Yesterday I was checking out Huernia zebrina and came across the National Gardening Association (American) site which has an excellent database of plants and pictures.
But.. The Huernias and all other Stapeliads i.e. Hoodias, Stapelias, Pseudolithos etc. had all been reduced to synonymy with Ceropegia!
I contacted John Pilbeam yesterday evening and it seem Peter Bruyns THE Stapeliad expert has decided that the rule of prior description should apply and has gone back to Linnaeus in 1753 who first described them all as Ceropegia.
Nobody is going to accept that. You might as well have all cacti in the genus Cactus or all trees in a genus Tree!
What The...?
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!
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!
-
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 4318
- https://www.behance.net/kuchnie-warszawa
- Joined: 20 Sep 2007
- Branch: LEA VALLEY
- Country: Uk
- juster
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: 17 Sep 2013
- Branch: CROYDON
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Branch Show
- Location: Surrey
Re: What The...?
I quite agree Mike, an extraordinary decision and one that doesn't make any sense.
Croydon Branch member, growing mainly cacti and Echeverias
- Aiko
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 3867
- Joined: 12 Aug 2010
- Branch: None
- Country: Netherlands
- Role within the BCSS: Member
Re: What The...?
You don't have to follow every guideline (I see it as that). I just keep calling Homalocephala texensis that way. I like the name, learned the plant under that name and we all know which individual plant it is so there will be (or should be) no confusion on genus level about whatever synonym used.
Regarding asclepiads, I just keep on using the names Pseudolithos and such. Wonder if species name will conflict. Renaming species is not something I would encourage, as to avoid confusion on species level.
Regarding asclepiads, I just keep on using the names Pseudolithos and such. Wonder if species name will conflict. Renaming species is not something I would encourage, as to avoid confusion on species level.
- rodsmith
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 3194
- Joined: 17 Feb 2011
- Branch: STOKE-ON-TRENT
- Country: UK
- Location: Staffordshire, UK
Re: What The...?
To misquote Shakespeare: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
Rod Smith
Growing a mixed collection of cacti & other succulents; mainly smaller species with a current emphasis on lithops & conophytum.
Growing a mixed collection of cacti & other succulents; mainly smaller species with a current emphasis on lithops & conophytum.
- ralphrmartin
- BCSS Research Committee Chairman
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: None
- Country: United Kingdom
- Role within the BCSS: Chairman - Research
- Location: Pwllheli
- Contact:
Re: What The...?
Now, when will someone do the opposite, and split Euphorbia up?
Ralph Martin
https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/cacti.html
Members visiting the Llyn Peninsula are welcome to visit my collection.
Swaps and sales at https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/forsale.php
My Field Number Database is at https://www.fieldnos.bcss.org.uk
https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/cacti.html
Members visiting the Llyn Peninsula are welcome to visit my collection.
Swaps and sales at https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/forsale.php
My Field Number Database is at https://www.fieldnos.bcss.org.uk
- ChrisR
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 2054
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: SHEFFIELD
- Country: England
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Location: Sheffield, UK
Re: What The...?
But surely that would only apply to those species described as Ceropegia by Linnaeus, not those discovered and described since?Herts Mike wrote:......it seem Peter Bruyns THE Stapeliad expert has decided that the rule of prior description should apply and has gone back to Linnaeus in 1753 who first described them all as Ceropegia.
Typical adademic taxonomy taken to it's extreme anyway!
Chris Rodgerson- Sheffield UK BCSS 27098
See www.conophytum.com for ca.4000 photos and growing info on Conophytum, Crassula & Adromischus.
See www.conophytum.com for ca.4000 photos and growing info on Conophytum, Crassula & Adromischus.
- Phil_SK
- Moderator
- Posts: 5446
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: MACCLESFIELD & EAST CHESHIRE
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Forum Moderator
- Location: Stockport, UK
Re: What The...?
Yes, he hasn't decided the rule of priority should apply: it applies. It's more that, having decided to combine several genera, his choice of Ceropegia for the genus into which he transfers the others is based on priority - it will be the oldest of the genera he has combined.
I can't access the article but there's a hint of his reasoning in the abstract at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9916339242
I can't access the article but there's a hint of his reasoning in the abstract at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9916339242
Phil Crewe, BCSS 38143. Mostly S. American cacti, esp. Lobivia, Sulcorebutia and little Opuntia
Re: What The...?
Looking at the abstract provided by Phil, it looks as though we have a similar situation to that which arose from the DNA systematics work on Aloe/Haworthia. The choice there was either to have a mega-genus Aloe, or to set up various segregate genera; the latter having won out. Hardly anyone is going to accept a mega-genus Ceropegia, so it looks as though there is a great opportunity here again for someone to create new segregate genera from Ceropegia. Any volunteers?
-
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 4318
- Joined: 20 Sep 2007
- Branch: LEA VALLEY
- Country: Uk
Re: What The...?
I shan't be changing my labels just yet...
Re: What The...?
Whenever there are scientists who take such radical positions, I think it's a point of view and it's to us to decide to apply this new classification or not.
There I do not adhere
Prior description has limits
There I do not adhere
Prior description has limits