Talk:Cumulopuntia berteroi
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Weepingraf in topic Why would Cumulopuntia berteroi be invalid?
Why would Cumulopuntia berteroi be invalid? edit
Why would Cumulopuntia berteroi be invalid? There is a full and direct reference to the basionym. Weepingraf (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Weepingraf: The combination itself is likely to be valid per IPNI, but its taxonomy is complicated: POWO places this name under Eriosyce subgibbosa while treating Cumulopuntia sphaerica (with its homotypic synonyms) as separated taxon. Crook & Mottram (1995: 112) may help us to solve the problem since they mention the following: "[Opuntia] berteri[sic!] [...] Ref.: Britton & Rose (1922: 97); Backeberg (1959: 1857): Eriosyce subgibbosa (Haworth) Kattermann. The poor first description and illustration is easily misidentifiable, but most authors now agree that this taxon is E. subgibbosa. The large number of areoles per segment in the illustration, and the density of spination, plus the fact that O. berteri sensu Ritter & Hoffmann occurs only well inland of Valparaíso [as reported by Ferryman] supports this conclusion. Hunt (1992: 102): Opuntia sphaerica Förster|O. berteri said to be misan-". Unfortunately, I have only limited accessibility to Crook & Mottram (1995) so far, so I will give up further efforts to you or someone else. --Eryk Kij (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Weepingraf: Just how complicated the synonymy is, have a look here on Cactaceae at [1]. Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- But synonymy does not make it invalid, so that should be removed. "inval." has a very specific meaning under the ICN (which is nomenclature, not taxonomy). Weepingraf (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Weepingraf: You are right. I had already removed your concern before I posted here my first comment pertaining to the taxonomic problem which I found incidentally and interesting. At that time what bothered me mostly was not validity of C. berteroi, but whether we keep this entry or redirect it to Eriosyce subgibbosa, the name POWO currently accepts. After all, I decided to let it be until we can explain history of taxonomic complication around the listed names. --Eryk Kij (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Weepingraf: & @Eryk Kij:. The redirect is fine as long as the data is not lost, particularly the synonymy, references, the Discussion Page and so on. I have added a few more links. Indeed the history of the taxonomic complications with respect to what is a common and widespread plant is interesting. Andyboorman (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, so then this sentence "Unfortunately F.Ritter's combination under Cumulopuntia is invalid." also needs to be removed I assume Weepingraf (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Weepingraf: & @Eryk Kij:. The redirect is fine as long as the data is not lost, particularly the synonymy, references, the Discussion Page and so on. I have added a few more links. Indeed the history of the taxonomic complications with respect to what is a common and widespread plant is interesting. Andyboorman (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Weepingraf: You are right. I had already removed your concern before I posted here my first comment pertaining to the taxonomic problem which I found incidentally and interesting. At that time what bothered me mostly was not validity of C. berteroi, but whether we keep this entry or redirect it to Eriosyce subgibbosa, the name POWO currently accepts. After all, I decided to let it be until we can explain history of taxonomic complication around the listed names. --Eryk Kij (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- But synonymy does not make it invalid, so that should be removed. "inval." has a very specific meaning under the ICN (which is nomenclature, not taxonomy). Weepingraf (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Weepingraf: Just how complicated the synonymy is, have a look here on Cactaceae at [1]. Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)