Flag for Taxon: cacti (Family Cactaceae)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jdmore | cacti (Family Cactaceae) |
POWO issues - see comments |
Feb. 22, 2019 06:47:59 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
Adding my 2 cents here:
I do agree that POWO is currently a poor source of taxonomic standardization for Cactaceae. The situation seems very similar to that of the ferns, for which alternate taxonomic authority is also being sought (https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/271039).
One downside is that Cactaceae is likely to be even more contentious that the ferns -- the family has numerous passionate followers, with many differing taxonomic views. But hey, we should at least try...
My own bias: as a North American field botanist and taxonomist, I will be skeptical of proposed authorities that do not respect treatments based on extensive experience with natural Cactaceae populations in the field. I'm not a big believer in long-distance taxonomy.
I don't (yet) know where Lodé's work stands in this regard -- I hope further discussion here will be educational.
@bouteloua @loarie
In my opinion, if a Study Group should exist as a genus, then one should give it the most confidence by its intensive work on its own plants.
I have no problem with the results of a Study Group per se, as long as they have given due consideration to any existing field-based studies within the native ranges of the species involved.
That said, I hope we can find a broader Cactaceae reference that is acceptable for iNaturalist, and not have to go genus by genus to different sources.
You will not be lucky.
You alone have five known different views for the genus Echinocereus.
KEW / POWO
Lode
the Mexican
the American
and the study group Echinocereus.
The first four accept different parts of the Echinocereus study group.
The first four have also not the overview (hardly any cultural experience, little find experience) against this are over 300 international members with a lot of location experience, regular exchange and publications of various groups, series or sections.
in Echinocereus case the study group has the last word, but i am speaking on general terms, we need to take one taxonomy and then discuss the changes, what i have been doing is comparing lodé's taxonomy with Helia's, Hunt's, Glass's, Donati's, etc. in each genera, but its a titanic work, i have not even done half of cacteae tribe.
said this, then i propose after deciding which taxonomy list will be used as basis then make a revision genus by genus, taking in consideration all the works done on the regard and choose after comparison the best definition of species into the genera, besides we need help from many taxonomists because several new species are coming out to light in this place.
@najera_tutor I think that approach makes a lot of sense. If, for example, we decide that following Lodé as the Taxonomic Framework for Cactaceae would require the fewest overall deviations, but then we also want to adopt the system of the Echinocereus Study Group, we can just make the necessary deviations from Lodé for Echinocereus.
yes, and as a matter of fact is what i tried with @Wolfgangb in that genera
but we have to be aware that many other things needs change, and we need to revise if it fits for example:...
Stenocactus will become Echinofossulocactus thing that i agree on ; (see: pag 43 http://xerophilia.ro/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/xerophilia-2018.12-24-1.pdf)
and Echinocactus grusonii will become then Kroenlinia grusonii, also i agree on and i'm writing about.
some Escobaria will become Neobesseya
some Turbinicarpus will be Rapicactus and Gymnocactus (this change is already done)
Coryphantha macromeris will be back into Lepidocoryphantha
mamulous and glandular Thelocactus into Hamatocactus
and so on...
Clearly we need to do more observation to cactus features
Do you or anyone here have good communication with Lodé? Might he be open to recommendations for revisions and corrections to his taxonomy, to incorporate some of the changes you are anticipating?
And do you know of any other global Cactaceae compilations that should be considered alongside Lodé as a potential Taxonomic Framework for iNaturalist?
that actualized none.
the older and most used is David Hunt's Taxonomy but is very clumpy and confusing
here mexicans trend to use Helia Bravo's Las cactaceas de México, but it only covers mexico and is very old so many species and knowledge about is lacking
i mailed J. Lodé, i'llwait for his answer
and if someone want to know a little more about his work....
http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy/TdCVol3-4projectFR.html
Thank you @najera_tutor, I'll look forward to hearing the response.
One concern I have from iNaturalist's perspective is that Lodé's work, while it may be very good, appears to be a personal project and not an institutional project. Whenever Lodé eventually "retires," so will his system, and iNaturalist will again be looking for an actively maintained taxonomic framework for Cactaceae.
Maybe (hopefully!) that is far enough in the future that it need not concern us for now, but it is something to keep in mind.
why does a system has to retire or die when the legacy is in a book, besides the work is a compilation of studies done by many cacti specialists
Only because it then becomes static and cannot respond to new genetic studies, etc. Unlike POWO which, for all its flaws, is an institutional project, and does not depend on a single person to respond to new science as it becomes available.
does not have to be like that, by time more studies will come, and the community here can discuss the actualization, sorry, but i hate monopoly
Just want to stick my nose in a little bit for the moment. I am not closely familiar with Lodé's work yet, but have just ordered his books to review. Looking at his listing, it generally looks better than the one at POWO, though there are things to be said for and against both. I see lots of names missing from Lodé's list, and a few that are duplicated at differing rankings, but overall it is pretty thorough. However, all I have to look at yet is his list.
I agree that the listing on POWO is at best inaccurate and has problems, and at worst might be seen as a "mess", and I personally do not follow it as anything more than reference material. In fact, I never even looked at it until I started looking at iNaturalist. I do not consider it (for the Cactaceae anyway) to be a guide to proper names, nor even proper nomenclature. However, as a botanist who has studied cacti for over 50 years, I do not like being restricted by any published listing; I find issues with all of them. I am biased, and It is difficult therefore for me to be restricted by any listing, particularly when I know it is incorrect or doesn't account for real populations as they occur in the field.
Anyway, I do not have any strong opinion regarding Lodé's books yet, but I will hopefully have a chance to judge for myself soon. In the meantime, I think it is clear that there are many potential exceptions regarding the Cactaceae treatment at POWO, and this is especially so in certain "popular" groups that tend to be overly and often artificially split, and in the rather unpopular Opuntia, which tends to be grossly over-lumped.
I know this may not add much to the discussion, but hopefully I will have more constructive to add in the future.
the proposal is to take that list as a basis and then deviate on discussion whatever this community suggest
Thank you @davidferguson, your and everyone's participation is most welcome and helpful!
If any of you knows of any additional Cactaceae specialists in iNaturalist, please do tag them into this conversation.
Thank you for tagging me, najera! I am no botanist and I have only been once to cactus habitats in California, Arizona and Nevada, but I have grown cacti for more than 25 years and am familiar with all the main works (those in English at least). If I can be of any help I would be very happy to contribute.
My initial thoughts is that I certainly agree with jdmore about the merits of extensive fieldwork and familiarity with a genus in habitat over arm chair taxonomy carried out in Europe. While I do believe that Hunt's New Cactus Lexicon is a terrific achievement, it does have quite a few weaknesses. Particularly how it largely ignores molecular studies and how (seemingly) a select few people appear to have decided on genera and species often with very little foundation other than «current botanical views» whatever those are/were.
I am fond of Lodé's work but it is first and foremost an attempt to establish a definite reference for all the genera more than a definite answer to which are «good» species. The genera he accepts are based on molecular studies with a measure of subjectivity thrown in. For every genus he does justify and explain the reason for accepting it.
He stands perhaps as a middle ground between Hunt and Backeberg.
He is easy to communicate with and I have convinced him (I think) to change his use of Reicheocactus pseudoreicheanus to Reicheocactus famatinensis (the specific epithet pseudoreicheanus is a synonym created by Backeberg on account of a mistake). So he is open to suggestions and constructive criticism.
Personally, I would pick his taxonomy (at least for genera) over any other. It is the most current. He is also working on volumes 3 and 4 of his lexicon which will deal with species descriptions. He is still on A or B, I think, so there's plenty of time to alert him of discoveries and so on.
That being said, at the species level I am unsure whether Lodé is the best. He doesn't explain (mostly) why some species are accepted and others not. Part of it is based on specialised works on various genera, part of it through molecular studies by various authors and part of it based on his own opinions. Still, I personally would (mostly) rather follow him than Hunt.
And, I suppose, if you choose to follow one author with regards to genera it makes sense to largely follow the same author on species.
@jrebman @mcloudhughes @aspidoscelis @kai_schablewski @ck2az thoughts?
I have a lot to say about this so I’m going to do this in parts so this is part 1.
Most of what I do on here is observations as some have figured out,
I’ve been on a Huge cacti blitz though it’s winding down a bit,
But what a lot of people on here don’t know is I’ve collected over 1500 samples for testing for my daughter and other students studying cacti
And 5 researchers in the US, Mexico and a seed bank Europe and a arm chair researcher in Asia,,,
The knowledge out here in my opinion is decent generally speaking
Excellent in some areas to poor in others, simply put what is known
From the past to the present so used as one size fits all and it simply doesn’t work with these !!!! That being opuntia and echinocereus
Just to start. Because of a lack of regional knowledge by experts
I’ve had a few cacti on here misidentified some that where critically endangered, in fact I put a researcher with USFW in contact with one of our admins because I had several observations of a hedgehog that went misidentified putting the cacti up for poaching incident, it was fixed
One of our better identifiers dropped the ball on it, I spoke on the phone with the researcher and my daughter who just received her PHD and is currently doing work on DNA namely genetic work on cacti and they thought to much was being done to try to break down species to a sup group instead of focusing on the primary groups, but amazingly agreed with a lot of what a certain individual was doing to regionalize primary groups of echinocereus to a sup group, but had concerns that when you click on a link here in iNaturalist there is no explanation as to what it is or why it’s a sup group both have said this is sloppy science if proof is not put fourth to back up the claim, that was their only concern with with these.. I have more to add and will do it with a part 2
I try to avoid having opinions on the taxonomy of cacti as much as possible. There will be no "one true list". One list may be better than another, but the problem is not finding the one true list but figuring out how to operate in the knowledge that it does not exist and will not exist.
Oh God, I came here late, I need to read this carefully.
my preference here would be to still use POWO as the source for the Taxon Framework covering Cacti, but to deviate where necessary. This means doing a good job curating Taxon Framework Relationships, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/143722/taxonomy_details
The alternative would be to use a different source other than POWO. What do people think?
Either way, what is our intended target for curating cacti if not POWO (ie where do we want to deviate)? If someone could come up with a list of genera that would be very helpful as I bet ~90% of the deviations have to do with the generic level (e.g. splitting off Neobesseya from Escobaria)
@loarie the discussion so far has centered around using Lodé's worldwide taxonomy (http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy_of_the_Cactaceae_Index_of_Synonyms_&_errata.pdf) as a more up-to-date framework than POWO for cacti, much as PPG is for the pteridophytes.
My perception is that it is as much an issue of which species are included in which genera, as with which genera are recognized -- but both are at issue.
If it seems from the discussion so far that using Lodé might be a reasonable prospect, and/or having a list of the genera he recognizes would help make that call, I would be happy to make the compilation and post it here.
here is the list proposed
http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy_of_the_Cactaceae_Index_of_Synonyms_&_errata.pdf
we are already in contact with Joël Lodé so he can help us to explain controversies
thanks both - if someone could transcribe the PDF into google spreadsheet form and link to it here (or get Lode to provide a copy) that would be very useful
ok, now, what I recover from many conversations about this subject is that it is accepted in general the vision of the genres that Lodé proposes, but not much with the species, so in response to this we have been working in groups (tribes ) and reviewing each gender to see the deviations that the users of the platform have from the work of lodé (which incidentally happens)
@loarie are you looking for a spreadsheet of just the accepted genera, or of everything in the PDF, synonyms and all? If the latter, that could be awhile, unless as you suggest maybe Lodé can provide it.
just genera with cols for tribe and subfamily would be a good start
I will work on that. There are restrictions on using google docs where I am. Could I send you a regular excel file to upload?
i asked Lodé, but right now is midnight for him
as long as its a publicly accessible spreadsheet I don't care. I don't have excel for what its worth
Ok, think I am figuring it out. Do you have a particular public google drive that you use for iNaturalist docs, where I should post it, or would I just make it public from my personal google drive?
I'd prefer the latter and sharing the link
I would agree with links to back up IDs instead of links that go nowhere
I believe what Wolfgang and davidferguson have done is good to go
they have taken the time to study them people that I know generally agree
With there IDs
There just needs to be a paper trail because there is always someone out here no matter how much you explain it to them it’s never enough
@loarie and all: Here are two spreadsheets:
ACCEPTED GENERA: Spreadsheet of Cactaceae genera accepted by Lodé (2015)
SYNONYMIZED GENERA: Spreadsheet of Cactaceae genera synonymized by Lodé (2015). (Multiple accepted genera are shown for the synonyms when their species have been divided into multiple genera, listed from most to fewest species.)
The first one is what you asked for; the second is included in case useful to anyone. The spreadsheets are both publicly editable by anyone with these links (but I still have the originals off-line). So if you see any errors or omissions, you can fix them.
Lodé did not include subfamilies and tribes in his classification, so I pulled that information (either directly or via synonymy) from what appeared to be the most recent world-wide suprageneric classification available online: Nyffeler & Eggli (2010).
If anyone knows of a better suprageneric classification, please let us know!
EDIT re suprageneric classification: Mayta & Molinari-Novoa (2015) fixed the formerly paraphyletic subfamily Pereskioideae s.l. by moving the genus Leuenbergeria to a new subfamily Leuenbergerioideae. That and the remaining Pereskioideae s.s. are now considered monophyletic. I made the change in the first spreadsheet above.
Other groups still considered paraphyletic by Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) are only subtribes Corryocactinae and Rebutiinae.
EDIT: added a second sheet to each spreadsheet, with the genera grouped by higher taxonomy.
EDIT 2019-03-08 23:15 -0800: missed the new genus Cremnocereus accepted in Lodé's list of addenda at the end. It has been added to the spreadsheet of accepted genera.
super useful thanks - so is everyone agreed that at least to genera Lode is what were are targeting with cacti curation on iNat?
in Lodé's words
2018: the genus Echinocactus was finally studied with a deeper DNA analysis by Mario Daniel Vargas-Luna et al. and proved that Echinocactus should be splitted; in fact, Homalocephala is a good genus, including H. texensis, but also H. parryi and H. polycephala. Kroenleinia grusonii is sister to Ferocactus, although it is still unresolved (probably because of a reticular evolution event).
2018: the genus Eulychnia was the subject of a molecular phylogenetic study by Larridon et al.
Published in december 2017 by Tapia et al., a new molecular study on Cephalocereus was made and confirmed that Neobuxbaumia and Pseudomitrocereus (= Mitrocereus) are part of Cephalocereus and should be included in the latter.
This was already suggested in Taxonomy of the Cactaceae vol. 1 (p. 142: "All this seems to suggest that in the future, Cephalocereus (1838) could include the genus Neobuxbaumia (1938), and the classification proposed here could be changed.") and vol.2 (p. 67: "According to Arias et al. (2003), the DNA studies show that the genus Neobuxbaumia is part of a clade including Cephalocereus and Pseudomitrocereus (= Mitrocereus). According to the same authors, it would therefore be possible to consider Pseudomitrocereus fulviceps, Cephalocereus and Neobuxbaumia part of a single genus.")
although waiting for more study, I preferred not to change the taxonomy: now it's time for a global acceptation of the genus Cephalocereus s.l.!
@najera_tutor Thank you for those good updates!
The question @loarie needs us to decide and vote on now, before we discuss more taxonomic details, is do we want to adopt for Cactaceae Lodé (2015) as a replacement Taxonomic Framework for Plants of the World Online (POWO) (at least at genus and above) -- as the starting point from which we will discuss all further deviations.
I have mentioned some of the pros and cons I see in my earlier comments in this discussion. But I am not a Cactaceae expert outside my own geographic area, so I will defer to the other experts and interested users in this discussion!
Tagging everyone one more time for input:
@wolfgangb @cactus-d @jonathanmohl @ug56bdi @davidferguson @lexgarcia1 @ravkar @ug56bdi @rpmundo @aztekium_tutor @margeu @martha_gonzalez_elizondo @jonathanmohl @jovana3 @manuelnevarez @gonzalezii @aaronbalam_tutor @pioleon @alexiz @carloslim @jrebman @mcloudhughes @aspidoscelis @kai_schablewski @ck2az @stevejones
I’m on board 👍👍
i do accept!!
I'm in favor too.
There will be many things to discuss and, in my opinion, it will be good for most of us.
fine for me
Ich bin dabei
I agree.
@jdmore, the next step will be to provide mappings between the genera in POWO and in Lode. For example for each of the Genera in POWO but not in Lode (e.g. Mammilloydia), we need to figure out how POWO treats them. For example, it looks to me as though the mapping here is:
POWO: [Mammilloydia, Mammillaria], Lode: Mammillaria
Similarly for genera in Lode not in POWO (e.g. Acanthocephala), we need to figure out how Lode treats them, e.g.:
POWO: [Parodia], Lode: Acanthocephala, Parodia
Does this make sense? Here are 16 genera in POWO not in Lode and the 46 genera in Lode not in POWO
Genera in POWO not in Lode:
Mammilloydia
Myrtgerocactus
Mirabella
Pygmaeocereus
Pacherocactus
Rhodocactus
Tunilla
Trichomoza
Stenocactus
Cleistocana
Deamia
Haagespostoa
Pachebergia
Anhaloniopsis
Cremnocereus
Polascontria
Genera in Lode not in POWO
Acanthocephala
Airampoa
Ancistrocactus
Aylostera
Azureocereus
Backebergia
Bolivicactus
Bragaia
Brasiliparodia
Cephalocleistocactus
Cochemiea
Corynopuntia
Cryptocereus
Echinofossulocactus
Echinomastus
Eriocephala
Estevesia
Floribunda
Glandulicactus
Hamatocactus
Hylocereus
Islaya
Isolatocereus
Kroenleinia
Lagenosocereus
Lepidocoryphantha
Lobivia
Loxanthocereus
Marniera
Micropuntia
Monvillea
Neobesseya
Neobuxbaumia
Neoporteria
Notocactus
Pierrebraunia
Rapicactus
Reicheocactus
Rhipsalidopsis
Rimacactus
Salmonopuntia
Setiechinopsis
Siccobaccatus
Thrixanthocereus
Weingartia
Wigginsia
@loarie, makes sense, just wondering in what format you want this provided?
If I'm thinking right, entering Taxonomic Framework Relationships in iNat is only to map existing iNat taxonomy to an adopted Taxonomic Framework, not for mapping two possible alternate Taxonomic Frameworks (POWO vs. Lode) to each other. So I would need to provide as a spreadsheet or other list, right?
And assuming that is the case, do you have a preferred way to express many-to-many relationships? Should I list which species go in which genera in those kinds of relationships?
Thanks for the guidance...
Mammilloydia -- Mammillaria
Myrtgerocactus -- × Myrtgerocactus
Mirabella -- Cereus
Pygmaeocereus -- Haageocereus
Pacherocactus -- × Pacherocactus
Rhodocactus -- Pereskia
Tunilla -- Airampoa
Trichomoza -- × Trichomoza
Stenocactus -- Echinofossulocactus
Cleistocana -- × Cleistocana
Deamia -- Strophocactus
Haagespostoa -- × Haagespostoa
Pachebergia -- × Pachebergia
Anhaloniopsis -- Matucana
Cremnocereus -- Cremnocereus gen. nov.
Polascontria -- × Polascontria
the other one will take much longer
The goal is to keep the Taxon Framework source POWO but to curate towards Lode and explain the differences with Deviations. So if we know:
POWO: [Mammilloydia, Mammillaria], Lode: [Mammillaria]
then we can start figuring out how to curate all of this.
@najera_tutor, can you use the
POWO: [Mirabella], Lode: [Cereus]
notation, and also I think you mean
POWO: [Mirabella, Cereus], Lode: [Cereus]
ie Lode lumps Mirabella in with Cereus whereas POWO treats them as distinct
POWO: [Mirabella], Lode: [Cereus]
would mean there's a 1-to-1 relationship, ie POWO doesn't include Cereus vice versa
@loarie - OK, so as I understand it, you are wanting TFRs entered into the system AS IF Lode was already fully reflected in the current iNat genus-level taxonomy? And then mapping it back to POWO genera?
Can do, just want to make sure I am understanding correctly first whether I am doing this as TFRs in the system, or a spreadsheet outside the system.
and what do we do when there is internal divergences, for example POWO: Mammillaria halei = Lodé: Cochemiea halei
i suggest to make tables genus by genus or tribe by tribe for not to miss the entire frame
@najera_tutor "and what do we do when there is internal divergences, for example POWO: Mammillaria halei = Lodé: Cochemiea halei"
That would result in a one-to-many or many-to-many Taxon Framework Relationship (TFR) at the genus level -- I would have to see the rest of the Mammillaria and Cochemiea contents in each reference to say which.
@najera_tutor let's wait to do more until it's clarified what medium we need to use.
@loarie, instead of the above options, do you just want the relationships listed here as a long comment?
sure
POWO: [Acanthocalycium], Lode: [Acanthocalycium, Neoporteria]
POWO: [Acanthocereus], Lode: [Acanthocereus, Cereus, Dendrocereus, Pseudoacanthocereus]
POWO: [Acharagma], Lode: [Acharagma]
POWO: [Anhaloniopsis], Lode: [Matucana]
POWO: [Aporocactus], Lode: [Aporocactus]
POWO: [Ariocarpus], Lode: [Ariocarpus]
POWO: [Armatocereus], Lode: [Armatocereus]
POWO: [Arrojadoa], Lode: [Arrojadora, Pierrebraunia]
POWO: [Arthrocereus], Lode: [Arthrocereus]
POWO: [Astrophytum], Lode: [Astrophytum]
POWO: [Austrocactus], Lode: [Austrocactus]
POWO: [Austrocylindropuntia], Lode: [Austrocylindropuntia]
POWO: [Aztekium], Lode: [Aztekium]
POWO: [Bergerocactus], Lode: [Bergerocactus]
POWO: [Blossfeldia], Lode: [Blossfeldia]
POWO: [Borzicactus], Lode: [Borzicactus, Loxanthocereus]
POWO: [Brachycereus], Lode: [Brachycereus]
POWO: [Brasilicereus], Lode: [Brasilicereus]
POWO: [Brasiliopuntia], Lode: [Brasiliopuntia]
POWO: [Browningia], Lode: [Azureocereus, Browningia]
POWO: [Calymmanthium], Lode: [Calymmanthium]
POWO: [Carnegiea], Lode: [Carnegiea]
POWO: [Castellanosia], Lode: [Castellanosia]
POWO: [Cephalocereus], Lode: [Cephalocereus, Mitrocereus, Neobuxbaumia]
POWO: [Cereus, Mirabella], Lode: [Cereus, Monvillea]
POWO: [Cipocereus], Lode: [Cipocereus, Floribunda]
POWO: [Cleistocactus], Lode: [Borzicactus, Cleistocactus, Loxanthocereus]
POWO: [× Cleistocana], Lode: [nomen periculosum]
POWO: [Coleocephalocereus, Micranthocereus], Lode: [Coleocephalocereus]
POWO: [Consolea], Lode: [Consolea]
POWO: [Copiapoa], Lode: [Copiapoa]
POWO: [Corryocactus], Lode: [Corryocactus]
POWO: [Coryphantha], Lode: [Coryphantha, Lepidocoryphantha]
POWO: [Cremnocereus], Lode: [Cremnocereus] gen. nov.
POWO: [Cumarinia], Lode: [Cumarinia]
POWO: [Cumulopuntia], Lode: [Cumulopuntia]
POWO: [Cylindropuntia], Lode: [Cylindropuntia]
POWO: [Deamia], Lode: [Strophocactus]
POWO: [Dendrocereus], Lode: [Dendrocereus]
POWO: [Denmoza], Lode: [Denmoza]
POWO: [Discocactus], Lode: [Discocactus]
POWO: [Disocactus], Lode: [Discocactus, Heliocereus]
POWO: [Echinocactus], Lode: [Echinocactus, Kroenleinia]
POWO: [Echinocereus], Lode: [Echinocereus]
POWO: [Echinopsis], Lode: [Echinopsis, Lobivia, Reicheocactus, Setiechinopsis, Trichocereus]
POWO: [Epiphyllum], Lode: [Epiphyllum, Marniera]
POWO: [Epithelantha], Lode: [Epithelantha]
POWO: [Eriosyce], Lode: [Eriosyce, Islaya, Neoporteria, Rimacactus]
POWO: [Escobaria], Lode: [Escobaria, Neobesseya]
POWO: [Escontria], Lode: [Escontria]
POWO: [Espostoa], Lode: [Espostoa, Thrixanthocereus]
POWO: [Espostoopsis], Lode: [Espostoopsis]
POWO: [Eulychnia], Lode: [Eulychnia]
POWO: [Facheiroa], Lode: [Facheiroa]
POWO: [Ferocactus], Lode: [Ferocactus, Hamatocactus]
POWO: [Frailea], Lode: [Frailea]
POWO: [Geohintonia], Lode: [Geohintonia]
POWO: [Grusonia], Lode: [Corynopuntia, Grusonia, Micropuntia]
POWO: [Gymnocalycium], Lode: [Gymnocalycium]
POWO: [Haageocereus, Pygmaeocereus], Lode: [Haageocereus]
POWO: [× Haagespostoa], Lode: [× Haagespostoa]
POWO: [Harrisia], Lode: [Harrisia]
POWO: [Hatiora], Lode: [Hatiora]
POWO: [Jasminocereus], Lode: [Jasminocereus]
POWO: [Lasiocereus], Lode: [Lasiocereus]
POWO: [Lemaireocereus], Lode: [Lemaireocereus]
POWO: [Leocereus], Lode: [Leocereus]
POWO: [Lepismium], Lode: [Lepismium]
POWO: [Leptocereus], Lode: [Leptocereus]
POWO: [Leuchtenbergia], Lode: [Leuchtenbergia]
POWO: [Leuenbergeria], Lode: [Leuenbergeria]
POWO: [Lophocereus], Lode: [Lophocereus]
POWO: [Lophophora], Lode: [Lophophora]
POWO: [Lymanbensonia], Lode: [Lymanbensonia]
POWO: [Maihuenia], Lode: [Maihuenia]
POWO: [Maihueniopsis], Lode: [Maihueniopsis]
POWO: [Mammillaria, Mammilloydia], Lode: [Mammillaria, Cochemiea]
POWO: [Marshallocereus, Pachycereus], Lode: [Marshallocereus]
POWO: [Matucana], Lode: [Anhaloniopsis, Matucana]
POWO: [Melocactus], Lode: [Melocactus]
POWO: [Micranthocereus], Lode: [Micranthocereus, Siccobaccatus]
POWO: [Mila], Lode: [Mila]
POWO: [Miqueliopuntia], Lode: [Miqueliopuntia]
POWO: [Mitrocereus], Lode: [Backebergia, Cephalocereus, Mitrocereus]
POWO: [Morangaya], Lode: [Morangaya]
POWO: [× Myrtgerocactus], Lode: [× Myrtgerocactus]
POWO: [Myrtillocactus], Lode: [Myrtillocactus]
POWO: [Neolloydia], Lode: [Neolloydia]
POWO: [Neoraimondia], Lode: [Neoraimondia]
POWO: [Neowerdermannia], Lode: [Neowerdermannia]
POWO: [Nyctocereus], Lode: [Nyctocereus]
POWO: [Obregonia], Lode: [Obregonia]
POWO: [Opuntia], Lode: [Opuntia, Salmonopuntia]
POWO: [Oreocereus], Lode: [Oreocereus]
POWO: [Oroya], Lode: [Oroya]
POWO: [Ortegocactus], Lode: [Ortegocactus]
POWO: [× Pachebergia], Lode: [× Pachebergia]
POWO: [× Pacherocactus], Lode: [× Pacherocactus]
POWO: [Pachycereus], Lode: [Pachycereus]
POWO: [Parodia], Lode: [Acanthocephala, Bolivicactus, Brasiliparodia, Eriocephala, Notocactus, Parodia, Wigginsia]
POWO: [Pediocactus], Lode: [Pediocactus]
POWO: [Pelecyphora], Lode: [Pelecyphora]
POWO: [Peniocereus], Lode: [Peniocereus]
POWO: [Pereskia], Lode: [Pereskia]
POWO: [Pereskiopsis], Lode: [Pereskiopsis]
POWO: [Pfeiffera], Lode: [Pfeiffera]
POWO: [Pilosocereus], Lode: [Pilosocereus]
POWO: [× Polascontria], Lode: [× Polascontria]
POWO: [Polaskia], Lode: [Polaskia]
POWO: [Praecereus], Lode: [Monvillea, Praecereus]
POWO: [Pseudoacanthocereus], Lode: [Pseudoacanthocereus]
POWO: [Pseudorhipsalis], Lode: [Pseudorhipsalis]
POWO: [Pterocactus], Lode: [Pterocactus]
POWO: [Pterocereus], Lode: [Pterocereus]
POWO: [Punotia], Lode: [Punotia]
POWO: [Quiabentia], Lode: [Quiabentia]
POWO: [Rauhocereus], Lode: [Rauhocereus]
POWO: [Rebutia], Lode: [Aylostera, Rebutia, Weingartia]
POWO: [Rhipsalis], Lode: [Lepismium, Rhipsalis]
POWO: [Rhodocactus], Lode: [Rhodocactus]???
POWO: [Samaipaticereus], Lode: [Samaipaticereus]
POWO: [Schlumbergera], Lode: [Rhipsalidopsis, Schlumbergera]
POWO: [Sclerocactus], Lode: [Ancistrocactus, Echinomastus, Glandulicactus, Sclerocactus]
POWO: [Selenicereus, Strophocactus], Lode: [Cryptocereus, Hylocereus, Selenicereus, Strophocactus]
POWO: [Stenocactus], Lode: [Echinofossulocactus]
POWO: [Stenocereus], Lode: [Stenocereus, Isolatocereus]
POWO: [Stephanocereus], Lode: [Lagenosocereus, Stephanocereus]
POWO: [Stetsonia], Lode: [Stetsonia]
POWO: [Strombocactus], Lode: [Strombocactus]
POWO: [Tacinga], Lode: [Tacinga]
POWO: [Tephrocactus], Lode: [Tephrocactus]
POWO: [Thelocactus], Lode: [Thelocactus]
POWO: [Trichocereus], Lode: [Trichocereus]
POWO: [× Trichomoza], Lode: [× Trichomoza]
POWO: [Tunilla], Lode: [Airampoa]
POWO: [Turbinicarpus], Lode: [Rapicactus, Turbinicarpus]
POWO: [Uebelmannia], Lode: [Uebelmannia]
POWO: [Vatricania], Lode: [Vatricania]
POWO: [Weberbauerocereus], Lode: [Weberbauerocereus]
POWO: [Weberocereus], Lode: [Weberocereus]
POWO: [Yavia], Lode: [Yavia]
POWO: [Yungasocereus], Lode: [Yungasocereus]
like this?
[EDIT: sorry, we posted almost simultaneously. I'll check for agreement...]
@loarie Here is what I have for the 16 not in Lode - 5 actually turned out to match in both, see below. This pretty much reflects what @najera_tutor already listed, but hopefully in your preferred format:
POWO: [Anhaloniopsis, Matucana], Lode: [Matucana]
POWO: [Deamia, Strophocactus], Lode: [Strophocactus]
POWO: [Mammilloydia, Mammillaria], Lode: [Mammillaria]
POWO: [Mirabella, Cereus], Lode: [Cereus]
POWO: [Pygmaeocereus, Haageocereus], Lode: [Haageocereus]
POWO: [Rhodocactus, Pereskia], Lode: [Pereskia]
POWO: [Stenocactus], Lode: [Echinofossulocactus]
POWO: [Tunilla], Lode: [Airampoa]
NO EQUIVALENT IN LODE:
POWO: [× Cleistocana], Lode: [--new--]
POWO: [× Pachebergia], Lode: [--new--]
POWO: [× Polascontria], Lode: [--new--]
POWO: [× Trichomoza], Lode: [--new--]
MATCHES:
POWO: [Cremnocereus], Lode: [Cremnocereus]
POWO: [× Haagespostoa], Lode: [× Haagespostoa]
POWO: [× Myrtgerocactus], Lode: [× Myrtgerocactus]
POWO: [× Pacherocactus], Lode: [× Pacherocactus]
Of the matches, the hybrids were just issues with "×" symbology. Cremnocereus was in an appendix in Lodé that I missed, and is now updated in the spreadsheets. There is no suprageneric classification that I can find for Cremnocereus.
Disclaimer: it's possible that the some of the genera present in both POWO and Lodé (listed on both sides above) have different circumscriptions at the species level -- that's a massive check that I did not do here. (and so additional genera might apply on one or both sides of a mapping, if that makes sense)
As @najera_tutor mentioned, the 46 not in POWO will be a longer time coming.
POWO: [× Cleistocana], Lode: [--new--]
POWO: [× Pachebergia], Lode: [--new--]
POWO: [× Polascontria], Lode: [--new--]
POWO: [× Trichomoza], Lode: [--new--]
POWO: [× Haagespostoa], Lode: [× Haagespostoa]
POWO: [× Myrtgerocactus], Lode: [× Myrtgerocactus]
POWO: [× Pacherocactus], Lode: [× Pacherocactus]
we can forget all this, this genus are man made hybrids
@najera_tutor, if POWO also recognizes the Lode genus, then that also needs to be on the POWO side of the map. For example, compare your
POWO: [Anhaloniopsis], Lode: [Matucana]
and my
POWO: [Anhaloniopsis, Matucana], Lode: [Matucana]
You just have to take all the names on the Lode side, and search them in POWO to see if they are accepted by POWO. If so, add them to the POWO side. And vice versa. Sorry, more work...
You can just edit your post above to make corrections.
And regarding the man-made hybrids, those have been allowed in iNaturalist in other groups (Passiflora, for example) when they are easily identified and have observations. So we might still want to include them.
yes, i just noticed i missed that one, i had it all wrong on that genus, see matucana in POWO side and also did a mistake, but i revised the rest and seems fine to me besides this Anhaloniopsis-Matucana combination
it is as you say
POWO: [Anhaloniopsis, Matucana], Lode: [Matucana]
and need to erase
POWO: [Matucana], Lode: [Anhaloniopsis, Matucana]
hybrids between species i can understand, and can even be natural
as in Turbinicarpus x mombergeri
https://www.naturalista.mx/observations/3660059
or other not yet described
https://www.naturalista.mx/observations/3741901
but this are hybrids between genus, sometimes made out way far from their original place
In Rhodocactus, I compared the included species, and Lodé puts them all in Pereskia. So,
POWO: [Rhodocactus, Pereskia], Lode: [Pereskia]
Check also:
POWO: [Deamia, Strophocactus], Lode: [Strophocactus]
yes, you're right!!
@najera_tutor I agree with you, looks like you been working hard on this matter!
greetings, this is more tangled than I thought, the changes are required to do at the species level and review each epithet since there are species mixed between different genres;
I was doing the analysis one by one in alphabetical order, but it turns out that they start to put some genres among others, so I think I will do tribe by tribe to not lose the range of species revised at the time
Still, I have some doubts before continuing, I copy and paste the list that I have made of the letter A in which the doubts that I mention are reflected
I would like to know if this is how it is done and if this is correct
what to do with non-correlational species (I propose to leave them on the iNat list)?
see: POWO: [Acanthocereus], Lode: [Acanthocereus, Cereus]
what to do with subspecies?
see: POWO: [Acharagma], Lode: [Acharagma]
what to do when diverse generic swap?
see: POWO: [Acanthocalycium], Lode: [Acanthocalycium, Neoporteria, Echinopsis]
and: POWO: [Anhaloniopsis, Matucana], Lode: [Matucana, Loxanthocereus]
POWO: [Acanthocereus], Lode: [Acanthocereus, Cereus]
POWO: [Acanthocereus canoensis ], Lode: [none]
POWO: [Acanthocereus castellae], Lode: [Acanthocereus castellae]
POWO: [Acanthocereus chiapensis], Lode: [Acanthocereus chiapensis]
POWO: [Acanthocereus cuixmalensis], Lode: [Acanthocereus cuixmalensis]
POWO: [Acanthocereus fosterianus], Lode: [Acanthocereus fosterianus]
POWO: [Acanthocereus haackeanus], Lode: [nom. inv.]
POWO: [Acanthocereus hesperius], Lode: [none]
POWO: [Acanthocereus hirschtianus], Lode: [Acanthocereus hirschtianus]
POWO: [Acanthocereus macdougallii], Lode: [Acanthocereus macdougallii]
POWO: [Acanthocereus maculatus], Lode: [Acanthocereus maculatus]
POWO: [none], Lode: [Acanthocereus marnierianus]
POWO: [Acanthocereus oaxacensis], Lode: [Acanthocereus oaxacensis]
POWO: [Cereus pitajaya], Lode: [Acanthocereus pitajaya]
POWO: [Acanthocereus rosei], Lode: [Acanthocereus rosei]
POWO: [Acanthocereus tepalcatepecanus], Lode: [Acanthocereus tepalcatepecanus]
POWO: [Acanthocereus tetragonus], Lode: [Acanthocereus baxaniensis, Acanthocereus colombianus, Acanthocereus horridus, Acanthocereus occidentalis, Acanthocereus subinermis, Acanthocereus tetragonus]
POWO: [Acharagma], Lode: [Acharagma]
POWO: [Acharagma aguirreanum], Lode: [Acharagma aguirreanum]
POWO: [Acharagma roseanum], Lode: [Acharagma roseanum, Acharagma roseanum galeanense]
POWO: [Acharagma roseanum galeanense], Lode: [Acharagma huasteca]
POWO: [Acanthocalycium], Lode: [Acanthocalycium, Neoporteria, Echinopsis]
POWO: [Acanthocalycium andreanum], Lode: [Neoporteria strausiana]
POWO: [Acanthocalycium ferrarii], Lode: [Acanthocalycium ferrarii]
POWO: [Acanthocalycium thionanthum glaucum], Lode: [Acanthocalycium glaucum]
POWO: [Acanthocalycium leucanthum], Lode: [none]
POWO: [Acanthocalycium rhodotrichum], Lode: [Echinopsis rhodotricha]
POWO: [Acanthocalycium spiniflorum], Lode: [Acanthocalycium klimpelianum, Acanthocalycium spiniflorum]
POWO: [Acanthocalycium thionanthum], Lode: [Acanthocalycium thionanthum]
POWO: [Anhaloniopsis, Matucana], Lode: [Matucana, Loxanthocereus]
POWO: [Anhaloniopsis madisoniorum], Lode: [Matucana madisoniorum]
POWO: [Matucana aurantiaca], Lode: [Matucana aurantiaca, Matucana aurantiaca currundayensis]
POWO: [Matucana aurantiaca fruticosa], Lode: [Matucana fruticosa]
POWO: [Matucana aurantiaca hastifera], Lode: [Matucana hastifera]
POWO: [Matucana aurantiaca subsp. polzii], Lode: [Matucana polzii]
POWO: [Matucana aureiflora], Lode: [Matucana aureiflora]
POWO: [Matucana formosa ], Lode: [Matucana formosa]
POWO: [Matucana haynei], Lode: [Matucana haynei, Matucana haynei crinifera, Matucana haynei herzogiana, Matucana haynei hystrix]
POWO: [Matucana haynei myriacantha], Lode: [Matucana myriacantha]
POWO: [Matucana hoxeyi], Lode: [Loxanthocereus hoxeyi]
POWO: [Matucana huagalensis], Lode: [Matucana huagalensis]
POWO: [Matucana intertexta], Lode: [Matucana intertexta]
POWO: [Matucana klopfensteinii], Lode: [Matucana klopfensteinii]
POWO: [Matucana krahnii], Lode: [Matucana krahnii]
POWO: [Matucana oreodoxa], Lode: [Matucana oreodoxa, Matucana oreodoxa roseiflora]
POWO: [Matucana paucicostata], Lode: [Matucana paucicostata, Matucana paucicostata hoxeyi]
POWO: [Matucana pujupatii], Lode: [Matucana pujupatii]
POWO: [Matucana rebutiiflora], Lode: [Matucana rebutiiflora]
POWO: [Matucana ritteri], Lode: [Matucana ritteri]
POWO: [Matucana tuberculata], Lode: [Matucana tuberculata]
POWO: [Matucana weberbaueri], Lode: [Matucana weberbaueri]
and i have another question, what do we do wih "proparte" deviations between genera
---------Trichocereinae
POWO: [Acanthocalycium], Lode: [Acanthocalycium, Neoporteria, Echinopsis]
POWO: [Anhaloniopsis, Matucana], Lode: [Matucana, Loxanthocereus]
POWO: [Arthrocereus], Lode: [Arthrocereus]
POWO: [Borzicactus], Lode: [Borzicactus, Loxanthocereus]
POWO: [Cleistocactus], Lode: [Borzicactus, Cleistocactus, Loxanthocereus]
POWO: [Cremnocereus], Lode: [Cremnocereus] gen. nov.
POWO: [Denmoza], Lode: [Denmoza]
POWO: [Echinopsis], Lode: [Echinopsis, Lobivia, Reicheocactus, Setiechinopsis, Trichocereus]
POWO: [Espostoa], Lode: [Espostoa, Thrixanthocereus]
POWO: [Espostoopsis], Lode: [Espostoopsis]
POWO: [Haageocereus, Pygmaeocereus], Lode: [Haageocereus]
POWO: [Harrisia], Lode: [Harrisia]
POWO: [Mila], Lode: [Mila]
POWO: [Oreocereus], Lode: [Oreocereus]
POWO: [Oroya], Lode: [Oroya]
POWO: [Rauhocereus], Lode: [Rauhocereus]
POWO: [Samaipaticereus], Lode: [Samaipaticereus]
POWO: [Trichocereus], Lode: [Trichocereus]
POWO: [Vatricania], Lode: [Vatricania]
POWO: [Weberbauerocereus], Lode: [Weberbauerocereus]
POWO: [Yungasocereus], Lode: [Yungasocereus]
I guess this is pretty complicated and a lot of work, But what you're doing is perfect. Maybe its easier if we do it on a shared spreadsheet? I started transferring your work over https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qm0v_BLu35AODoHPRECp9VsgsbNNcS-w_VnaeXBoPK0/edit?usp=sharing
i have much more done, i'll upload it tonight
can someone have a look at Scott's link, I finished with the entire Opuntioideae, I like to know if I'm doing it right so i can continue with Cactoideae
Gracias!
@najera_tutor - this is looking really good. My one preference would be that rows don't have duplicate names in either the POWO or Lode columns. I made a few edits to show what I mean, but for example instead of:
POWO; Lode
Species A; Species B
Species A; Species C
I'd prefer:
POWO; Lode
Species A; Species B, Species C
Does that make sense?
oh ok, i understand,
now, same thing with subspecies?
Opuntia galapageia Opuntia galapageia
Opuntia galapageia gigantea Opuntia galapageia
Opuntia galapageia helleri Opuntia galapageia
Opuntia galapageia insularis Opuntia galapageia
Opuntia galapageia macrocarpa Opuntia galapageia
Opuntia galapageia myriacantha Opuntia galapageia
Opuntia galapageia profusa Opuntia galapageia
Opuntia galapageia saxicola Opuntia galapageia
should be
Opuntia galapageia, Opuntia galapageia gigantea, Opuntia galapageia helleri, Opuntia galapageia insularis, Opuntia galapageia macrocarpa, Opuntia galapageia myriacantha, Opuntia galapageia profusa, Opuntia galapageia saxicola; Opuntia galapageia
yes, perfect - assuming as in your Opuntia galapageia example that the ssp don't match across the datasets
Thank you for all your work on this @najera_tutor!
Just a heads-up, before we start doing taxon changes in Opuntia based off Lode, we should probably discuss that genus in a separate flag with specialists like @davidferguson. I'm guessing that sinking all of the Galapagos Islands taxa into an undivided Opuntia galapageia may be especially controversial and possibly warrant deviation. We're talking about a bunch of IUCN taxa there, after all.
yes, as a matter of fact i was thinking on the same, discuss tribe by tribe and review each controversy and risks of disappearance from conservation lists.
@smaot just asked me something similar that happen to Brahea berlandieri, a protected specie in the country that became a synonym of B. dulcis and has the doubt on the risk of becoming unprotected
(excuse my English many conjugations and tenses)
Hi all,
I'm sorry that I haven't been very involved with this discussion up to date, especially since it is important to me, and it is "up my alley" so to speak. Over-all I like what has been happening, and agree with most of it, I tend to agree with much of Lode's treatment. I like to promote an "open mind" approach that allows for some of the regimented following of a particular list to be less stringently "enforced". I would like to have a way to add comments about some of the alternate, perhaps equally good treatments under headings, so everyone can see them though. I do realize though, how difficult this all can be, and just how complicated.
I'm going to say a bit here, and then - yes - I think a separate discussion would be in order, since it is liable to go off in other directions and tangents that have little to do with what is the main focus here.
Anyway -
Opuntioideae, and in particular Opuntia are indeed a problem. It is highly confusing to people trying to identify things in the field (botanist and laymen-naturalist alike) when looking at what are obviously as many as half a dozen (or more) distinct and easily distinguishable entities growing together in one place, and to have the books tell you they are all the "same", and to have somebody else tell you they are a "hybrid swarm". It makes identification, botany, legislation, and all sorts of undertakings rather confused and difficult with the situation as it is now. Also, on top of this, through various assorted reasons, a number of names have been misapplied.
Anyway, listings such as POWO are basically just attempts to make sense of the mess, but often without really having full first hand knowledge of what is in the field or all the background information of the various names. This means there are problems with all such published lists. I won't go into long details about every issue here though.
So, getting to the point; this is the subject that got me started on this comment. I do not know the Opuntia galapageia complex well, and have never visited the islands yet, so do not have a strong opinion about the distinctions and proper rankings of taxa within this particular group (I would like to :0). However, I do know that more than one kind sometimes grow together in the same place, and such are clearly distinct and should be treated as different species. And so yes I would consider it a continuation or promotion of confusion for such taxa to be treated as the same single species. However, I suspect that from a biology point of view, some types are just varieties/subspecies of one-another. There are many similar such situations within the genus Opuntia. Complicating all the other issues, many species do occasionally hybridize. Yet "Hybrid" is an over-used, over emphasized, and exagerated explanation often fallen back on to explain the diversity of the genus.
So, bottom line - in my opinion. It is best to recognize distinctive entities that are named with the names that were originally given them, and not to muddy the waters by trying to lump everything together. And, to not worry too much about which ones should be treated as lower than species. Varieties / subpsecies are real too, and do exist in a biological sense within the genus, but I think a large percentage of these named Opuntia taxa really do represent distinct species taxa. Once something is reduced to variety or subspecies, that name has a strong tendency to disappear from usage, or at best to be treated as insignificant and unimportant.
Sort of a side note. --- I believe subspecies/varieties are allowed individual and distinct protections from their closest relatives under many sets of laws and regulations, but I'm not sure how universal that is. A thought comes to mind, though perhaps not that relevant to the discussion here; varieties/subspecies of living things are the same thing as races in humans, and roughly on the same par as breeds in domesticated animals, and as strains in cultivated plants. Perhaps if legislators (and certain botanists) could be conditioned to thinking of varieties/subspecies in this way, they would give them more importance?
Anyway, that's way more than I needed to say here I expect, especially since I'm not sure if I actually contributed much, but I hope it is useful.
I will try to find time to look at the lists that are being produced, and may have more comments after I do. Keep up the good work.
I added a flag to Opuntia "x" occidentalis regarding the supposed hybrid status of the species. I may be jumping the gun at this point, but am ready to discuss Opuntia and how we are going to deal with it at any point. There are no two authors or lists that treat the genus in the same way, and I don't follow any of them entirely, because the genus is one of my focuses of study, and I have developed my own opinions over the last 50 years.
Anyway, the flagging of this one species was perhaps not the correct venue, but I did it in order to bring focus on one issue relating to the genus Opuntia. This is the issue of a set of species that are listed as if hybrids, simply because (presumably - I didn't double check) they are so listed on POWO. These are:
Opuntia × andersonii
Opuntia × charlestonensis Charleston's Prickly Pear
Opuntia × cochinera
Opuntia × columbiana
Opuntia × curvispina
Opuntia × debreczyi
Opuntia × demissa
Opuntia × edwardsii
Opuntia × kelvinensis
Opuntia × occidentalis Western Prickly Pear
Opuntia × spinosibacca
Opuntia × subarmata
Opuntia × vaseyi Vasey
A couple of these may actually be based on F1 or early generation hybrids, but the majority occur in populations of individuals that behave as good and distinct species. I am not going to take these one by one here, but a couple are worth mention. One - "kelvinensis" - is actually in Cylindropuntia, and has fairly well published and documented evidence supporting it's status as a true hybrid between two other existing parental species. The hybrid status of the rest is based on supposition, and only one of those (O. curvispina) has ever had any sound evidence published to support the contention that hybridization was involved in its origins. Yet even that evidence is circumstantial, and it actually supports O. curvispina being treated as a full species (of hybrid origin), and not a "hybrid" per se (meaning that by conventional standards the "x" does not belong). I would condend that nearly all Opuntia species (probably all) are the result of a long evolutionary history of complex reticulate interactions inovolving gene exchange, through one means or another. Does that make them all "hybrids"?
Now, on top of that, there are many more Opuntia names that have been publshed by one author or another with that "x" in front of their name, none of which is any more or less proven to be a hybrid than the ones listed here, and yet several are listed here without the "x". It seems to me that we need to be consistent, and with a lack of proof, should list none with an "x", or (much less satisfactory based on my experience with the genus) we should list them all that way.
I guess in general, I favor listing Opuntia names as species if they have been published as such, or at least accepting them as species when they appear on iNaturalist, as apposed to sinking them into synonymy or calling them a hybrid on faith of somebody's declaration that they are a "hybrid". I realise that this is a slippery slope.
[Unless of course somebody is me :0) ] - sorry - could resist; hopefully you all cuckled instead of moaning in disgust.
@davidferguson A flag on genus Opuntia (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/47902-Opuntia), and some @ tags of other folks interested in the genus, would probably be the best place to continue the discussion for that genus. You could paste in the relevant comments from other taxon flags to consolidate everything in one place. And then edit the original posts to add a link to the Opuntia flag, so folks reading the other flags can follow along to the Opuntia discussion.
@atozbotanicals please read this before you do more changes that already were discussed
Yes. I’ve read over this extensively. Recent Hylocereeae work supports necessary change.
Recent works by specialists of the group Marc Baker, Michelle Cloud-Hughes, & Donald Pinkava have been the culmination of years of work and field study with the plants of the Opuntioideae. (Ex. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271761633_Chromosome_Numbers_in_Some_Cacti_of_Western_North_America-V). I believe deviations are necessary, and I’m curious as to what others think.
@atozbotanicals: @ najera_tuto
OK, I just wrote another diatribe, and realized I was basically just repeating myself (plus it was too long for the comment box anyway). So, regrouping and starting over - - -
As for a new series for Opuntia quimilo, It is reasonable, but I'm not sure it's necessary - the species stands out, but is also clearly most related to the bulk of the other "typical" South American Opuntia species. To me it seems like an unnessecary distinction, or "folder" inserted, but I don't have a strong yea or nay opinion. I do think it will be generally accepted just as a matter of course, and entered into the heirarchy for South American Cactaceae in most treatments that bother with "series". I guess the main question is - is there any reason to even include "series" here on "iNaturalist". In many cases (such as probably this one) they are natural groupings, but in most (including most of the series named for North American Opuntia) they are nebulous outdated groupings of convenience, and often quite unnatural and imaginary. It's hard to distinguish realistic from useless without reading through all the literature on a group.
For Opuntioids, there has been fairly comprehensive work done within the last few decades in South America by authors including Keisling, Iliff, Luenberger, Font, and others that should be taken into consideration (perhaps most is now reflected in Lode's work - I need to double-check), and I think the taxonomy of South American Opuntoids (particularly as found south from the Amazon) is nearing a state of generally accepted, biologically accurate stability. This work should probably be adopted as the template to follow here. However, it's not all in one place, and the problem of no comprehensive one-stop listing still seems to remain. A bulk of the framework and taxonomic adjustments were was published in 'Studies in Opuntioideae' and 'Further Studies in Opuntioideae' though.
Above and beyond that is still the genus Opuntia in North America in particular, and I think having exceptions that are not tied to any particular listing are the only way to go that makes sense [but I'll skip ellaborating further here].
As a side note, I hope to have some publications out within the next half year or so that will address some of the taxonomic legalistic problems within the family in North America that need resolution - and that will allow use of several biologically correct, but not technically "legal" name combinations.
Has anyone tried reaching out to the POWO folks and seeing if they will accomodate some of your requests? Their archive has been changing daily so they're definitely in a period of massive updates.
That said, if POWO won't update to accomodate what you need and you don't want curators to follow POWO, then I think the only way to make it so that curators know when not to curate in the direction of POWO is to wire up deviations.
Here's an example of a deviation which describes how we're preserving Plectritus and Centranthus (ie not lumping them into Valeriana)
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/57285/taxonomy_details
Unfortunately, these deviations are very time consuming to make.
I think we can make the process slightly faster if we: (a) start in spreadsheet form, then (b) craft these deviations from the spreadsheet. (I appreciate all the work done in the comments above, but in retrospect I don't think this was the right format to communicate this info as its hard to make sense of the way the data in the comments is formatted). I've started a new spreadsheet here for the whole family Cactaceae (sensu POWO):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FZYOAbPHSz95Tkv3xQIXkAcYUF0l6Nbfd5Ys2Y2TLXg/edit#gid=0
The idea is to have every Cactus taxon we want in iNat in the iNat columns (I've entered a few rows from Lode http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy_of_the_Cactaceae_Index_of_Synonyms_&_errata.pdf but really this iNat column should be whatever we want on iNat as it maps to POWO) and I've entered the POWO taxa in the POWO columns
if they are a match (e.g. Acanthocalycium ferrarii) then we're all set. But iNat names don't occur in POWO or vice versa (I've used ??) we need to figure out if these are genuinely overlooked by one of the archives (e.g. maybe a newly described species not yet in POWO in which case the POWO column would be blank) but more likely they are entangled in some sort of complex deviation. For example POWO sinks Acanthocalycium glaucum into Acanthocalycium thionanthum as Acanthocalycium thionanthum glaucum in contrast to Lode.
Does this make sense? I totally realize that making/maintaining these deviations is a ton of work. It would be much less work for us to (a) be ok with following POWO as is, or (b) convincing them to accomodate your requests, but if we do want to maintain a Cactus taxonomy other than POWO and signal curators to avoid curating towards POWO, we need to invest in making these deviations
Part one (this came out long)
@loarie I'm not entirely sure how to respond. So, in the "for what it's worth" category: I don't disagree in principal with most of what you are suggesting and asking, but for me POWO is sort of a beside the point issue. Maybe I'm wrong (?), but to put it briefly, I think the general concensus would be that we should not even bother with POWO for Cactaceae at all, since it's so out of date, and so Kew-centrically biased in it's listing. I know you've done a ton on this, and understand the general premise of what is going on, but to me it seems it might be much easier to simply list the whole family as an exception, with some qualifications for paricularly difficult groups where Lodes listing doesn't even cover it (such as Opuntia in North America and likely some of the over-named "collector's genera", or genera that have been recently revised and don't jive with Lode's current listing either). Species level is definitely the more difficult problem, and previous comments reflect the difficulties well. Hardly anyone I know outside of iNaturalist even refers to POWO for a reference at species level, let alone genera, at least not for groups I am involved with (I suspect many working botanists still don't even know POWO exists). Kew's names index, which is related, is however used extensively to look up things like publication places, publication dates, and authorship of names - though that database is not in a format of use for iNaturalist. I suspect it would be easier and practical just to default to Lode as the basic framework, and forget worying over POWO at all. The comparisons are wonderful, but are most people going to actually look at them? At the very least, to me, it seems like a work in futility to try and compile and then to keep up with all of the species exceptions, and that it would be more reasonable to just do the comparison / conversion for genera and higher, and to accept that there is NO "good" listing for species in many genera of Cactaceae, and to add some sort of explanation to that affect.
I don't personally believe that there even needs to be a "standard" or a "framework" that must be followed, that lists all species and infraspecies (though perhaps most would disagree with me?). These can be worked with as added. There is I believe enough expertiese here to sort it out and keep it consistent. As a side note, disputes (which will come up regardless) should be relegated to off-observation discussion (I am, I'm sorry to admit, something of an offender on this count).
Part Two
@loarie I'm not familiar enough with the background workings at iNaturalist yet to even quite understand what you are trying to do, but one issue that you seem to be struggling with involves names that are not listed in POWO at all. There are many of them at species ranking and below. If they are validly published, they are actually easy to look up at IPNI (with occasional exceptions). There will likely be nearly as many missing from Lode's work though. A large part of the reason for this apparent void in names has to do with the nature of databases which don't catch many details such as all the synonyms, and the huge scope of the crazy lumping and splitting that has occured within the Cactaceae. I could write volumes about what has been done, why some was good, why much was not, and how people have practically gone to war over it all (and my commentary would be opinionated too). Yet many of these "missing" names actually are still in general widespread use for truly good and distinct species, and for good reason. People continue to use names regardless or perhaps in spite (or in ignorance) of POWO, and they naturally want to put them on iNaturalist when they have an observation they know the correct name for, or when they know the name of an unidentified observation. Yet such names often don't appear in the database that iNaturalist references, don't come up at all, cause frustration, and ultimately end up being added as exceptions contrary to POWO.
There is nothing in the iNaturalist rules that states that POWO must be followed, that such names are not allowed. But many people have interpretted it that way, and it is certainly strongly "suggested".
Anyway, it seems how Cactaceae is handled could be as simple as a blanket statement along the lines of the fact that POWO does not accurately reflect the status of the family, and is not followed for this family in deference to the treatment of Lode (or whoever), with allowances for additional justifiable exceptions. This is easy for people to follow up on if they wish, since both listings are easy to access online, and exceptions should become obvious (though they can be listed too). However, the statement needs to be in places on iNaturalist where it is obvious (I have had trouble finding some of the statements before I learned the format of iNaturalist and where such things are "hidden".
However, none of this will make the missing species issue go away, because Lode doesn't list them all either.
At the other extreme (which seems to be something like what you are aiming for ?), it could be a complete compilation of (or attempt to compile) all the exceptions and differences between listings, and somehow to make that functional. Perhaps (?) it could be some sort of "smart" setup that lists and automatically protects (?) or allows (?) or favors (?) certain (or all?) exceptions (I don't know what is possible at iNaturalist), but the implications seem overwhelming to me. The exceptions list would have to be a constantly evolving thing, and seems like an overwhelming if not impossible task to complete in the first place.
On the flip side, I am starting to get the sense that POWO is on the verge of a major paradigm shift for Cactaceae (and perhaps some other groups), with or without our imput, and will be heading in (what I would consider as) the right direction. I have a hunch it won't be too much longer before this mostly becomes a mute point and POWO and Lode's work become pretty much the same (?)
Opuntia (and similarly problematic genera) will remain the odd man out for some time though, because there is no viable framework to work with yet (at least for North America), and any studies done on the genus remain largely of dubious value simply because identification and naming is a hash, and different workers are naming the plants they are working with differently (with much misidentification included). For this genus, I can create a list of names, as I would recognize them, and it would probably almost seem to entail just listing all of the names that POWO doesn't regognize at species level, as species. It's not quite that extreme, but certainly leans in that direction. As to trying to adjust the bulk of missing or "lumped" Opuntia names, I doubt (I don't know though) that the people at POWO will simply change the status or add the names based on only a suggestion or request based on unpublished studies, especially since this would overturn much of the lumping "work" done in the last half of the last century. They would I suspect continue to favor what has become dogma from the period of lumping (and explaining away as "hybrids") done through the '50's to the '90's. Just saying that the names as originally published are "better" than the current state of affairs probably won't be enough to people who don't actually know Opuntia well (and even for some who do study the genus).
I'm not sure I'm understanding everything you wrote, but essentially we have 3 options for the family Cactaceae:
1) use POWO as our global external reference (as we are for all other vascular plants) and deviate when necessary
2) use some other global external reference. This reference needs to be available via an API or offer a downloadable archive of the data in a structured format, a PDF is too intractable.
3) have no external reference - e.g. curators in California will prob curate towards Jepson and curators in Canada will probably curate towards VASCAN etc.
My strong preference is (1) unless (2) exists. As iNaturalist is getting bigger, the churn associated with (3) is causing a lot of disruption to the site both on the servers and the community.
Also, be aware that (1) is the status quo so curators should be excused from curating towards POWO in the absence of deviations instructing them not to.
I do tend to get overly wordy, perhaps making the actual points harder to find. :0) I edited the previous a little as you were writing, but probably not much for the better. Anyway, I think the point made by a number of people here, and the root of the problem, is that POWO is unworkable and untenable for the Cactaceae. The exceptions that come up could quite likely outnumber the agreements. This might change soon though, since the status quo is changing rapidly now. Newer well-supported views on Cactaceae taxonomy will likely be gathering momentum now as mainstream, and should be increasingly reflected in slower to change "mainstream" compilations such as POWO rather soon (if not some already). This won't help with species under some genera yet though, because Lode is often using older often still flawed species listings for the genera he hasn't personally studied, and some of those won't really be much of an improvement over POWO for some time to come.
In the meantime, I don't know the best solution, but the favored framework to follow definitely seems to be Lode. Admittedly it is somewhat more difficult to access than POWO. However, POWO should not be favored just because it is an interactive non-pdf database. It should not be about bookkeeping or ease of finding data, but rather it should be about making the treatment used as good and as close to reflecting the real natural world as possible. Right now, it just creates a mess of things to follow POWO, partly because the database is flawed, incomplete, and somewhat confused, partly because a large percentage of cactus experts disagree with it, and won't follow it, and so on. It is also highly frustrating to not be able to find a name that you know is legally published and correct for the plant in question, simply because of some database. So, I think the underlying point would be to do what amounts to your option (2), and figure out a way to make Lode more palatable or accessible to the online user (I'm out of suggestions here, short of getting it posted at iNaturalist with Lode's support and blessing (possible - ???).
As for the missing species question - that is difficult. If not clear in the previous note, I am quite willing to help (and to try :0) to be as non-biased as possible), but I just can't spare the time to work on it for a few months at least. It is actually quite a list, and rationalizations provided may in many cases be difficult to back up in the way a lawyer might accept them. I cannot help much with some genera, but with others I can very much so.
David just explained much much better than me, i agree with all he says, we must unfollow POWO for the time it takes for it to actualize to somewhere near Lodé, we must change al cacti taxa to Lodé list and then deviate from when needed under proper discussion, i think this might even be useful for POWO and Lodé himself if we take the time to search and load the publications about each specie in conflict .
saludos!!!
David, when further deviation is needed for the groups you specialize in, I’d be happy to help offer my time to get the changes put into the iNat system if you provide me with the details for them.
I fully agree with Lodé being the best current system to use as a framework. No resources will be perfect, but Lodé is by far the best and most thorough database for the Cactaceae.
this list has almos the work done https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qm0v_BLu35AODoHPRECp9VsgsbNNcS-w_VnaeXBoPK0/edit?usp=sharing
the E column is for @wolfgangb 's works and the rest are just notes, we had to add tribes and subtribes because also there we had some discrepancies.
wow that looks really good @najera_tutor is that ready for me to try to make deviations from or are you guys still working on it?
i have been working on this for an entire yea but still needs a final revision so i might missed something
some new species might be missing from that list, let me add the ones i remember, jut need to get back to my home, maybe if we give it a couple of weeks for the others to catch up with the list and then you proceed
i think all the cactus enthusiasts are listed now, if we miss someone feel free to add
great!
Anything I could do to help I’m on board
I agree with David and our other cacti
People on here. it’s maybe time to go our own
way on this better to lead then wait and follow
My $.02: I don't think we should adhere strictly to any particular source, especially not POWO. I do think we should follow usage in the major floristic works that cover an area to the extent possible. For instance, if a taxon in Arizona & New Mexico (I will omit Mexico for the moment since I am less familiar with the relevant work there) is recognized as Cylindropuntia spinosior by the Flora of North America, USDA PLANTS Database, Flora Neomexicana III, and the Vascular Plants of Arizona Project, we should use that name unless there is a compelling reason, both in terms of data and argument in support of the change as correct and in terms of preserving information about taxon identity. For instance, if Cylindropuntia spinosior were moved to a new genus, but with exactly the same circumscription, even if there were a compelling argument in favor of that new generic placement there would be no information lost by continuing to be consistent with the major floristic works of the area. Changing the name would make the information in iNaturalist more difficult to use without adding to that information in a way that counteracts that difficulty. If, on the other hand, Cylindropuntia spinosior were split into two species, recognizing those two species on iNaturalist would allow us to capture more information--moving from one species to two allows increased information, moving from two species to one loses information. So, if such a change were strongly supported by published data, it might make sense for us to adopt it even if it isn't in any of the relevant floras.
In cases where the floristic works in an area disagree, I'd recommend going with something like a majority vote among the floras, or at minimum using one of the names that is in use in these works, rather than a novel name that the average user will not find in any flora--again, barring a compelling reason as described above.
What worries me is that I'm seeing iNaturalist adopt a highly idiosyncratic piecemeal taxonomy that is neither consistent with external sources, nor particularly internally consistent, nor represents a demonstrable gain in verisimilitude or information content. Standardization does have benefits, and if we forgo those benefits we do so for some definite, identifiable gain, not merely because ranks, generic placements, etc., vary between authors for, in my experience, rather trivial reasons.
To spinosior:
Cylindropuntia imbricata (Haworth) F.M.Knuth subsp. spinosior (Engelmann) M.A.Baker, Cloud-H. & Majure stat. nov. Opuntia whipplei Engelmann & J.M.Bigelow var. spinosior Engelmann, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 3: 07. 1856. Opuntia spinosior (Engelmann) Toumey Bot. Gaz. 25: 119. 1898. Cylindropuntia spinosior (Engelmann) F.M.Knuth, Kaktus-ABC [Backeberg & Knuth] 126. 1936. Cylindropuntia imbricata (Haworth) F.M.Knuth var. spinosior M.A.Baker, Cloud-H. & Majure, Haseltonia 25:13. 2018. Grusonia spinosior (Engelmann) Goodwyn ex G.D.Rowley, Tephrocactus Study Group 12(3):45. 2006.
Lectotype: Designated by L. D. Benson (Benson 1982), Schott, no. 5, June 1855, MO 2015359!,
Isolectotype: POM 317797!
esta lista tiene el trabajo de un par de años de compilación y consulta con los usuarios https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qm0v_BLu35AODoHPRECp9VsgsbNNcS-w_VnaeXBoPK0/edit?usp=sharing
casi está terminada, solo falta esperar por la publicación de una separación de Mammillaria sensu stricto en Mammillaria-Cochemiea-etc. y me falta actualizar los datos del grupo internacional de trabajo en echinocereus dirigido por @wolfgangb
@elizatorres @bouteloua
Hi folks, according to Rafaël Govaerts from Kew, Plants of the World Online is mostly following The New Cactus Lexicon. While it sounds like here opinion is to rather follow Lode. It sounds like Kew is holding off until the new addition of The New Cactus Lexicon comes out before making a decision about updating things on their end. But they would be interested in seeing a comparison of The New Cactus Lexicon and Lode. Does anyone have this? If not can someone make it?
we all know hat POWO uses hunt's classification, but what we all say here is that Hunt's list is already out of use because of the immense amount of new species, articles about re-splitting species that Hunt clumped into one and even at genus level we have discrepancies with Hunt's, POWO list is Hunt's list with some actualization, a very few ones.
if someone shares the list i can integrate it into the taxon framework relationship that @loarie shared to us time ago and that has been updated by many of us
Hi Folks,
I'm not sure there will ever be a new edition of The New Cactus Lexicon. David Hunt was working towards a new edition for potential online publication but his untimely death last May was a huge loss to us all. Although we have access to his data and manuscripts no serious work has yet been done to bring it all together in a workable form. His most recent update was published in 2013 as "The New Cactus Lexicon - Illustrations" and in several issues of Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives following that. These contained some updates to the original treatment taking into account new discoveries and in response to the large number of molecular studies but still left it quite different to that of Lodé. Personally I would be happy with a treatment somewhere between the two, perhaps recognising more genera than the original NCL but fewer species than Lodé.
The status of 2016 is currently online
If David Hunt had published a follow-up or revision of the NCL, I think it would look very different to Lodé's work no matter how more liberal he'd be in accepting old/new genera and species. Hunt was a lumper and Lodé is a splitter. So they'll look at species through those lenses. Maybe Hunt would have accepted more genera, but still far from as many as Lodé, in my opinion.
Having decided on going with Lodé, I think it is also natural to go with his ideas on number of species unless thorugh monographs or similar on certain genera can be agreed upon as being better. Deciding on an arbitrary middle ground between Hunt and Lodé is not possible I think.
i agree, Hunt's and Lodé's lists are opposite interpretations of life, Hunt is based mostly on genes, while Lodé does a little more interpretation and comparison between species and genera; the problem is this; POWO won't hear from us until we make an article with our list; so i suggest to do so, i can publis as soon as possible in Xerophilia.ro, but we all need to add in the species list all the synonyms so far
I have both Hunt CCC 3/2016 and the
CITES conference from Sri Lanka 2019 as PDF.
How can we make it accessible here?
share a drive or dropbox link
A Supplement to be CITES Checklist Third Edition, Sri Lanka Congress 2019
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zIK7tUwivuZo1gypEcfXnyfvfq9v3fKg
Hi All,
It seems to me that POWO is undergoing a transformation, or perhaps I haven't looked closely for a while.
I just found Loxanthocereus and Borzicactus as accepted genera distinct from Cleistocactus, and from each other.
Also Acanthocalycium separate from Echinopsis and including A. leucanthum (syn, E. leucantha).
Did I miss something?
I just synced the taxon framework with POWO cactuses (that is I deleted any taxon framework relationships referencing taxa no longer in POWO and added any taxon framework relationships for iNat cactuses now represented in POWO). There were only very minor changes since last time I did this and still we have 1319 iNat taxa not accounted for in POWO with a deviation https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/47903/taxonomy_details vs only 24 deviations and theres 172 open flags. There's also 531 POWO cactuses not accounted for in iNat.
Would be great to get this better mapped through deviations. Here's an example of what I mean: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/285792 POWO considers Reicheocactus part of Echinopsis and
Reicheocactus bonnieae & Reicheocactus pseudoreicheanus as E. famatimensis but we're deviating and the taxon framework relationship explains the mapping between what POWO is doing and what we're doing
I spent some time on Cactaceae today. And I actually see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel here in terms of (a) getting iNat consistently curated to what it is the community wants and (b) mapping that thing to POWO with deviations.
I made this flag to discuss the subfamilies and tribes https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/510348 - please add comments there if you thing any concerns about the subfamilies and tribes or the assignment of the genera to them
Subfamily Maihuenioideae has just one genus and 2 species in both POWO and Lode so I think that subfamily is completely sorted and we can ignore it
Similarly, Subfamily Pereskioideae is now curated to match Lode and is properly mapped to POWO with deviations (the only significant one involves lumping Rhodocactus into Pereskia as descussed here https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/510347). So I think that subfamily is completely sorted and we can ignore it.
At least a the genus level, the only POWO/Lode issues with Subfamily Opuntioideae involve Grusonia vs. Corynopuntia, Micropuntia, Grusonia and Airampoa vs. Tunilla which is being discussed in those respective flags. Am I correct in assuming that you all want to follow Lode for this subfamily? If so, I'll look more closely at species level differences. The big ringer in Subfamily Opuntioideae that I became aware of is the genus Opuntia as it seems some want to follow a third reference (Opuntia Web). I opened this flag to discuss what to do there....
This just leaves the biggest subfamily Cactoideae which still has lots of issues. But at least at the genus level they seem manageable grouped by tribe and involve entanglements among the following genera (POWO <=> whats on iNat). is our intent to follow Lode exactly for Cactoideae? Or something more nuanced (e.g. a mix of POWO and Lode?)
..Cactoideae
....Cacteae
........Sclerocactus <=> Echinomastus, Glandulicactus, Ancistrocactus, Sclerocactus
........Stenocactus, Echinocactus <=> Echinofossulocactus, Homalocephala, Echinocactus
........Thelocactus <=> Hamatocactus, Thelocactus
........Mammillaria <=> Cochemiea, Mammillaria
........Escobaria <=> Neobesseya, Escobaria
........Kadenicarpus, Turbinicarpus <=> Turbinicarpus
....Trichocereeae
........Echinopsis <=> Reicheocactus, Setiechinopsis, Lobivia, Echinopsis
........Rebutia <=> Aylostera, Rebutia
........Leucostele, Trichocereus <=> Trichocereus
........Anhaloniopsis, Matucana <=> Matucana
....Pachycereae
........Stenocereus <=> Isolatocereus, Stenocereus
........Lophocereus <=> Marginatocereus, Lophocereus
........Mitrocereus <=> Backebergia
........Cephalocereus <=> Neobuxbaumia, Pseudomitrocereus, Cephalocereus
....Browningieae
........Browningia <=> Browningia, Azureocereus
....Hylocereeae
........Disocactus <=> Heliocereus, Disocactus
........Selenicereus <=> Cryptocereus, Selenicereus
........Epiphyllum <=> Marniera, Epiphyllum
....Cereeae
........Arrojadoa <=> Pierrebraunia, Arrojadoa
........Cereus <=> Estevesia, Piptanthocereus, Cereus
........Micranthocereus <=> Siccobaccatus, Micranthocereus
........Brasilicereus <=> Bragaia, Brasilicereus
....Notocacteae
........Parodia <=> Acanthocephala, Bolivicactus, Brasiliparodia, Parodia
........Eriosyce <=> Neoporteria, Pyrrhocactus, Eriosyce
I've made some suggestions for Trichocereeae and have implemented some taxon relationships for Trichocereus last night. I'll deal with the others from Leucostele later.
Unfortunately Lode's concept of Trichocereus is not monophyletic but then neither was POWOs concept of Echinopsis. They are both pragmatic, primarily morphologically based, constructs.
One small point: we need to spilt off Weingartia from Rebutia, viz: (in your notation)
Rebutia <=> Aylostera, Rebutia, Weingartia
[Note: Weingartia exists in iNat but is currently inactive]
We should not even consider using Anhaloniopsis, totally unnecessary, the single species is obviously a Matucana.
Turbinicarpus <=> Turbinicarpus, Rapicactus, Kadenicarpus?
Turbinicarpus and Rapicactus
Turbinicarpus <=> Turbinicarpus, Rapicactus, Kadenicarpus is accurate since we already have Rapicactus in use and all 3 are monophyletic.
Just make people aware, names currently not accepted by POWO can still be imported from external sources Here's and example. To prevent Notocactus growing further it is now a locked taxon.
Hi everyone.
I just read the recently published work by Breslin et al.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tax.12451
I don't know if there's a flag already for this, they propose many changes whithin Mammillaria and some other genus, based on molecular work.
I meant to bring Breslin’s work up here, thanks for adding this. He sent me the early access paper a few weeks ago to go over and the work is quite good. The relationship of Coryphantha and Escobaria needs more work (as is cited in the paper as well) so we should probably leave those two genera alone. The work which was the focus of the paper, Mammillaria & Cochemiea, has very solid phylogenetic and morphological backing, with strong support for the divergence estimates. I think if everyone here agrees, it should be implemented.
I added a comment regarding this to the flag for Mammillaria two months ago. Implementing these changes would represent a massive deviation from POWO, and from Lode who currently accepts Cochemiea only in its strictest, original sense. I agree with Aidan that the study has solid phylogenetic support but I consider this to be a consequence of the huge number of characters used in the analysis. This was not just an analysis of a small set of known markers but multiple 'random' reads from nearly the whole of the plastid genome. As such it tells us only the history of the 'maternal' half of the ancestry, possibly even only the ancestry of the chloroplast within the group. This is highlighted by two 'anomalous' observations: Neolloydia conoidea and Ortegocactus macdougallii are seen to be embedded with Cochemiea when to my mind there is no morphological evidence for such a placement. They probably arose as a consequence of ancient hybridization. I doubt anyone would want to see them disappear into the enlarged Cochemiea.
At the moment I would urge caution and wait to see how POWO respond.
In my opinion we should wait until other authors find similar results like Breslin, the step is too big to just jump to conclusions. But results that Lodé and Breslin unite should be enough evidence for example placing Mammillaria pondii, setispina, maritima, halei and poselgeri in the genus Cochemiea.
un trabajo hecho por varios especialistas y que debe ser tomado como base es el CCC 3a. ed (2016)
my preference would be to focus on getting changes made to POWO - they've indicated they are willing to update as long as someone was willing to do the work of leading the process and reaching out to several stakeholders.
CCC3 and POWO do not have many differences, CCC3 was led by Dr. D. Hunt, specialist in Commelinaceae and Cactaceae and work at Kew. POWO which is a list generated primarily in Kew is based on the work inherited by Dr. Hunt. The advantage of this work is that it is based on nomenclature rules, something that in many cases is omitted by some lists that have recently appeared.
Hey, I'm just curious to know what the current state of cactus taxonomy on iNat is right now, and the thread is a bit long for me to read in its entirety right now. Are we following POWO or CCC3? Are there any major issues remaining here?
Would like to know why we are obscuring cactus that are considered secure
And not for ones that are under intense pressure from collecting from
Hobby collectors and retailer trade
It started a few weeks ago. And I’m confused as to what’s the reasoning
I’m having issues with locating data to support it
@ck2az could you flag the individual species you feel do not need to be obscured and the ones that should?
re: the current state - we are not following Lode, we are following POWO. And POWO is willing to update their taxonomy towards something that has broader support if someone is willing to lead this effort. I've reached out to several people on this thread but haven't head back from anyone willing to lead this effort. It would entail something like coordinating a virtual workshop with a few different stakeholders to produce edits to the current global POWO cactus list. Please let me know if you're interested in leading this.
@bobby23
Will do
And tag you also
I think your discussion on the obscured cactaceae species is likely to get lost on this thread which is primarily about nomenclature and taxonomy. Maybe you could start a new separate flag? Or maybe a member of iNat staff could transfer your comments to a new thread?
Rafaël from POWO reached out today and said there is a new complete cactus list out: DOI: 10.3372/wi.51.51208
the authors state: “Our dataset will also be made available to the authors of the Kew-WCVP dataset in a suitable form for their consideration.”
Rafaël is asking whether POWO adopting that list would address the bulk of our Cactus issues. The issues are mostly that while the occasional deviation is ok the number of deviations to map from what is currently in POWO to what many in the iNat community want (Lode) is too far. Is the new list closer to what the iNat community wants? If so, then I think we should strongly endorse that POWO adopt it.
Thanks for taking a look!
FYI @mrtnlowr @najera_tutor @ug56bdi
The new list referred to is even further away from what the iNat community wants than the current POWO list. It is based solely on molecular studies with very little if any consideration for morphology. For example their Aylostera deminuta has >100 synonyms. including A. heliosa, because the markers that were used have so little variation. Many of their synonyms Lode, and I, accept as good species. The authors state the the list is "dynamic" and will be adapted as new information becomes available however that will not address many of the deviations from POWO currently in place. If POWO adopt this new list then iNat really will have go it's own way independent of Kew.
A list is never going to be perfect, despite advances in molecular biology, or any study.
What do we want at iNaturalista? Regardless of our preferences, we must rely on taxonomic and nomenclatural principles.
Ulises, I agree with both of your comments.
Although molecular studies are advancing our knowledge greatly they are not yet sufficiently well supported to totally replace the taxonomies generated by over 150 years of observation of morphological characters. As you say no list will ever be perfect but in my opinion the one currently adopted by POWO is better than that proposed by Caryophyllales.org.
Martin @mrtnlowr I do not know of cacti from South America, but I know more or less the cacti of North and Central America, with your experience in the catos of the south we could put together a proposal for iNaturalista. What doyou think?
I hope not to interrupt this discussion, but following one list/opinion doesn’t seem openminded to me. Eventhough it’s a lot of work and time consuming the best choice in my opinion that we have is to pick the currently accepted systems like Lodé and POWO and decide for the species where they differentiate one after the other… @mrtnlowr @ug56bdi
Jonathan, that is exactly what is currently happening here on iNaturalist. Unfortunately it doesn't fit well with the taxonomic reference system that has been implemented and now we have many deviations from the original concept.
My impression of what iNaturalist users would prefer is something somewhere between the 'lists' of POWO and Lode. POWO was originally based on the New Cactus Lexicon but it now has many uncritical additions, changes and omissions. On the other hand Lode's 'list' is perhaps too 'long' but more importantly it is not maintained online and is thus not easily accessible as a taxonomic reference in the manner preferred by iNaturalist.
Our aim in forming a workgroup, as suggested somewhere by Scott @loarie, would be to compile a 'list' for submission to POWO. In essence to work from the "top down" rather than "bottom up" as is currently happening. There are distinct advantages to this since other platforms, e.g. GBIF, are more likely to adopt the 'list' if it is backed by an organization like Kew. In view of the imminent possibility of POWO now adopting the newly proposed 'list' from Caryophyllales.org, and moving even further away from an iNaturalist acceptable taxonomy, I feel the need for our input is becoming quite urgent.
This flag continues a broader discussion of Cactaceae taxonomic issues suggested in https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_swaps/41606.
Specifically, posted by @najera_tutor:
"
http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy_of_the_Cactaceae_Index_of_Synonyms_&_errata.pdf
this is the most accurateand actual list.
i guess we need to do a cactus group to discuss if Lodé's taxonomy is the best or not;
@wolfgangb and me have been working on Echinocereus based on their group studies, and I have previously fixed Coryphantha, Thelocactus, and other, but some groups need more revision and to vote if the list proposed by Lodé is good enough to standardize our cactus taxonomy once in a lifetime
@wolfgangb @cactus-d @jonathanmohl @ug56bdi @davidferguson
"