Funniest ebay offering that I've seen in a while

[M S Smith]

So nothing to share regarding what other other species as mentioned above, incorrectly called as such or otherwise, have their own self-replicating populations through seed independent of human supports? Excepting what I think we can agree upon are called T. peruvianus and T. cuzcoensis which obviously do.

Regarding T. scopulicola, I mentioned the possibility of their having be wiped. I thought that was something you brought up before.

In the meantime I'll consider why I shouldn't enjoy mental masturbation as much as the one other I'm aware of.

Thanks!

~Michael~

[trucha]

Maybe there is a better way to put it?

In order to divide something into two 'species' (with or without a nice definition of species) doesn't it seem sound to start with defining what makes something one versus the other?

Edited September 23, 2013 by trucha

[trucha]

As I see it whether by bird, gravity, or man, if a cactus is transported to a new location and roots and prospers through natural selection without continuous artificial supports then it is wild. For example, should we observe the same species of bird in two disparate locations, while also being aware of its primary origins, we wouldn't therefore claim one was “really wild” while the other wasn't. Should the new location provide fertile grounds for it we would say it too was wild, regardless of its having taken to a new location, or its means to get there. But should man be the means of the birds’ continuous survival in the new niche, meaning they would die otherwise, we would say that their presence there was unnatural, just as much as a penguin in LA. So if bird, gravity, or man was the vector of a cactus species from one location to the next should the new environment allow it to prosper, reproduce, and adapt through natural selection without human supports it is natural, and therefore “really wild.” It may not be endemic by our standards, but I think we could agree that a plants success isn’t built upon whether or not it’s in its endemic region, but rather whether or not it has propitious condition to survive and reproduce unaided.

So I’d say we have two known “wild” species among my original list, T. cuzcoensis and T. peruvianus, and this regardless of how they got there. I might presume T. schoenii of the Colca Canyon, but its common occurrence on the trails and in association with ruins could be the result of plantings, dropped limbs, and clippings, and not seedlings. I also question T. puquiensis, but more so because of seemingly similar plants at the Raqchi and Wari archeological sites. But what about T. pachanoi, T. pallarensis, T. santaensis, and T. tarmaensis? And what of T. bridgesii? As for T. scopulicola I know you mentioned the possibility that goats likely wiped out the wild populations. Do these others prosper through unaided seed dispersal and germination in whichever location they have happened to be found? I really don't know myself due to my obvious limitations and lack of resources, but one thing I like to think I have had in all these years is a far share of insight.

Do you believe T. peruvianus, T. pachanoi, and T. macrogonus are the same species regardless of these variables of flower and plant morphology? I think we are in agreement that what needs to be considered regarding these three “species” is not what defines them in particulars, but rather what variables exist within them, and if these variables allow room for the three to be considered one. I had thought things were going in this direction. If this is the case I suppose I can see a bit better now why a proper name needs to be worked out. I'll leave the heavy lifting to the heavies and certainly look forward to progress, whichever direction that takes things.

The problem comes back to one of definitions.

If what is regarded to be pachanoi right now is all pachanoi (no matter what combination of long/short spine, furry/non furry fruit, nearly bare/whitish/brown/black hairy ovary or chemistry that they may have) then all of those others are within the same species except for tarmaensis which seems more likely to be allied with schoenii, puquiensis and cuzcoensis.

If those other species are seperate species than pachanoi needs to be split several ways (true also for the divergent sorts of peruvianus)

I suspect its best to view them as varieties or subspecies within a single species. To say anything more definitively would require a definition not just of that troublesome word "species" but also for what constitutes each of those species and makes them different from each other.

One problem I have with the merger of macrogonus and peruvianus is that it is being done before molecular work on recognized individuals of both of them.

If a bird or fallen fruit distributed by nature is capable of creating "wild" populations then wild populations exist for all of those except for perhaps pallarensis. I seem to recall Ritter finding only two populations of it so it needs some field work.

The peregrina/pachanoi forest above Vilcabamba do seem to fit your description as do some of the sporadic bridgesii stands that Grizzly photographed in Bolivia. Its a picture that is heavily impacted by human hands so its hard to have any clear view of what is originally wild but successful 'escapes' occur even in botanical gardens and botanical research stations.

Edited September 24, 2013 by trucha