Nomenclature question

[teonanacatl]

Ok so trichocereus was lumped in with echinopsis awhile ago. Im going to start a new way of posting user IDs. What will happen is somone will post an unknown ID then once solved the scientific name will be included in the title, so people can search through all the Trichocereus pachanoi or peruvianoid ID threads. So we need to decide whether its Trichocereus or Echinopsis, the rest of the world goes with Echinopsis and it wont likely be changing back. I personally think changing to Echinopsis will save problems down the track. Although Trichs to me refer to species of Echinopsis with entheogenic uses.

Cast you vote now or forever hold you peace

[occidentalis]

I don't think I can decide between the two. I don't have the botanical expertise to argue with the people who made the decision to lump the Trichs into Echinopsis, so I will just have to take their word for it. However, the term 'Echinopsis' in general is not very useful for us, because there are so many Echinopsis that are not active or interesting ethnobotanically. Echinopsis is the correct term botanically, and when referring to each species it makes sense to use it - eg Echinopsis pachanoi. But when referring to the whole group, Trichocereus is a much more useful term because it is this subset of the Echinopsis that we are interested in, not the whole genus (which is a large one).

[teonanacatl]

We have both assumed the only usefull plants were in trichocereus, perhaps that has limited us?

[occidentalis]

We have both assumed the only usefull plants were in trichocereus, perhaps that has limited us?

Yeah definitely . I am well aware of this. Do you have further information or are you just putting the idea out there?

[teonanacatl]

just putting the idea out that we have perhaps been to focused on those in the same genus of trichocereus whereas we should look outside there, and using echinopsis would allow that. A great testement to this is if somone id's a cactus as an echinopsis, alot of people are like oh bugger, damn too bad etc, but if its a trich of some sort its hey cool trich i wonder if its active Hell I cant tell the difference between some echinopsis and trichocereus :D

In terms of literature there has been alot fo work done back in the day into cactus alkaloids, next time i get the chance I will download all those echinopsis ones Plenty contain isoquinoline alkaloids and others :D

[Torsten]

I have been collecting lots of non-Trich Echinopsis and I can confirm that some are active. Certainly as active as any members of Trichocereus that don't belong into the bridgesii/pachanoi/macrogonus group.

I think that using psychoactivity as a guide to this nomenclature choice would be a poor decision. There are much more compelling reasons to stick with Trichocereus, but psychoactivity isn't one of them.

The review by the International cactacae taxonomy group has now been released and it clearly retains Trichocereus as Echinopsis, making Trichocereus itself defunct. This struggle has been going on for a decade or two now and the only ones left defending Trichocereus are folks in the ethnobotany community who haven't got the first clue about taxonomy (myself included re the latter).

My vote is firmly with Echinopsis now as I feel sticking with Trichocereus does not make for a good scientific approach. My reasons for this were discussed in another thread quite recently.

However, these are the forums and not the shop, so I think it is up to the moderator to come up with what he thinks is best for this community.

[edited second last sentence as I actually stated the opposite of what I intended - ooops]

[teonanacatl]

yup ill let the people decide

[sobriquet]

My opinion is that there is room for more than one name.

In this respect I feel that "Trichocereus" names have become equivalent to the common names which many plants have. Except that the Trichocereus names are closer to the taxonomical standard than most common names. Nevertheless I don't see any harm in referring to them in this way.

I know from broader experience that when new things are introduced their utility can be assessed further down the track by observing people's adoption of them. Where the new system takes over then its usually a case that it provides a superior user experience and its failure can often mean that it brings nothing useful.

Witness the metric system vs the empirical measures; doing the same thing in slightly different ways. Both have utility and even though science has adopted the one system throughout, the other system lives on.

[Torsten]

sobriquet - the renaming isn't new. Even the most recalcitrant old farts at the cactus club accept Echinopsis. As I said, the only group that doesn't are 'ethnobotany enthusiasts'.

And I presume you hadn't thought the 'room for both' through all that well. I've given a few examples below.

The naming brings about a few other issues. what about those Trich species that have been taken out of Echinopsis altogether? They have been taken out for the same reasons that Trich were moved into Echinopsis, that being the microscopic seed morphology.

What about all the multiple Trichs that have been sunk into single Echinopsis species? Will we also hold onto these defunct species names? well, we would have to, because you can't just arbitrarily exchange Echinopsis for Trichocereus.

There are more than just the 4 or 5 Trich species we generally talk about and as people's interest in the genus broadens the naming will become problematic if it is not consistent. And the only way to stay consistent with Trichocereus is to maintain a taxonomic snapshot from 15 or 20 years ago.

What about in a few years time when no plant or seed dealer will supply Trichocereus anymore. Then suddenly most plants that are not the pachanoi/peruvianus/ etc types belong to a different genus? So when you buy Echinopsis lageniformis seed overseas, you will actually post about your Trichocereus bridgesii plants here?

How about all the lesser known Trichs? Are we going to look up each Echinopsis import whether it was previously in the Trichocereus group and then rename it for our community use? Or will we simply leave the obscure Echinopsis as Echinopsis and rename the pachanoi/peruvianus/bridgesii group to Trichocereus?

If you don't know the answer to that question then think about what you will label your plant that you grew from imported Echinopsis nigripilis seed? If you will label it Echinopsis nigripilis then you must also label all other Trich Echinopsis. Ask yourself, will you make the effort to look up whether this was a Trichocereus species or not?

What about your imported Echinopsis deserticola seed? will you call this Trichocereus deserticola or T.fulvilanatus, and how will you know which one of these is correct? In fact you can't.

What about the E.peruvianus seed? Is that T.torataensis, T.tacnaensis, T.puquiensis, or T.peruvianus?

I don't like jumping on the bandwagon of the first person or group who wants to change a taxonomic group, but it's been over a decade now and you have to draw a line at some stage.

[teonanacatl]

I really like this fast reply thing T, the nook and eba have it and its so much quicker :D alot of the time i get halfway through typing a reply and give up but not with quick reply :D

Anyway interesting to see echinopsis is catching up to trichocereus.

Will wait till the end of the week to collect the results. Whats the traffic like in the cactus ID compared to the Cactus forum?

[Torsten]

traffic is good. obviously not quite as much as in the main cactus forum, but that's to be expected.

the fast reply thing was a fortuitous accident. I forgot this software has that feature and for some reason it defaulted to one way for the normal forums and the fast way for the subforums. I'll try and set it for both.

[Amulte]

if the community as a whole is to be taken seriously then we should go with Echinopsis. if the world moves on and were remaining with Trichocereus it will only confuse the matter. If we remain with Trich outside researchers may assume the info here is outdated or incorrect, which in this case it would be.

[apothecary]

As far as I understood, this whole issue was just because of searching, right? I mean we all agree that Echinopsis is the correct nomenclature, but we still want people to be able to search Trichocereus and come up with valid results?

Too easy.

Once ID has been confirmed, edit the post so the topic contains the correct binomial name, and then edit the post so at the bottom it says something like

miscellaneous tags: Trichocereus peruvianus, peruvian torch

and now anyone searching can put in whatever they like

[MORG]

I think it's only sensible to maintain step with the scientific community and go with Echinopsis.

Ideally, I'd like to see every instance of specific and generic names given in italics as per scientific convention.

I then feel there would be some room to use Trichocereus as a common name (much like Acacias are still called Acacias in Africa despite the genus being changed) however it would never be italicised. Sooner or later this practise would die off I would think.

I also see this approach as impractical and unrealistic

[teonanacatl]

good idea apoth.

[teonanacatl]

Ok im going to call it, echinopsis it is. Thanks for voting guys :D

[trucha]

Bob Schick points out that whether you consider Trichocereus and Echinopsis separate species or subspecies within Echinopsis sensu latu there are clear differences.

For a number of these features there is an overlap so I'll ignore all of those.

If flowers are cut and the central stamens allowed to fall out those of Echinopsis stay tightly adhered together. Trichocereus are not.

When ripe Echinopsis fruit are semidry or moist inside whereas trichocereus has seeds present in a very wet pulp

THe rim stamens of the Trichocereus are green along their inner surface and Echinopsis are white. (This is only reliably observed after their removal due to the green of the throat)

The main reason I won't accept the merger as stands is not that there is no soundness to the assertion that they are very close but the fact this was sloppily published and needs some sort of rigor.

Bad science should not be rewarded due to its proponents being too lazy to do a bare minimum of decent taxonomic work. If we don't insist on standards its not science but politics. Good old boy politics can't serve in lieu of good science but in this case they do.

The lumpers rule the day because the rules of nomenclature demands nothing from them but insists on a reasonable burden of proof for splitters.

I tend to be a lumper but bad science is bad science.

Few people realize that currently a committee approach is used for deciding such things and whoever is deemed to know something gets to call the shots. People who are on the committee don't always even know who made the name proposals that David Hunt accepts and publishes.

Try to find out who made the werdermannianus terscheckii merger for instance. The only cited reference kept them separate. That is just nonsense no one should think proper. If we accept merging werdermannianus into terscheckii without even subspecific status it is totally capricious to not add in pasacana as well.

Interestingly Rowley states that we can call them whatever we want in horticulture as naming is "all in the head"

[teonanacatl]

As you can see echinopsis went out the window here pretty quick and people use trich again now.

As to which is more correct well they are still separate sub families and Im fine with that, as always its trying to make them fit our models and designations which is the problem. There are alot of other genera that have the same problem, they will eventually be sorted

[trucha]

As a species we are naming and cataloging fools. Maybe its a geneticly programmed thing.

However there is something worth always keeping in mind.

There is a reason for the current lack of standards in taxonomy when it comes to lumpers (in addition to the lack of a reasonable burden of proof). It is called laziness.

Simply no one wants to do the huge amount of work that would be required.

This laziness goes back a long time.

If you look closely at the Rules of Nomenclature you will see that the starting dates for things like requirements for good floristic descriptions, submissions of vouchers and including a Latin diagnosis are in fact carefully and conveniently chosen to permit the grandfathering of the names from earlier workers who did what can only be seen as shoddy or inadequate work (such as Britton and Rose, Salm-Dyck and others who laid the naming foundation for so much of the Cactaceae)

That lazy approach is almost enshrined as a tradition now. Its little wonder that the nomenclature is such a mess.

GIGO.

[Gunter]

It is my belief that the San Pedro group is distinct enough to warrant a novel subgenus under cereus, one that does not apply to the classic forms of echinopsis or the majority of Trichocereus.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Archaea

[M S Smith]

It is my belief that the San Pedro group is distinct enough to warrant a novel subgenus under cereus, one that does not apply to the classic forms of echinopsis or the majority of Trichocereus.

What specific plants are you referring to as falling into the "San Pedro group"? Why would they fall under Cereus and not remain in Echinopsis? What are the "classical forms of echinopsis"? What species are within the "majority of Trichocereus"? And how does the "San Pedro group" differ in relation from those in the "majority of Trichocereus"?

~Michael~

[Gunter]

I gave a rather clear view of this in the nomenclature rich view thread, if you understand taxonomic terms.

however:

I view the SP group as monophyletic due to synapomorphies, that is rather definitive of the group, despite variation said variation is along very specific lines.

I am sure you know that Trichocereus was, to begin with, a sub-genus under cereus, nothing new there. I believe that the cereus/echinopsis dichotomy is as troublesome as the echinopsis/trichocereus dichotomy.

I won't begin to list non-SP trichocereus species, but you can know that the SP group differs in relation to other species in both the synapormorphic aspects as well as it's cultivation history.

A few years ago you did this same thing to me when I told you that I thought the PC clone was not a good example of T pachanoi, you ridiculed and fought the idea and then a few years later espoused it as your own.

I only offer these views for such an application Michael, in time I expect you to change your views, as we all do.

[M S Smith]

Thanks for the input on the more technical aspects...I do have some rudimentary understanding of some of the ideas you bring up, but I think it important to remember the audience. I might also note that my interest in cacti is a hobby and not even my primary (or even secondary) field of personal study.

Saying that I "ridiculed" you might be a little strong don't you think? When I eventually saw support for what you were saying I repeatedly pointed out how your insight helped with the ideas I eventually "espoused." I mentioned you numerous times until continuing to do so would have become burdensome. That I share what I come to learn doesn’t make it “my own” in the sense that I was the first to ever bring it up.

I’m certain in time my views will change, but I can only learn at my own pace. But certainly that I don’t know all shouldn’t mean I shouldn’t share what I know now, even if it might be somewhat lacking. It is up for others to judge the information I provide against their own knowledge and though I may have some influence I don't demand others provide my ideas any of the respect they choose to.

As for my possibly changing views to be more in line with those you have, well I suspect I'll need to learn more. So keep talking and maybe when I do change my views I'll mention you a few times and move on, but otherwise, unless I'm quoting you, I suspect I'll retain the right to talk from my own insight regardless of its origins.

~Michael~

Edited January 21, 2008 by M S Smith

[Teotzlcoatl]

I still like Trichocereus for the large upright columnar psychoactive cacti.

[Garbage]

They dont explain why they felt the need to change names,it goes unsaid the reason ws so they could publish.

Wholly unnecessary and far from clarifying anything it only serves to obscure.

Do hybids of echinopsis and trichocereus exist outside of cultivation?

I think the answer to that is no,they are disadvantaged and do not survive.

If anything the echinopsis should fall under trichocereus as a novel offshoot.

Simple huh?

Edited November 8, 2008 by Garbage

[Chiral]

tricho is easier to say...Lol

H.