Growing in habitat here.


And a couple where something was hungry for some juicy fruit .


This post stems from the thread https://garden.org/thread/go/1... because I didn't want to hijack it any further than I already did.

A photo of Homalocephala texensis was posted on Facebook. I know it as Echinocactus texensis and after it was verified to me, others had a discussion which I found interesting - esp. in lieu of the link Stefan posted.

1st poster "No more Echinocactus?? When did the name change"

2nd poster "Just using the original name again, which most are doing."

3rd poster " DNA sequence data was used to analyze relationships in Echinocactus and as a result the genus Homalocephala was recognized for some members of the complex"

comment to 3rd poster by 4th poster "interesting that parryi and polyceph were placed into homalocephala."

It's a new discussion, so it may continue. Most of the folks commenting have considerable knowledge and experience with cacti. I suspect that some NGA members are also watching the group. I rarely participate because I was never one to interrupt when the professors were speaking. I wish, though, that the family links were entirely determined by the DNA. Since plants adapt to their specific growing conditions which can cause their appearance to vary considerably in different environmental pressures, it seems a better route. Sort of like bloom structures which identify plants as relatives that don't look much alike. Euphorbias come to mind.

I thought others here might find it interesting - or they can just look at the photos. I'm trying to decide whether to go in and add the new name to my photos. I probably won't remember if I don't do that.

Details here (2018 paper)...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

but Echinocactus is apparently closer to Astrophytum than Homalocephala, and grusonii falls outside this group and closer to Ferocactus, according to the DNA data.

At what point is it decided these studies merit an official name change? And, I guess, where does the authority to do that officially reside? Is that the directors (or whatever) of the Cactaceae? Is it the international final word on classification of the cacti family? I've only managed to read to the Methods section.

Never read a scientific paper in order. This figure and the subsequent one have all the pertinent information:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

I do not know who decides, or has the final authority on cactus taxonomy.

Best I can tell from searching the internet it may be a group called the International Cactaceae Systematics Group. The current listed editor is David R. Hunt, but he died in May 2019. He was responsible for the C.I.T.E.S cactaceae checklist and for the 'The New Cactus Lexicon' which is in two volumes. "this publication attempts to describe the entire cactus family" and was published in 2006. The most recent C.I.T.E.S cactaceae checklist edition was in 2016.

Seems, though, that there are dissenters on the authority. I thought most all plants had an accepted international authority for proper nomenclature. May be wrong on that since I can't locate one for cacti. Perhaps it's more clear about registering named cultivars for certain plants than for the species anyway, though. There are recognized authorities for the cultivar names for roses, rhizomatous iris, hemercallis, bulbus iris etc. Each organization keeps up with the registration and are recognized as the final authority on the naming. Perhaps every plant doesn't have such a recognized authority. Orchids are notorious for being a confusing, ever-changing mess when it comes to names.

That name rings a bell. I think i followed something called a cites appendix or something ...
But its all long forgotten...