Rarest and most common cactus?

For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation and exhibition of cacti & other succulents.
Forum rules
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.

Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
User avatar
Phil_SK
Moderator
Posts: 5442
https://www.behance.net/kuchnie-warszawa
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Branch: MACCLESFIELD & EAST CHESHIRE
Country: UK
Role within the BCSS: Forum Moderator
Location: Stockport, UK

Re: Rarest and most common cactus?

Post by Phil_SK »

I don't think so: there is an extinct category.
Phil Crewe, BCSS 38143. Mostly S. American cacti, esp. Lobivia, Sulcorebutia and little Opuntia
User avatar
mdpillet
Registered Guest
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Jun 2016
Branch: None
Country: United States
Role within the BCSS: Member
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Rarest and most common cactus?

Post by mdpillet »

DaveW wrote:The problem with all these supposedly scientific lists is they break the first rule of science (and botany is supposed to be a science) that others should verify the results before they are accepted as facts for listing. Most listings are based solely on the opinion of one person visiting a single habitat at a certain time, without any required later corroboration of their opinions by other botanists.

I was listening to BBC Radio this morning and it was saying many things appearing in scientific journals etc as supposed facts did not stand up to investigation by others and were being published in haste simply because it looks good on the authors CV. I think for any plant to be listed it should require the corroboration of at least three persons independently visiting habitat at different times. Evidently professional botany is now becoming as slipshod as all the other so called sciences. See:-

http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03/stu ... -happening

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/%3C? ... science_06

Also seemingly in botany when a plant is proved not to be endangered it is seldom removed from the listings, as good science would require.
Dave, the first rule of science, or any rule (if there were one), does not include accepting results as fact. While this gets into philosophy, Popperian science holds at its core that there are no scientific facts – only ideas that have not been disproven.

Listings are rarely based on the “opinion” of a single person. In the United States, listing of species is a thorough process built around the feedback of many researchers. I can comment more on the IUCN cactus classification, which was only completed in the last few years (see http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mdpillet/cacti/goettsch.pdf for the publication on my website; supplemental information here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mdpillet/cacti/goettschSI.pdf). The IUCN uses a standardized set of criteria; these criteria are evaluated by experts based on the latest science available at workshops. I strongly doubt that any species was classified based on a single person’s perspective, but I will ask the cactus working group director at our next meeting. People who contributed included Graham Charles and Paul Hoxey, names I’m certain are familiar. Are the IUCN criteria always useful and used correctly? No – but it is the best information available and is better than what we had before. Mistakes happen, for example, the listing for Ferocactus haematacanthus includes information for F. hamatacanthus. Finally, delistings happen, often way too rapidly. Conservation is a crisis discipline. The consequences of not taking an action based on deficient data can be extremely dire.

Your perspective on the integrity of the sciences sounds uninformed and is, frankly, offensive. I have made mistakes myself and have always tried to correct them. I doubt it is common that scientists publish false science on purpose. Fallible processes such as peer review are in place to reduce errors, and journals are moving more and more toward required publication of code and data. Errors are, as you referenced, more common in some fields than others. I don’t think you understand the immense pressure scientists are under, and dismissing their work (the “so-called sciences”) based on the haste imposed by societal expectations is misplaced. You don’t stop using computers because there are sometimes bugs, or stop trusting medicine because misdiagnoses occur. Having just worked a 15-hour day to get my computer code up and running for climate change projections for 310 cactus species based on data that took dozens if not hundreds of people years to collect, I am disappointed to read scientists’ work devalued. Speaking specifically for conservation ecologists – we’re not particularly in it for the money or the CV booster. Adjusting for real hours worked, I earn less than minimum wage for my work, and it is not at all certain I’ll ever get a stable job. All I wish for is enough time to grow my succulents, contribute to their conservation, and a little bit of respect for the work scientists do.
Last edited by mdpillet on Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mdpillet
Registered Guest
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Jun 2016
Branch: None
Country: United States
Role within the BCSS: Member
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Rarest and most common cactus?

Post by mdpillet »

Acid John wrote:Phil. I thought once a plant became super rare it was "de-listed" because there's no point in protecting nothing.
Are you asking about the IUCN classification, CITES, or a specific country's listing process? The IUCN has data deficient, extinct in the wild, and extinct categories. Often the classification is conservative.
User avatar
DaveW
BCSS Member
Posts: 8154
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Branch: NOTTINGHAM
Country: UK
Role within the BCSS: Branch President
Location: Nottingham

Re: Rarest and most common cactus?

Post by DaveW »

Edit:- I compiled and posted this before reading the post above, but I still consider most of it relevant. I do know Paul and Graham as well as others who contributed to information on the Cactaceae. In fact I did the trip to Chile with Roger Ferryman who contributed most of the Eriosyce material, therefore know his views on some of the listings too. Also that he considers it is habitat destruction sanctioned by governments that is the problem, something the botanical profession keeps quiet about since it is a political hot potato.

My original post:-

They should never list a species as rare until others independently check the facts Phil, otherwise it brings the listings into disrepute and also proves the persons compiling the list have no real scientific credentials.

Listing plants as rare is irrelevant anyway unless you protect their habitats and due to commercial reasons within countries that obviously seldom happens. When it comes to the Cactaceae, from remarks I have heard on American web sites, the American botanists have little time for the European ones, calling them "armchair botanists" since they spend so little time in the field, but still pontificate about such things as rarity and extinction they actually know very little about.

Science demands proof, but science can never actually 100% prove anything, it can only disprove statements or theories. But to do that requires others to independently check what is reported before it is accepted and put forward as "facts". This at the moment is seemingly not being done with many listings, since they are based on merely one persons opinion, or observations, without rigorous independent checking. When people claim a plant has not been seen again for many years, so believed extinct, they simply mean no visiting professional botanist has seen it, though the locals may see it regularly.

To the professionals chagrin it is also notable how far they usually lag behind the dedicated amateur in any particular plant family, they being the real amateurs when it comes to any particular genus, as this quote from the link below illustrates:-

"Its eventual rediscovery was due to the painstaking detective work of an amateur botanist, Mark Jannink, who identified 10 possible sites in the Welsh borders and visited them regularly throughout the summer, until on 20 September he found a single example of Epigogium aphyllum, bearing a single white flower on a white stem only five centimetres tall.

The plant was so unobtrusive that it was invisible from a few yards away. On spotting it, Mr Jannink exclaimed: "Hello you – so there you are!"


http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 23853.html

Another so called "extinct species" right under the noses of professional botanists for a generation if only they had looked for it:-

"The search instead found 370 individuals of the hibbertia fumana species on the seven-hectare site, formerly owned by the military and largely untouched.

"The plant was thought to be extinct and last documented in 1823. It was only named in 2012 as a separate species from pressed specimens held in overseas vaults."


http://www.crookwellgazette.com.au/stor ... d/?cs=2452

I was told when I visited Chile, that due to the exceptional rainfall that year the botanists had found a plant not seen since Philippi's time. Any plant that can exist as seed for generations can never be considered extinct. Nor can the fact a professional botanist has not observed it mean it may not be seen every year by the local population. After all a "new species" is never new, it only means so called science had not recorded it yet, though it may have been familiar to the local population for centauries.

I am afraid "sloppy science" from so called professional scientists brings all science into disrepute. Whether the botanical profession likes it or not, when it comes to advancing knowledge of the Cactaceae the amateur has always been in the forefront, with the professional usually bringing up the rear, as in many other fields of botany and zoology.

https://medium.com/@TODAYonline/the-big ... .v0g8a02bv

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 091411.php

Most of the plant collectors in Victorian times who "discovered" new species were usually amateurs employed by nurseries to bring back exotic flora, not professional botanists.
Nottingham Branch BCSS. Joined the then NCSS in 1961, Membership number 11944. Cactus only collection.
User avatar
habanerocat
BCSS Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: 02 Jun 2012
Branch: DUBLIN
Country: Mid-West Ireland
Role within the BCSS: Member
Location: Ireland

Re: Rarest and most common cactus?

Post by habanerocat »

KarlR wrote:
Phil_SK wrote:I've written this elsewhere in answer to this same question.
Appendix 4 of the New Cactus Lexicon comprises conservation assessments for the cactus taxa they recognise. These are drawn from a number of sources and, I think it's fair to say, are a bit rough and ready in places and plenty of species are listed as being data deficient. That said, it's still the most comprehensive listing I know of. Their conservative classification will, of course, disguise vulnerabilities of distinct populations that some might think merit species status. They use the IUCN Red List categories.

As far as I can see, none are listed as extinct.
Four are listed as EW:
Cereus estevesii (as CR-D/EW? where the D indicated it's CR because the population size is <50)
Echinopsis chamaecereus
Mammillaria columbiana ssp yucatanensis
Rhipsalis pentaptera (as CR-D/EW?)
I thought a columnar or epiphyte would probably be the most likely candidate and, in addition to being rare in nature, I'll wager very few grow the Cereus you mention. The Rhipsalis seems more common in cultivation, and obviously Chamaecereus is very common in cultivation. Don't know about the Mammillaria, but the Cereus seems a serious contender for rarest cactus to me.
Two informative posts.
Post Reply