Question on nomenclature
Re: Question on nomenclature
Oh sorry now i've seen pictures on Lifl and yes they are different!
Son: dad i want a dragon for my birthday
Dad: ask me something more realistic
Son: ok then i want some Consolea falcata seeds
Dad: what colour do you want your dragon to be?
Dad: ask me something more realistic
Son: ok then i want some Consolea falcata seeds
Dad: what colour do you want your dragon to be?
Re: Question on nomenclature
I think that's because Hunt considered subdenudata to be a spineless form of ancistrophora, but currently I believe subdenudata is considered to be a good species.
Re: Question on nomenclature
Basically you are back to the old "Lumper" or "Splitter" argument as to if you think they are different enough to warrant separate species? In theory you could have just one genus for the Cactaceae using the oldest generic name and having a single species if you lumped everything into it and regarded all other names as synonymous. The exact opposite could apply with a separate genus for every species, or even every individual plant. However we like to be sensible and group things conveniently and based on lines of supposed ev0lutiomn = phylogenetic classifications.
Whilst Nomenclature (naming plants) has its rules, Classifications are not mandatory. You can chose which classification you prefer and either sink genera or species into synonymy, or maintain them as discrete entities - the choice is yours. Of course we all tend to "go with the heard" to a certain extent so we are understood.
However nobody has yet come up with a definitive classification for either cactus genera or species so you can always expect a new classification appearing at least every decade or so! Also around the world there is more than one classification being used at any time. Say Hunt's based on morphology and Joel Lode's recent one based more on DNA. Hunt was more of a "Lumper" and Lode' more of a "Splitter" as well.
The choice is yours and different so called "authorities" often disagree with each other. I was recently looking up the spineless form of Echinocereus scheeri known as "cucumis". One authority regarded it as a cultivar whereas Kew's site regarded it as a validly described subspecies of E. scheeri. You takes your choice!
Whilst Nomenclature (naming plants) has its rules, Classifications are not mandatory. You can chose which classification you prefer and either sink genera or species into synonymy, or maintain them as discrete entities - the choice is yours. Of course we all tend to "go with the heard" to a certain extent so we are understood.
However nobody has yet come up with a definitive classification for either cactus genera or species so you can always expect a new classification appearing at least every decade or so! Also around the world there is more than one classification being used at any time. Say Hunt's based on morphology and Joel Lode's recent one based more on DNA. Hunt was more of a "Lumper" and Lode' more of a "Splitter" as well.
The choice is yours and different so called "authorities" often disagree with each other. I was recently looking up the spineless form of Echinocereus scheeri known as "cucumis". One authority regarded it as a cultivar whereas Kew's site regarded it as a validly described subspecies of E. scheeri. You takes your choice!