and my question is what are the differences between these 2?

[anttisepp]

Hello, i have the same question here, i've just bought an Echinopsis subdenudata, and im trying to figure out if by the current taxonomy it is Lobivia subdenudata or Lobivia ancistrophora?Because all of these two are recognized currently, and my question is what are the differences between these 2?

If somebody don't matter about difference it's OK. They may call all plants as "Cactus sp.".
I rather concern them as different speciei and have both, because in my opinion difference is very big.

[ossy96]

Hello, i have the same question here, i've just bought an Echinopsis subdenudata, and im trying to figure out if by the current taxonomy it is Lobivia subdenudata or Lobivia ancistrophora?Because all of these two are recognized currently, and my question is what are the differences between these 2?

If somebody don't matter about difference it's OK. They may call all plants as "Cactus sp.".
I rather concern them as different speciei and have both, because in my opinion difference is very big.

Thanks Antisepp
I asked because when i type on google lobivia subdenudata automatically it brings me L. Ancistrophora but on WFO, or on Caryophyllales.org they are different