Changes to Trichocereus listings

[Torsten]

Many here would know that the genus Trichocereus has been sunk into the genus Echinopsis. Common usage of the change isn't being taken up at a rapid rate for various reasons and we resisted it for a while too. However, for the sake of consistency and as we start to offer more and more cacti I have decided to base ALL names on Edward Anderson "The Cactus Family" as this is fast becoming the authoritative work on cactus taxonomy.

There are a few changes in other genera, but most applicable here would be the changes to Trichocereus. Most Trichocereus have simply been changed to Echinopsis without any major changes to the species epithet. However, please note that Trichocereus bridgesii is NOT Echinopsis bridgesii as this name already existed before the inclusion. Trichocereus bridgesii is now Echinopsis lageniformis. I have left the old names in the listing so everyone can get used to them.

Some individual cacti have also been changed. For example,:

T.puquiensis is now E.peruviana spp puquiensis.

Echinopsis multiplex is now E.oxygona.

Trichocereus longispinus is not a recognised species and I don't know what variety it might be, so for now it is simply Echinopsis sp..

Trichocereus cordobensis 'Lance' - I don't feel comfortable with that name anymore, so for now it is just Trichocereus sp. 'Lance'. That's the beauty of 'nicknames'.

happy confusion!

[Evil Genius]

From a certain point of view, it is very practicable to include trichocereus into echinopsis. It´ll make international trades much more easier as there aren´t any problems because of customs. taxonomically,it couldn´t get worse than now but i don´t care as I don´t think it´s our problem. We have just to deal with it.

If you are unsure about a specific species just ask. We´ll tell you.

[amanito]

[Torsten]

Given that many of the old Echinopsis species are indeed active I don't see any problem with the new taxonomy from our point of view. I have always felt there is way too much splitting going on in the Trichocereus genus and probably many other genera. Cacti seems to be a field where every collector tried to get a plant named after himself

For people who are looking beyond the 'san pedro' for active material the genus is a good place to start. By inclusion into Echinopsis we are bound to find some more interesting plants.

[SaBReT00tH]

so is echinopsis bridgesii very different from t bridgesii? Physically similar at all? Actively similar at all?

[Torsten]

very different. entirely different species.

[Rev]

and also to avoid confusion i'll still be referring to all trichs as trichs

until somebody comes up with a decent restructuring of the group

and not the lame option of clumping

clumping T terscheckii with Lobivia arachnacantha? or Day flowering Helianthocereus with night flowering Trichocereus

whatever

might as well call me a monkeys uncle?

[Torsten]

hey, monkey's uncle!

Not all Trichs are night flowering, so why not include more day flowerers? I am pretty sure you have at least two day flowering Trichs in your collection already.

Puff! There goes that argument.

[Rev]

Throwing out all differentiation because a few species are misaligned is folly

clumping doesnt make anything any easier

The group highlights the inadequacies of the system

as do Euphorbia and Eucalyptus

Nomenclature is meant to reflect the natural order not impose one or in this case skirt the issue entirely

Clumping so so many plants into one mega genus does nobody any good and is a cop out

its unnatural and so itll be unstable and when its revised

youll have to rename again.

if you desire to be avant garde with taxonomic fads then why not rename all but a few of your Australian acacias Racosperma

at least that is far more clear cut ,even if unpopular.

[ferret]

what are the day flowering trichos? could only found pseudocandicans

heres some dudes musings

http://www.labs.agilent.com/botany/cacti_e..._revisited.html

[Torsten]

I agree with you that the situation is unsatisfactory. But I also don't see how arbitrary differentiation via an artificial system is supposed to help. I recall yourself stating a few years ago that Lobivia should be in the Trichs, so obviously you are not happy with the splitters either.

The genus Trichocereus is a relic from an era when only flower structures and general morphology were considered in taxonomy. The 70's and 80's saw a lot of revision done on the basis of seed morphology which is regarded as much more reliable. There really isn't a lot of argument against the lumping of Trichocereus into Echinopsis other than from Trichocereus collectors and that's the same story no matter what family you are dealing with.

I personally don't know or care much about taxonomy, which is why I put my trust into professional bodies created to deal with these issues. In the case of cacti it is the International Cactaceae Systematics Group. I trust their taxonomy skills more than say yours or even MSS's simply because they actually know what the criteria are (eg, while you might see night vs day flowering as significant, they do not).

It has always totally befuddled me how so many people have so much to say about Trich taxonomy and yet most of them wouldn't know what a type description is and how to interpret it. After spending some time with real cacti taxonomists recently I found that they are bemused by the diletantic discussions that go on about these subjects (mind you, not all of the topics, as they were quite impressed by the detail of discussion in the field of Lophophora). One of the most interesting aspects of the discussions was that these professional botanists and taxonomists never sounded as confident and sure of themselves as the hobbyists on the various ethnobotany forums.

Personally I have always felt that there are way too many Trich species, so I am happy to see many absorbed into others. From my limited knowledge of botany I would expect this trend to continue in the case of Trichocereus/Echinopsis. This does not mean that all T.peruvianus are identical for example. Just because many species have been sunk into peruvianus does not mean they can't hold their position as subspecies or varieties.

After having spent a lot of time dealing with Orchidaceae taxonomy the last few years I have come to realise that the recalcitrance of collectors does not help anyone and in most cases ends up futile anyway.

As for Racosperma, I base my Acacia taxonomy on Flora of Australia, which I would think is the authoritative publication on this issue.

[Torsten]

what are the day flowering trichos? could only found pseudocandicans

My red huasca flowers during the day and somewhat closes at night. I've seen a yellow one do that too.

heres some dudes musings

Interesting. However, since he seems in contact with David Hunt it is likely that his assertions were rejected by the majority of the systematics group as his structure is not adopted in the 'New Cactus Lexicon', which will be the new reference work on the matter when it is released this year.

[Happy Cadaver]

Until there is some authoratative chemotaxonomic/genetic testing to see the relationships between this large genus, its jumping the gun to relabel. After all, even taxonomists have to justify their jobs and funding, what better way than to mix things up now and then pull them apart later

Perhaps we should be calling our Brugmansias, Datura again They pulled Brugmansia out of Datura because of obvious morphological differences, yet put Trichocereus into a genus with radically different morphological characteristics in spite of the differences. I haven't been bothered to read why they changed it about mostly because it would put me to sleep, but will accept it when they provide clear evidence (if they haven't already).

[Torsten]

Until there is some authoratative chemotaxonomic/genetic testing to see the relationships between this large genus, its jumping the gun to relabel.

You have to consider that until the 80's all naming was done by individual cactus collectors without any limitations provided. This meant that there was major motivation to split as much as possible so that they could all have a cactus named by or after themselves. There was really no system to it. When Backeberg wrote the Cactus Lexicon there was little resistance even though he had very little evidence for the many changes he made. But that was just one man, with one set of criteria and opinions. The New Cactus Lexicon is compiled by a couple of hundred eminent cactaceae taxonomists who for the majority agree on the revisions done.

After all, even taxonomists have to justify their jobs and funding, what better way than to mix things up now and then pull them apart later

The ICSG is a volunteer organisation. It is also an unofficial body, which means that if they do not use the best criteria available to them then they become irrelevant. This is not about one person making a name for himself like it used to be.

Perhaps we should be calling our Brugmansias, Datura again They pulled Brugmansia out of Datura because of obvious morphological differences

Brugmansia and Datura are radically different in so many ways, ranging from flower and seed morphology to the number of chromosomes. It's a bit of a silly example to use to try and make this point.

yet put Trichocereus into a genus with radically different morphological characteristics in spite of the differences.

It's not the differences that brought them together, but the similarities. Similarities that are beyond the superficial morphology you guys are talking about.

I haven't been bothered to read why they changed it about mostly because it would put me to sleep, but will accept it when they provide clear evidence (if they haven't already).

The evidence isn't overwhelming, but neither is the evidence to separate them. By current taxonomic rules the division is clearly not justified. As I said, pretty much the only resistance to this comes from people who haven't got much of a clue, which is why I have decided to bite the bullet and go with Echinopsis.

[Happy Cadaver]

Brugmansia and Datura are radically different in so many ways, ranging from flower and seed morphology to the number of chromosomes. It's a bit of a silly example to use to try and make this point.

it's actually a perfect example if you think about it. It was an unpopular move to separate them but has been supported by scientific data more recently. The Trich thing is unpopular too but if it is supported then i can't see a reason not to rename stock. Some people still cling to the Datura thing, Dature arborea, etc. when it is clearly outdated. People who have studied science in one form or another are quite open to discussion on such topics, there's no problem there.

Now you've seen the light you can move on to Argyreia and Silene ^_^

[Torsten]

it's actually a perfect example if you think about it. It was an unpopular move to separate them but has been supported by scientific data more recently. The Trich thing is unpopular too but if it is supported then i can't see a reason not to rename stock.

The old system was based on flower morphology, while the current system also considers seed morphology. This means that by current accepted scientific standards Trichocereus is obsolete. So in fact one could say that the scientific evidence (as in comparison to Datura / Brugmansia) is already here. The problem we are facing at the moment is that we are at the end of the seed morphology era and beginning the genetics era. There are bound to be changes soon, but if we always lag 30 years behind scientific knowledge then why bother using science?

The point really is, if you are going to use a scientific system, then use it in a scientific way. Hordes of non-botanists declaring that Trichocereus should be retained has nothing to do with science

Some people still cling to the Datura thing, Dature arborea, etc. when it is clearly outdated.

Yep. I think 20 years is a good time span to move on. That's where we are at with Trichocereus now.

People who have studied science in one form or another are quite open to discussion on such topics, there's no problem there.

Exactly my point. Binomials are the scientific names for plants. When the science changes then the name has to change with it. If people don't want name changes then they should stick with common names.

Now you've seen the light you can move on to Argyreia and Silene ^_^

I know the Convolvulaceae are messy, but I wasn't aware Argyreia was under threat? Please elaborate.

As for Silene, I keep forgetting the current name. There is also the issue of possible chemotypes in different habitats/countries. By using S.capensis we are indicating that the seed was sourced from the area of traditional use rather than from further afield. using a locality descriptor is probably a more technical correct way of doing it, but hey, I can't fix them all at once ;)