habanerocat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:18 pmSo would the Handbook Of Shows, available here, be a good starting point?
No, that would be a really bad place to start - it's a convenience for keeping similarly showworthy plants together (I oversimplify). Far better to look at (and compare, since there are plenty of differences in approach) two freely downloadable resources: Joël Lodé's book's index (link to pdf) or David Hunt's CITES Cactaceae Checklist 3rd ed. available from Kew (scroll down to 'Succulents'). For anybody else who has already seen CCC3, there's an update on that page that I wasn't aware of.
Phil Crewe, BCSS 38143. Mostly S. American cacti, esp. Lobivia, Sulcorebutia and little Opuntia
Interesting Phil. Now if they would just come around to my greenhouse and stick the right names on to the load of 'cobblers' labels that came with quiet a few of my plants
Thanks, Phil for spotting the Supplement to CCC3.
Probably the last piece of work by the great, late David Hunt.
Tony Roberts
Treasurer, Haworthia Society
Chairman, Tephrocactus Study Group
Moderator, BCSS Forum
Kent
(Gasteria, Mammillaria, small Opuntia, Cleistocactus and Sempervivum are my current special interests)
Taxonomy is a man-made thing. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest not about creating new species all the time.
Take any cactus genus and look at the difference between species. Those differences are often very subtle.
Then look at dogs. The differences between a German Shepard and a Chihuahua are much less subtle. But we do not consider them different species, just different races. I bet, if German Shepards would have been wild dogs living in Germany and Chihuahuas would be wild dogs living in Mexico we would consider them different species.
I'm sure that there are good reasons but Euphorbia has always puzzled me. pulcherrima (poinsettia); griffithii ( herbaceous garden plant, hardy in UK) and piscidermis (dwarf succulent) and many more are all Euphorbia. Can you cross them? I'd be interested to see some of those hybrids!
There was a presentation on Euphorbia at the last BCSS Convention and basically there are several distinct sections (I have forgotten whether it is 3 or 4) based on DNA analysis. However these sections do not correlate with the gross morphology of the species and therefore it would not be at all helpful to break up the genus into several genera. Some species will hybridise but I doubt whether one's E. obesa x characias cross would wor!.
Nothing would be rejected at a show if it had the wrong name as long as it is in the correct class. If I was judging I'd probably leave a helpful note on the entry card to advise the correct name. By 'correct' I mean if the species was incorrectly names, not just a difference of taxonomic views.
Stuart
As a native Texan I learned about cacti through the works of Weniger, and more recently Powell and Weedin. But when I use one some of their names I am frequently corrected, as though those works are invalid. So I don't always know which name to use that will make the most people happy. No one has published a more recent study of Texas cacti that I am aware of. At times it seems like a free-for-all.
