Talk:Echinopsis

Here's how I made the species list: got all species from IPNI, confirmed each one with one of the other references (or confirmed it was a synonym and commented it out.) Those I couldn't find in one of the other references I labeled with a <! --?--> Here's a list of the unconfirmed species:

Echinopsis amoenissima Werdermann
Echinopsis apiculata Linke
Echinopsis aurata Salm-Dyck
Echinopsis berlingii Y. Ito
Echinopsis bolligeriana Mächler & Helmut Walter
Echinopsis bonnieae (Halda, Hogan & Janeba) Halda & Malina
Echinopsis campylacantha Pfeiffer & Otto
Echinopsis caulescens (F. Ritter) M. Lowry
Echinopsis chereauniana Schlumb.
Echinopsis colmariensis Hort.
Echinopsis cristata Salm-Dyck
Echinopsis decaisniana Walp.
Echinopsis gibbosa Pfeiffer
Echinopsis gigantea Rud. Meyer
Echinopsis gladispina Y. Ito
Echinopsis hamatispina Werdermann
Echinopsis hossei Werdermann
Echinopsis imperialis Hort.
Echinopsis jajoiana Hort.
Echinopsis jamessianus Hort.
Echinopsis knotti Schlumberger
Echinopsis lorethroides Werdermann
Echinopsis macrodiscus Frič
Echinopsis melanacantha A. Dietr.
Echinopsis mihanovichii Frič & Gurcke
Echinopsis misleyi J. Labouret
Echinopsis nigrispina Walp.
Echinopsis nodosa Linke
Echinopsis octacantha Muehlenpf.
Echinopsis pectinata Fennel
Echinopsis pelecygona Y. Ito
Echinopsis picta Walp.
Echinopsis pulchella Zucc.
Echinopsis reichenbachiana Pfeiff.
Echinopsis robinsoniana Werdermann
Echinopsis rubescens Backeberg
Echinopsis salmiana F. A. C. Weber
Echinopsis salpigophara A. C. Lemaire
Echinopsis schelhasii Pfeiff. & Otto
Echinopsis scopa Carrière
Echinopsis setosa Linke
Echinopsis simplex Niedl
Echinopsis spegazzinii K. Schumann
Echinopsis sphacelata Gravis
Echinopsis strausii Graessn.
Echinopsis tacuarembense J. Arechavaleta
Echinopsis tephracantha Hort.
Echinopsis tricolor A. G. Dietrich
Echinopsis tuberculata Niedt
Echinopsis tucumanensis Y. Ito
Echinopsis verschaffeltii Hort.
Echinopsis zuccarinii Pfeiff. & Otto

Matt 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Echinocactus, Mexico

The references to Echinocactus and Mexico here are odd. Are they nicked from some very old (before 1950 or so) book? As far as I know, no modern sources link Echinopsis and Echinocactus together, and Echinopsis (however you define it) are native only to Paraguay, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Peru, southern Brazil, Uruguyay and (one species) Ecuador. Echinocactus on the other hand, is restricted to Mexico and the USA. Jgrahn 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right [1], 1889 to be precise. If you know better than this then please edit the article to bring it up to date. Matt 21:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the article you're talking about is copied directly from http://cactus-succulents.webgardenguide.com/Echinopsis_spachiana_4790_650_2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.120 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they are both copied from the 1889 source, just like Matt claimed. I wanted to do something about all this ... but at least today that would mean ripping out most of the article, and I don't really have anything sourced to replace it with. JöG (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lobivia

I am tangopaso on french Wikipedia. There is a redirection of Lobivia to Echinopsis. But Lobivia and Echinopsis are two different genus. --81.249.154.161 (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the revision which sunk Lobivia and several other genera into E., just like the article explains. There could still be a separate Lobivia article, though. JöG (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the latest with the taxonomy? Kew shows Lobivia is accepted and so is Trichocereus, Leucostele, Soehrensia --Cs california (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what PoWO's source is for cactus taxonomy. As I noted below, sadly, cactus taxonomy seems to remain in flux, with no clear consensus. Some sources continue to use Hunt's 2016 CITES Cactaceae Checklist, others have revised parts. Whether we should choose PoWO's approach for article titles and taxonomy isn't clear to me. (I recently revised Opuntia a bit, where Kew seems to have a lumping approach, not followed by everyone, so I left the species list with taxa PoWO doesn't accept.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of separating out everything out based on what is on Wikispecies and Wikicommons but I wanted to check if there is anyone had issues with that. Cs california (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies and Wikicommons aren't sources that can be used; what reliable source would you use? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure they mirror what Kew has. I am fine with whatever you guys think is more recent --Cs california (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, using PoWO ensures consistency, even if they aren't always the most up to date. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"K. Trout" and taxonomy criticism

Is it really notable that a pseudonym author from the drug scene (and apparently not a professional botanist) dislikes the merge of Trichocereus into E.? Especially since numerous amateur and professional growers also dislike it. I won't remove it, but it looks silly. JöG (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgrahn: how is he not a valid source when he works at the Cactus Conservation Institute and has several publications on conservation and chemistry as shown in the link. Just because he works on pharmacology of some of drug chemicals does not invalidate his other work--Cs california (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cs california: your link doesn't show K. Trout to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not sure why the link does not work and redirects https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Keeper-Trout --Cs california (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]