Ishmael Fleishman Posted September 26, 2023 I just noticed that on Wikipedia Echinopsis pachanoi now redirects to Trichocereus macrogonus var. pachanoi Is this a reflection of an official reclassification that pachanoi is now just a variety of macrogonus and no longer part of Echinopsis. Or is someone taking liberties with Wikipedia. I know that classifications are political to some degree and that their has been a arguments about were San Pedro belongs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fyzygy Posted September 26, 2023 (edited) Some editor doing a spot of random housekeeping, probably. This page lists the relevant literature behind Kew Gardens' acceptance of this name: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77125731-1?_gl=1*mzq5xy*_ga*MTY3NDI0ODYzNC4xNjk1NzAzODU2*_ga_ZVV2HHW7P6*MTY5NTcwMzg1Ni4xLjEuMTY5NTcwMzg5MC4wLjAuMA.. Like San Pedro tea, it's best to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Edited September 26, 2023 by fyzygy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ishmael Fleishman Posted September 26, 2023 (edited) So it looks like the name has reverted to Trichocereus macrogonus (Britton and Rose) with pachanoi and peruvianus are now just varieties. Interesting bridgesii is still Echinopsis lageniformis - What makes it special / different? Edited September 26, 2023 by Ishmael Fleishman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fyzygy Posted September 26, 2023 https://cactusculture.com.au/learning-centre/trichocereus-or-echinopsis ... The [taxonomic] reclassification also caused some naming clashes. Prior to the merge Echinopsis bridgesii and Trichocereus bridgesii were both classified as distinct species. So when Trichocereus bridgesii had to be reclassified it had to take on an entirely new name, which is why it is now called Echinopsis lageniformis. (For what it's worth). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
