Talk:Taxonomy of the Cactaceae

Reorganization of article

I have reorganized the article as follows:

I have added an overall introduction to the classification of the cacti. This could usefully be expanded with material on the history of the topic. In my view it needs to bring out strongly the current position which is that the majority of genera and tribes are not monophyletic, and so classification is uncertain and will change.
I have allowed for an introductory section to the Classification section. This allows the sources of the classification to be described briefly – previously the article was unreferenced (although mainly correct).
I have aligned the list of genera and their placement with Anderson plus GRIN for the opuntioid tribes and provided separate references for any newer genera.
Where Wikipedia currently does not have an article for the Anderson/GRIN genus but includes it under another genus I have provided a "see" link.

Please note that the Anderson/GRIN list of genera is definitely not the final word, but it provides a stable, referenced starting point. Updates to more modern views (e.g. Grusonia should be split up according to at least several reliable source) can then be made systematically with appropriate referencing. In general referencing throughout cactus articles is weak. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I can see an easy DYK here - one basic piece of info is how many species and genera are currently recognised. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, but not easy to answer. Consider genera. Anderson (2001) lists 125 genera; Yavia seems genuinely new since then, making 126. I can't access Anderson (2005), which is a German translation of Anderson (2001) but also revised, but I know from other sources that this accepts some splits (e.g. separating Nopalea from Opuntia), so there are definitely more, almost certainly at least 130. Hunt (2006) – again I haven't seen this so rely on a secondary source – has 124 genera, but divides up the Opuntioideae differently, so the genera may be different. Bárcenas et al. (2011) say there are 1438 species in the family – rather precise given that they go on to show that most of the genera probably aren't monophyletic! So it would probably be fair to say something like "In recent treatments, the family contains around 125–130 genera and 1,400–1,500 species." I'll add something to this article and to Cactus. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

I'm wondering if, following my reorganization, this article shouldn't become something like "Systematics of the Cactaceae". Then some more of the material in Cactus (which is getting very long) could be moved here and this article could deal with phylogeny, evolution within the cacti, and classification. I'd leave the overall evolution of the cacti mainly at Cactus. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how much more were you planning on adding to cactus? It could get about 10% bigger without too much issue, but if alot yeah...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are the bits needing more work:

Cactus#Reproductive ecology – this should really cover ecology as a whole, including reproductive ecology. I haven't looked into this yet, so don't know how much could be added, but perhaps the section should be 3 times the present size??
Cactus#Conservation – there's a lot of information about this in, e.g. Anderson (2001), and there are a lot of cacti in the IUCN Red List. I haven't really thought about how much to write.
Cactus#Propagation – ~~this is the bit I was going to do next. It won't be very long, as per WP:NOTHOW.~~ Done. I suspect that cactus enthusiasts will want more under Cactus#Cultivation altogether, but I think the amount there is ok in relation to WP policies and also given that more specific info will be under the genera, species, etc. I've found this difficult to research and write: sources contradict one another massively, often seem just to be based on opinions rather than evidence, and there's the constant problem of not violating WP:NOTHOW. When I've finished the section, I'll be very interested in comments on it!
Cactus#Pests and diseases – I'd forgotten this.

So I think the final size should be ok, but there's no point in full duplication between Cactus and Classification of the Cactaceae. I've moved all the detailed cladograms to the latter, for example.

Any assistance with the two sections requiring expansion would be welcome! I'm happy to finish Cultivation. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 classification

I've added a section on the Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) classification. The older classification really needs de-emphasizing now; it's very out-of-date. There are other systems:

As of March 2017^[update], the German Wikipedia article at de:Systematik der Kakteengewächse had a system sourced to Anderson (2005), Das grosse Kakteen-Lexikon – although the book is often cited as "translated by U. Eggli", this is misleading as regards the classification, since this was updated by Eggli (Anderson died in 2001). I don't think it's worth listing this now.
There's a classification by Hunt et al. (2006) – in The New Cactus Lexicon – that should be at least mentioned, as it was used in CITES, I believe, and is mentioned in Red List entries for cacti. I don't have access to it at present. Does anyone?

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]