Flag for Taxon: Opuntia gilvescens
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cwbarrows | Opuntia gilvescens |
it should be merged with Opuntia phaecantha, per POWO: http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:175105-2 |
Jan. 5, 2020 16:30:38 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
i have no notion of this O. glivescens, maybe @davidferguson can give us a hand on this issue
Lode also doesn't list Opuntia gilvescens as a valid name or synonym so I'd be inclined to swap
http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy_of_the_Cactaceae_Index_of_Synonyms_&_errata.pdf
Adding this here and tagging @davidferguson again: https://www.opuntiads.com/opuntia-gilvescens/
i made a broader flag here https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/510356
There are quite a few species of Opuntia in the U.S. that don't appear in listings such as POWO. O. gilvescens is quite different from O. phaeacantha, and personally, I wouldn't even put it in the same "section" as O. pheacantha. I'm not going to go into a long description of how to tell the two apart here, but merging them on iNaturalist would serve no useful purpose beyond adding more to confusion, both in ignoring a distinctive species, and by calling even more plants that aren't O. phaeacantha by the name phaeacantha. Combining them on iNaturalist would negate all the proper identifications that have been made to date and submerge them into that chaos of confusion.
To be blunt - POWO is almost useless for Opuntia, it is nothing more than a listing of names, and has no standing as an authority. Many of the synonymies for Opuntioideae are totally incorrect there, and a number of names are totally missing. Opuntia is admittedly a problem, because there are no good treatments for the genus beyond a few regional treatments. [There are some that are moderately comprehensive and accurate for Texas, but that miss a few species; and there is good treatment for southern South America. That's about it.] Other than that, it boils down to looking at original publications and type material for better understanding and clarification. I am working on publishing more information, but it's slow going.
Also, while Lode's treatment for Cactaceae is a laudable effort at classifying the family, probably the best so far, there are still many unresolved issues. However for the most part, particularly when it comes to Opuntioids, it is far from a comprehensive species level treatment for any group. He also just provides representative lists names, not including many, and doesn't claim to be the authority on most genera. Opuntia is particularly under-represented and unresolved with him.
Just to lump all the names does no service for anyone.
As for O. gilvescens, it is certainly a valid name, and a distinctive species.
Here are a couple of references a that anyone can look up. Note that the first link goes to a cite that supplies more information and further links.
https://www.opuntiads.com/opuntia-gilvescens/
Opuntia gilvescens Griffiths, Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 20: 87, pl. 2, 5, 7, 13 (1909)
T.L. Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona (more specifically the type material was collected in the vicinity of the research station near the mouth of Florida Canyon).
Also, here are the type specimens for O. phaeacantha and for O. gilvescens. Even looking at just these individual specimens is enough to see that they are very different looking entities. I should add that both species grow together at the type locality of O. phaeacantha, and perhaps also at the type locality of O. gilvescens (though I haven't found O. phaeacantha at the later location yet, just nearby).
https://opuntiads.com/records/opuntia-gilvescens-holo.jpg
https://www.opuntiads.com/opuntia-phaeacantha/
This is also the type specimen of the name Opuntia phaeacantha nigricans, which is an illegitimate synonym of O. phaeacantha phaeacantha [Engelmann often gave separate names to the typical variety of his species as well as other varieties; a practice not now allowed.]
Note that pretty much all type material of species Opuntia has annotation labels attached, and most often they are nonsensical misidentifications, and largely made by a few workers who's goal seemed to be to lump everything into a few garbage-can names. The result of such lumping is totally artificial assemblages of often unrelated plants.
Opuntia nomenclature is a mess, and is still in its infancy, even though it's been going on for around two centuries.
I've been working with Opuntia for over 50 years now, mostly just sorting out what name properly goes with what type plant, and what are real natural population limits.
Also, the same or similar comments go for many other names under the genus Opuntia.
@najera_tutor