Euphorbia succulenta

[FredG]

I recently acquired a plant of Euphorbia succulenta and whilst pondering what to put on the label I checked out the progression of the taxonomy.

So we have Euphorbia succulenta (Schweick.) Bruyns 2007 syn. Euphorbia neostapelioides Bruyns 2006 syn. Monadenium succulentum Schweick. 1935 syn. Monadenium stapelioides Pax 1909.

The plant was sold as Monadenium stapelioides which went out in 1935 so really, just how long does it take to get a new name into common usage. Will this plant be commonly known as Euphorbia succulenta this century?

It only took Bruyns a year to change his mind so maybe the question should be. What will it be called next week?

[Tina]

I rarely change the labels from when I first get them so its anyone's guess, just admire the plants & not the labels.

[MatDz]

And I am on the opposite end of the "re-labellers", but also admire the plants, not the labels!

(E.g., how could one not re-label a plant to a Baculellum articulatum?!)

[Phil_SK]

So we have Euphorbia succulenta (Schweick.) Bruyns 2007 syn. Euphorbia neostapelioides Bruyns 2006 syn. Monadenium succulentum Schweick. 1935 syn. Monadenium stapelioides Pax 1909.

The plant was sold as Monadenium stapelioides which went out in 1935 [...] It only took Bruyns a year to change his mind

Slightly different interpretation:
1909 - Pax describes Monadenium stapelioides.
1935 - Schweickerdt describes M. succulentum, believing it to be different.
unknown date - these two become treated as synonyms, with M. stapelioides, the older name, being used and M. succulenta becoming forgotten in time.
2006 - Bruyns wants to move Monadenium stapelioides into Euphorbia but can't call it Euphorbia stapelioides because there's already a [different] plant using that name, so coins a replacement name, E. neostapelioides.
2007 - realises that there was an old forgotten synonym that should have been used on transferring it to Euphorbia, so creates the name Euphorbia succulenta formally.

I don't know anything about monadeniums but could imagine that Monadenium stapelioides has long use and is well established in growers' minds.

[Phil_SK]

I never, ever relabel I add additional labels.

[Pattock]

2006 - Bruyns wants to move Monadenium succulentum into Euphorbia but can't call it Euphorbia succulenta because there's already a [different] plant using that name, so coins a replacement name, E. neostapelioides.

Did you mean:

2006 - Bruyns wants to move Monadenium stapelioides into Euphorbia but can't call it Euphorbia stapelioides because there's already a [different] plant using that name, so coins a replacement name, E. neostapelioides.

[David Neville]

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the kindling of my interest in succulent plants, and in all that time I cannot recall ever seeing this particular species labelled as anything other than Monadenium stapelioides. I realise that I am imminent danger of being considered 'an old stick-in-the-mud', but there's not much likelihood that I will ever consider it to be anything other than a Monadenium.
Perhaps the fact that I still use names such as Notocactus, Lobivia and Cochemiea are indicators of the years I have enjoyed in this wonderful hobby. It's amazing how the passing of time alters your perception and acceptance of proposed taxonomic changes.

[el48tel]

I'm with PhilSK
I add a new label with the new data
Or
Add the new data to a new copy of the old label data

[Phil_SK]

2006 - Bruyns wants to move Monadenium succulentum into Euphorbia but can't call it Euphorbia succulenta because there's already a [different] plant using that name, so coins a replacement name, E. neostapelioides.

Did you mean:

2006 - Bruyns wants to move Monadenium stapelioides into Euphorbia but can't call it Euphorbia stapelioides because there's already a [different] plant using that name, so coins a replacement name, E. neostapelioides.

I did. I'll fix the original! Cheers,

[Tina]

I do some write the latest name on the other side of the label, does that make me Bi-label