CactiGuide.com

Has anyone seen The New Cactus Lexicon for sale? I am having difficulty finding a copy

The other later treatment, also now out of print, is Joel Lode's two volume work "Taxonomy of the Cactaceae" supposedly based more on DNA Sequencing than David Hunts morphological treatment. Meaning a lot of Hunt's "lumping" based on looks rather than DNA he now unpicked as in this list of synonyms he published before his books were printed.

http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy_of ... errata.pdf

http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy_of ... e_ENG.html

Lode' is apparently now working on volumes 3 and 4.

According to Graham Charles, a co author of the Lexicon the promised third volume of Hunt's work is unlikely to appear now Hunt is dead and DNA has cast doubt on many of his "lumped" genera it would need a complete revision.

http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy/Td ... ctENG.html

I have both Hunt's and Lode's works. In some instance I agree with Lode's splitting of Hunts "Super Genera" that have proved to be polyphyletic, therefore not derived from the same line of ev0lution, merely looking similar as they inhabited similar habitats. Rebutia and Aylostera for instance, which DNA shows are not related since they arose from different ancestral lines, so merely convergent ev0lution.

However Hunt's second original volume containing pictures (he calls it the Atlas) is still the best collection of images of cacti since most are of genuine known originally habitat collected material. Not just material widespread in the trade or collections which may have been hybridised over the years. This "Atlas" volume was also published later with "Illustrations" on the cover in a smaller sized paperback version at a much cheaper price. It also contained a few nomenclature changes where DNA research had upset his morphological system.

https://www.weboryx.com/es/libreria/flo ... ons-2nd-ed

All these books are nice to have and usually appreciate in price after publication since they are seldom reprinted. I got all mine at pre-publication price when they were first advertised. The problem is unless you are a really serious enthusiast the price may put many collectors off and all classifications date and are eventually superseded. Nobody has yet come up with the definitive classification for the Cactaceae and probably never will!

Obviously no pictures but NCL-equivalent checklists of names include CITES Cactaceae Checklist + supplement, available at https://www.kew.org/science/our-science ... -resources and the Caryophyllales.org Cactaceae database, which is supposed to be revised regularly, see https://bioone.org/journals/willdenowia ... 51208.full for an introduction and https://caryophyllales.org/cactaceae/ for the database.

Thank you all for your information. I did purchase Joel Lode's two volume work "Taxonomy of the Cactaceae" and it a great indepth book. I have heard good word of Hunt's book, but it is impossible to find.

I have the original two full sized hardbound volumes and "Illustrations" in fancy lettering does not appear on the cover of the original volumes but "Atlas" on the spine for the pictures one and "Text" for the descriptions volume. Therefore the one offered below must be the cut down version at a ridiculous price of £189. I may be wrong but I think I also bought that cut down version in paperback for about £30 when it was published!

Here it is on on EBAY.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/314264005610 ... R-79v8flYQ

As you can see from this Amazon link below if it has "Illustrations" on the cover it is the cut down paperback version of the original hardbound "Atlas", therefore don't get mislead.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+new+ca ... g3gh94qf_e

You can do a search on EBAY which will email you if any come up for sale second-hand. Also contact the specialist Cactus book dealers like our Administrator Daiv's firm:-

https://www.exoticplantbooks.com/about/

Or Keith's Cactus Books in the UK:-

http://www.keithscactusbooks.co.uk/

Asking them to let you know if a second-hand copy comes in when somebodies library is sold off. The online general book dealers charge stupid prices for second-hand books. I remember reading one where they were selling a certain work dearer second-hand which was still in print and being sold cheaper new!

Thank you Dave w. That was very informative information. I never realized that there are two versions

DaveW wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:00 am I have the original two full sized hardbound volumes and "Illustrations" in fancy lettering does not appear on the cover of the original volumes but "Atlas" on the spine for the pictures one and "Text" for the descriptions volume. Therefore the one offered below must be the cut down version at a ridiculous price of £189. I may be wrong but I think I also bought that cut down version in paperback for about £30 when it was published!

Here it is on on EBAY.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/314264005610 ... R-79v8flYQ

As you can see from this Amazon link below if it has "Illustrations" on the cover it is the cut down paperback version of the original hardbound "Atlas", therefore don't get mislead.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+new+ca ... g3gh94qf_e

You can do a search on EBAY which will email you if any come up for sale second-hand. Also contact the specialist Cactus book dealers like our Administrator Daiv's firm:-

https://www.exoticplantbooks.com/about/

Or Keith's Cactus Books in the UK:-

http://www.keithscactusbooks.co.uk/

Asking them to let you know if a second-hand copy comes in when somebodies library is sold off. The online general book dealers charge stupid prices for second-hand books. I remember reading one where they were selling a certain work dearer second-hand which was still in print and being sold cheaper new!

Just a follow up. I was able to snag a copy of the books on Keith's website. It will arrive shortly and I can not wait. Thank you Dave W!

I have the print literature as references but increasingly relay on Kew Plants of the World Online as it has the scientific credentials and the online format can be updated more frequently. Awaiting Lode's new book but scientic books of this size are inherently pricey.

Yes these sort of books are pricy and often fetch more second-hand than when originally published. They seldom get reprinted and even if they do are not up to the quality of the original.

Always remember that classification is a matter of opinion as to where you deliminate generic boundaries and not scientific fact. All present day classifications require is to be monophyletic (meaning all plants within a genus arising from the same ev0lutionary line) and not polyphyletic = containing elements that arise from different ev0lutionary lines, such as including Aylostera in Rebutia in the past.

Unfortunately Kew seems to cling to Hunt's morphological classification because he was "one of their own" and a professional botanist, even though DNA Sequencing has proved some of his "lumped" genera are polyphyletic.

Neither the DNA or morphological systems are yet perfect and as said, depending on whether you are a "lumper" or "splitter", where you divide the ev0lutionary lines into genera is a personal opinion and not "holy writ". There are no "legal" compulsions in botany other than that the name be validly published, after that you are free to adopt any classification, or even parts of different classifications to suit yourself. However most follow "the heard" in the adoption of the current classification. But wait a year or two and there will be a new supposedly "definitive" classification brought out as history has proved.

As Leland says, all botanical works are out of date as soon as they are printed. Therefore we may see in future online versions that can be regularly updated. This also saves expensive printing costs too. Even the Encyclopaedia Britanica has now gone onto CD at a much cheaper price than the multi volumes cost to print and is also quickly searchable on computer.

Interested, try this link:
(Expires on Apr 29, 2023, 10:20:52 AM GMT-6)
Download link
https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20230422 ... 4/WlAUpEmw
1 file (76.6 MB)
— New_CACTUS_LEXICON.pdf

https://www.transfernow.net/en/dltransf ... m=WlAUpEmw

Don't forget the DVDs sold by the US CSSA. They have copies of the Journal from the 1929 to 2003.

https://cssa.myshopify.com/collections/dvds


Also, Joel Lode has his taxonomy list online for free download. this is modern and includes the new DNA based changes.

https://www.cactus-aventures.com/Taxono ... errata.pdf

Last, but not least, the century old classic work of B & R , The Cactaceae, is available online. A great reference, but be prepared for 100 years worth of name changes!

DaveW wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 9:41 am Yes these sort of books are pricy and often fetch more second-hand than when originally published. They seldom get reprinted and even if they do are not up to the quality of the original.

Always remember that classification is a matter of opinion as to where you deliminate generic boundaries and not scientific fact. All present day classifications require is to be monophyletic (meaning all plants within a genus arising from the same ev0lutionary line) and not polyphyletic = containing elements that arise from different ev0lutionary lines, such as including Aylostera in Rebutia in the past.

Unfortunately Kew seems to cling to Hunt's morphological classification because he was "one of their own" and a professional botanist, even though DNA Sequencing has proved some of his "lumped" genera are polyphyletic.

Neither the DNA or morphological systems are yet perfect and as said, depending on whether you are a "lumper" or "splitter", where you divide the ev0lutionary lines into genera is a personal opinion and not "holy writ". There are no "legal" compulsions in botany other than that the name be validly published, after that you are free to adopt any classification, or even parts of different classifications to suit yourself. However most follow "the heard" in the adoption of the current classification. But wait a year or two and there will be a new supposedly "definitive" classification brought out as history has proved.

As Leland says, all botanical works are out of date as soon as they are printed. Therefore we may see in future online versions that can be regularly updated. This also saves expensive printing costs too. Even the Encyclopaedia Britanica has now gone onto CD at a much cheaper price than the multi volumes cost to print and is also quickly searchable on computer.

The DNA work is helping, but at some stage decisions are made by individuals. Whether something is a species, a subspecies, or just variation within a species can be hard to sort out. For example, one of my plants of interest when in AZ is Johnson's pinapple cactus and there seems to be a scientific debate as to whether the yellow flowering one is a subspecies or just variation within the species. The trend seems to be going to the one species definition. POWO for the most parts lists accepted synonyms which is probably the way to go. iNaturalist.org locks posters into their nonmenclature which is mostly based on POWO as far as I can see. This is probably the only way they can maintain order in their project. I post under their nomenclature and then mention synonyms in the comments.

Another thing I have noticed is that most cactus literature is in English, with some in German and French and it takes a long time for the new nomenclature to get into the Spanish literature. All the more reason to keep the recent synonyms handy.

In the 1960's I think much of the book form European literature was in German as their Cactus Society was a very large and active one. Also whilst we British tended to have ex-colonies in Africa therefore acquired Other Succulents more easily the Americans had more access to cacti after WWII and so did the Germans since they had a lot of people of German extraction in S. America sending plants back to Germany

Regarding German cactus literature Backeberg's 6 volume Die Cactaceae yhat aimed to take things on from Britton and Rose was then the latest treatment, but like many of the Continentals at the time he was a "splitter" and preferred smaller genera. A cut down simplified version that was later produced in English and German was his Das Kakteen Lexicon.

In the UK/America we tended to be "lumpers", combining the smaller genera into larger ones. Eventually along came David Hunt's "ultra lumping" "The New Cactus Lexicon" based solely on morphology. Alas the new science of DNA Sequencing soon proved a lot of his "mega genera" like Rebutia etc were polyphyletic containing plants from different lines of ev0lution, but these days monophyletic classifications are preferred.

Not much later along comes Joel Lode' with his two volume work claiming to be based on molecular data that restores many of the genera David Hunt lumped. However I think even Lode's work is out of print now. Lode' said he intended to produce two additional volumes to go with the original two, but they have not yet appeared or look like doing so soon.

http://www.cactus-aventures.com/Review% ... rom%20each.

As to works in Spanish. Some was published by the Mexican Helia Bravo and Chileans like R.A.Phillippi and lately the Peruvian Cactus Society Quipo publishes some new species.

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555 ... m000006508

https://blog.biodiversitylibrary.org/20 ... ollis.html

http://www.cactus-mall.com/specs/index.html