Anything less like a cactus

[Mike]

Thought this might be of interest, for a plant less like a 'cactus' is hard to imagine, but that's what this is. Using Anderson's book as a guide I've made a tentative identification of Rhipsalis burchelii but if you've any other ideas plese let me know! I was given it as a small cutting about four years ago, and I'm delighted that it's now producing flower buds!
Mike
[attachment 2209 Rhibur.jpg]

[Mike]

The flower buds aren't easy to photograph, at least with an autofocus camera, but this should give a general idea.
[attachment 2211 Rhibur2.jpg]

[Hob]

have you seen www.rhipsalis.com ?

rhipsalis.com

the correct spelling is rhipsalis burchellii

[Mike]

Thanks Hob. A good website!
And good to know there are others growing these interesting genera!
Mike

[Vic]

You'd never guess it was a cactus - very different!!

[nzcactus]

On that rhipsalis site is an (controversial ?) article by a New Zealander (Phil Maxwell , who sadly died about 2 weeks ago) which has always interested me, concerning the evolution of cactus - it is under the general tab then distribution link (or go directly here: ).

What does everyone else think about the article re rhipsalis being very old and the first cactus to develop before the break up of the super continents ?

[CactusChris]

Hi nzcactus,
Great link, and an interesting article. Far too often we simply accept the general statements made without challenging them - and I think he does a good job of building a case for his thories.
I'm glad that he at least has a go at trying to explain why there are no cactus fossils more than about 20000 years old but I think he needs to do to the normal wisdom about why there are no fossils what he has done in this paper to dispersal mechanisms.
Cacti do not make good fossils we are told, but there are plenty of examples where hard materials like spines have survived as fossils. Because they grow in drier areas fossilisation depends upon being buried by windblown sand or some other mechanism, this should be feasible, and the fossils would be more like mummified. The problem is that many cacti do grow in damper areas, and many epiphytes would overhang bogs and wet areas where they could fall and be preserved. If they are as old as he suggests some evidence should have come to light. He mentions pollen and that it is mostly wind pollinated pollen that is preserved - I agree that the chance of finding insect pollinated pollen is much less, but hardly unknown in the fossil records - so where, after all the time he proposes are these records?
Finally there is no mention of seed. If the birds are carrying the seeds around and defecating them out all over the show for that length of time someone should have found some, and they are hard coated and should survive fossilisation. Perhaps some would even be preserved in the preserved stomaches of the fossilised birds - and anything else that eats the fruits.
Now I have no answers to all this - but it surely is the final proof that is needed to solve the puzzle - and yet there is no evidence available. (Unless I've missed it - which is quite possible.)
Anyway great paper and very enjoyable.

Best regards

Chris