Hi all,

These two varieties have been split back out of the parent species, Engelmann's Hedgehog Cactus (Echinocereus engelmannii)

Echinocereus engelmannii var. howei
Echinocereus engelmannii var. purpureus

I'm not sure which, if any, photos should be moved to the new variety entries, so any advice from members familiar with this species and its varieties would be much appreciated.

OK, that will not be easy without a thorough understanding of what plant is supposed to be what as I am led to understand these plants grade into each other when studied in habitat which is why they were all lumped together and were argued to represent variability within the species rather than distinct subspecies.

I also guess it really is what database you follow because ITIS still just calls both a synonym of E. engelmannii.

If you are making the split I would put the images under E. engelmannii sp. The third image currently associated with E. engelmannii is most likely not E. engelmannii but another Echinocereus, that flower is all wrong.

Thanks Thijs. We're following the Catalogue of Life, which has listed these two varieties as separate again:

https://www.catalogueoflife.or...
https://www.catalogueoflife.or...

The data source they use for this genus is World Plants, which they last received an update from in January this year:

https://www.catalogueoflife.or...

Okay, the World Plants entry officially has me confused. Doing a search for Echinocereus engelmannii lists these varieties as synonyms for the parent species.

However, if you go to the parent species entry, they are listed as accepted varieties! I think there's an issue with the World Plants dataset somewhere.

@mcvansoest Is this the image that should be moved to the genus entry?

I agree. Doesnt look like engelmani. maybe viereckii or something similar

As far as database pics go, wouldn't it be erring on the side of caution to leave them in the species, vs. trying to sort them more specifically?

purpleinopp said: As far as database pics go, wouldn't it be erring on the side of caution to leave them in the species, vs. trying to sort them more specifically?

No, not really. Lets supposed there are ...idk
2 photos in the schlumbergera opuntioides .
One is a legit photo. The other is erroneously of idk opuntia quitensis. Lets say I also put a photo of salmonopuntia salmiana...(i dont even know the current name)
What do you get?
A

My question was asked under the assumption that the pics are of the same species where placed, but a discussion was being had about sorting them into varieties of that species.

purpleinopp said: My question was asked under the assumption that the pics are of the same species where placed, but a discussion was being had about sorting them into varieties of that species.

I understand that, which is what I think I suggested... ie. moving the pictures to E. engelmannii species, not associate them with any subsp. or var. unless the poster specifically identified them as such. Maybe I thought I did but did not write it down clearly.

The picture Australis posted is not of E. engelmannii, so should just go to Echinocereus sp.

Australis said: Okay, the World Plants entry officially has me confused. Doing a search for Echinocereus engelmannii lists these varieties as synonyms for the parent species.

However, if you go to the parent species entry, they are listed as accepted varieties! I think there's an issue with the World Plants dataset somewhere.

I know the CoL is the gospel here, but digging down into the source material that leads to this change seems to point to some pretty old publications that recognize these originally as subsp/var. It is unclear to me what the recent source is that would disagree with the more recent lumping of these all under E. engelmannii because of how they occur in habitat and can literally grow interspersed and slowly grade into each other to the point of having areas where it is apparently pretty much impossible to say without a doubt if a certain plant is subsp. a or b.