|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
weiliiiiiii
Stranger

Registered: 10/10/03
Posts: 9,711
|
Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi?
#10169758 - 04/15/09 07:29 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well why do so many people call their Echinopsis trichs? Is it just habit?
I know when Panaeolus subbalteatus had its species name changed i still called them subbs because thats what i was used to.
But shouldnt we all use the correct genus name now? For noobs it might be confusing.
|
kadakuda
The Great"Green".......East


Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: weiliiiiiii]
#10169907 - 04/15/09 08:27 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
it used to be trichocereus, and many people would argue it still is. just cause the most recent cactus classification names it so, does not mean it is accepted by everyone. im betting some are stuck in tehir old ways (me), some are lazy and others probably think they dont belong to echinopsis.
-------------------- The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.
|
thefiendhitman


Registered: 02/23/09
Posts: 342
Loc: AZ
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: kadakuda]
#10169941 - 04/15/09 08:39 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
In my eyes it's a simple matter. Trichocereus is much more fun to say than echinopsis. It's also an easier word to shorten down. Trich is easier than, oh say, Ech, or Echin. You know?
It's a matter of simple enjoyment to me. Don't know about other people. But Trichocereus is a much more entertaining word.
-------------------- Quote (Ineffable Ant): I don't think that entheogens can heal or teach anyone anything major unless they want to be healed or to learn.
|
ethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"



Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,915
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: thefiendhitman]
#10170005 - 04/15/09 09:01 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think Trichocereus should have been merged with Echinopsis. Sounds like an Obama idea.
EG
|
Mankey

Registered: 07/30/05
Posts: 2,203
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: ethnoguy]
#10170026 - 04/15/09 09:06 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ethnoguy said: I don't think Trichocereus should have been merged with Echinopsis. Sounds like an Obama idea.
EG
Quote:
Wikipedia said: The taxonomic changes have been criticised by K. Trout, in particular the inclusion of the genus Trichocereus, and the formation of a huge, complex new genus without an accompanying monograph. Some problems also arose due to namespace collision when this merger was made. Most notably, there had previously existed both Echinopsis bridgesii and Trichocereus bridgesii, which are very different plants. Echinopsis bridgesii is a short clumping cactus, whereas Trichocereus bridgesii is a tall columnar cactus similar to E. (or T.) pachanoi. Under the new classification, Trichocereus bridgesii is known as Echinopsis lageniformis. It should be pointed out that many people, still use the old Trichocereus classification, especially in ethnobotanical writings.
|
weiliiiiiii
Stranger

Registered: 10/10/03
Posts: 9,711
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: Mankey]
#10170464 - 04/15/09 10:40 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
they will always be trichs to me.
|
plainswalker
Plant Shepherd

Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 765
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: weiliiiiiii]
#10170841 - 04/15/09 11:47 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well the way I see it Trichocereus is clearly different enough from Echinopsis to warrant its own genus, its own subgenus at the very worst. Trichocereus resemble each other physically much more than they resemble other Echinopsis and Trichocereus are also mostly much much larger cacti than Echinopsis. Echinopsis are little things. Therefore in my opinion, the taxonomic merger is null and void. Calling Trichocereus as Echinopsis only shows your support of the merger.
Trichocereus for life.  
-------------------- tradelist
|
weiliiiiiii
Stranger

Registered: 10/10/03
Posts: 9,711
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: plainswalker]
#10170960 - 04/15/09 12:05 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
plainswalker said: Calling Trichocereus as Echinopsis only shows your support of the merger.
Trichocereus for life.   
Obviously you did not read the entire thread, what did i say directly above your post?
I take things such as mycology, biology, botany, horticulture seriously so that is why I asked the question.
I mean its great that all the shroomerites call trichs trichocereus but are we adding to the confusion or taking steps ahead with the scientific community?
I have already witnessed the noobs confusion on this exact subject so i was hoping some of the cacti experts would chime in and enlighten us all.
|
weiliiiiiii
Stranger

Registered: 10/10/03
Posts: 9,711
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: weiliiiiiii]
#10171007 - 04/15/09 12:10 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I would post a site that is all about trichocereus but they are not a sponsor, there is sum great info on that site regarding this issue.
The reason many cacti collectors still call trichs trichocereus is all in the name and what trichocereus means.
|
BlimeyGrimey
Collector of Spores




Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 3,787
Loc: Puget Sound
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: plainswalker]
#10171247 - 04/15/09 12:35 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
plainswalker said: Well the way I see it Trichocereus is clearly different enough from Echinopsis to warrant its own genus, its own subgenus at the very worst. Trichocereus resemble each other physically much more than they resemble other Echinopsis and Trichocereus are also mostly much much larger cacti than Echinopsis. Echinopsis are little things. Therefore in my opinion, the taxonomic merger is null and void. Calling Trichocereus as Echinopsis only shows your support of the merger.
Trichocereus for life.   
I agree.
-------------------- Message me for free microscopy services on Psilocybe, Panaeolus, and Gymnopilus species. Looking for wild Panaeolus cinctulus and Panaeolus olivaceus prints.
|
ethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"



Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,915
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: weiliiiiiii]
#10171302 - 04/15/09 12:41 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
weiliiiiiii said:
Quote:
plainswalker said: Calling Trichocereus as Echinopsis only shows your support of the merger.
Trichocereus for life.   
Obviously you did not read the entire thread, what did i say directly above your post?
I take things such as mycology, biology, botany, horticulture seriously so that is why I asked the question.
I mean its great that all the shroomerites call trichs trichocereus but are we adding to the confusion or taking steps ahead with the scientific community?
I have already witnessed the noobs confusion on this exact subject so i was hoping some of the cacti experts would chime in and enlighten us all.
Quote:
weiliiiiiii said:
Quote:
plainswalker said: Calling Trichocereus as Echinopsis only shows your support of the merger.
Trichocereus for life.   
Obviously you did not read the entire thread, what did i say directly above your post?
I take things such as mycology, biology, botany, horticulture seriously so that is why I asked the question.
I mean its great that all the shroomerites call trichs trichocereus but are we adding to the confusion or taking steps ahead with the scientific community?
I have already witnessed the noobs confusion on this exact subject so i was hoping some of the cacti experts would chime in and enlighten us all.
I know you take it seriously .
Well, I'd say the guys in the white coats that title genus and species don't give a shit about what we think, nor do I give two shits about them.
I contacted the owner of a well respected cacti site (which I can't name because they are a vendor/middleman). He told me that they decided to go with Echinopsis because it is the newest classification for Trichocereus, and whether we agree with it or not doesn't really matter. He also said that members of his blog aren't necessarily happy about it, but he is just trying to do what is current and correct to the scientific community.
I would agree with weiliiiii here. It is confusing, and blatantly an error IMO. I would like to see some work done in the DNA realm to clear this mess up.
For the foreseeable future, I'll be calling Trichocereus just what it is: Tricho.
EG
|
plainswalker
Plant Shepherd

Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 765
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: weiliiiiiii]
#10171445 - 04/15/09 01:02 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Who says the 'scientific community' is taking steps ahead by currently classifying Trichocereus as Echinopsis? And that we'd be doing the correct thing by going rank and file along with them? I can't say I'd call taxonomists scientists exactly, educated people with opinions sure. 8 or so genera have been lumped into Echinopsis, making it a mess that currently nobody to my knowledge is working to sort out. The main reason to lump Trichocereus into Echinopsis as far as I can see is the similarity of their flower structure and their ability to hybridize. The main reason to have Trichocereus separate to my knowledge is their hairy flower buds which Echinopsis do not have, the commonality between Trichocereus species that other Echinopsis do not have, and the fact that Trichocereus in general are large to gigantic tall columnar cacti and Echinopsis are generally short and small clumping cacti. People can think independently and draw their own conclusions as to what classification is most legitimate. If Trichocereus is to be a part of Echinopsis, it would absolutely necessitate its own subgenus.
-------------------- tradelist
|
ethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"



Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,915
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: plainswalker]
#10171485 - 04/15/09 01:06 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Agreed.
EG
|
kadakuda
The Great"Green".......East


Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: ethnoguy]
#10171869 - 04/15/09 02:11 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
look at any classification, the newest is not always so widely accepted....sometimes not at all. "The Cactus Family" is pretty widely accepted, but that does not mean it is solid. cacti taxonomy, even plant classification as a whole, is a mess, and that is probably the best way one can state it cause its actually horrible. so there are often many perspectives which seem reasonable, and there are good arguments for both trich and echinopsis.....so its really up to you to read the available studies and decide which way you lean. newest doesn't mean better.
for example lophophora. first it was one specie, a newer study showed 2, 2005 had a 4 species system, 2006 had a 1 species system.....etc....the newest is not always the most accepted
-------------------- The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.
|
drift



Registered: 01/29/09
Posts: 1,274
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: plainswalker]
#10172058 - 04/15/09 02:49 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
plainswalker said: Who says the 'scientific community' is taking steps ahead by currently classifying Trichocereus as Echinopsis? And that we'd be doing the correct thing by going rank and file along with them? I can't say I'd call taxonomists scientists exactly, educated people with opinions sure. 8 or so genera have been lumped into Echinopsis, making it a mess that currently nobody to my knowledge is working to sort out. The main reason to lump Trichocereus into Echinopsis as far as I can see is the similarity of their flower structure and their ability to hybridize. The main reason to have Trichocereus separate to my knowledge is their hairy flower buds which Echinopsis do not have, the commonality between Trichocereus species that other Echinopsis do not have, and the fact that Trichocereus in general are large to gigantic tall columnar cacti and Echinopsis are generally short and small clumping cacti. People can think independently and draw their own conclusions as to what classification is most legitimate. If Trichocereus is to be a part of Echinopsis, it would absolutely necessitate its own subgenus.
Wow, nice post! Summed my thoughts up perfectly, just in a much more eloquent way.
|
felixhigh
Scientist



Registered: 06/24/01
Posts: 7,557
Loc: Ly
Last seen: 1 month, 8 days
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: weiliiiiiii]
#10172527 - 04/15/09 04:23 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
For me they´re still Trichs.
FH
|
weiliiiiiii
Stranger

Registered: 10/10/03
Posts: 9,711
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: plainswalker]
#10173119 - 04/15/09 05:56 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
plainswalker said: Who says the 'scientific community' is taking steps ahead by currently classifying Trichocereus as Echinopsis? And that we'd be doing the correct thing by going rank and file along with them? I can't say I'd call taxonomists scientists exactly, educated people with opinions sure. 8 or so genera have been lumped into Echinopsis, making it a mess that currently nobody to my knowledge is working to sort out. The main reason to lump Trichocereus into Echinopsis as far as I can see is the similarity of their flower structure and their ability to hybridize. The main reason to have Trichocereus separate to my knowledge is their hairy flower buds which Echinopsis do not have, the commonality between Trichocereus species that other Echinopsis do not have, and the fact that Trichocereus in general are large to gigantic tall columnar cacti and Echinopsis are generally short and small clumping cacti. People can think independently and draw their own conclusions as to what classification is most legitimate. If Trichocereus is to be a part of Echinopsis, it would absolutely necessitate its own subgenus.
This happens all the time in mycology, mushrooms being stuck in one genus one year and another the next, it can get confusing, check out the genera stropharia, psilocybe, and hypholoma for example.
But think further ahead, when we are older trichs are going to be called echinopsis, by then it WILL be accepted by all including this site if its still around.
Over time people will see its switch to echinopsis and gradually accept the new classification, someone will be searching some cacti site and see the new classification and then wanting to be a know it all cacti guru tell everyone of their cacti friends about this new classification, its common human nature to want to be the first one to "tell it how it is"
when we are growing older and dying off we'll have to pass on the word to our kids..."son this forever will be trichocereus pachanoi"...
|
Prof. Astro
acirebma

Registered: 04/15/08
Posts: 4,084
Last seen: 3 months, 5 days
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: weiliiiiiii]
#10173137 - 04/15/09 05:59 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
On my gravestone let it be know, "Trichocereus can now be taken from my cold...dead...hands!"
--------------------
|
weiliiiiiii
Stranger

Registered: 10/10/03
Posts: 9,711
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: Prof. Astro]
#10173263 - 04/15/09 06:25 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Amberica said: On my gravestone let it be know, "Trichocereus can now be taken from my cold...dead...hands!"
|
kadakuda
The Great"Green".......East


Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: weiliiiiiii]
#10175773 - 04/16/09 01:23 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Over time people will see its switch to echinopsis and gradually accept the new classification, someone will be searching some cacti site and see the new classification and then wanting to be a know it all cacti guru tell everyone of their cacti friends about this new classification, its common human nature to want to be the first one to "tell it how it is"
possibly, some cacti folk still use very old names to this day, and it has not changed for them cause they dont accept the newer classification. i am not sure it will be totally 100% like some think, cause with others it certainly is not. but i must agree with you saying new people to the hobby will probably take in echinopsis, only the ones truly studying them may go either way because they look into the biology of them.
but i also think we are on the brink of a new era of classification using DNA. there are some cacti studies being done now (see Butterworth for example) that are showing that our common faith in morphology is quite different to their genetic makeup, which could possibly see the total redoing of plant taxonomy in the future (long over due).....but these studies still have their variables, its never going to be 100%, not in taxonomy
-------------------- The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.
|
Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer


Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,545
Loc: Uk / Philippines
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Why call Echinopsis pachanoi trichocereus pachanoi? [Re: weiliiiiiii]
#10175776 - 04/16/09 01:25 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
fuck echinopsis and the men in white coats who decide this stuff.
TFL as plainy said
-------------------- View My Gallery
|
|