Awesome 2012 paper written on the classification of our fun friends. This has been what I have maintained for a while, thats they are no different than a rottweiller and a chiuahuah

Interestingly though, she does not address Bridgesii. Specifically she makes the comment, ribs rarely going as low as 4. In my experience Bridgesii's go 4 more than the other variants. But I would still think via the description given at the end that Bridgesii fits the bill as well.

In reading the thing I picked up that shows cause for differentiation amongst the sacred cactus is the few types that have denser spination

I just read this article, who knows how the community will accept this. The whole Echinopsis debacle was wild.... she also points out why our cacti are not Echinposis....

Much love,

Sorry I haven't been around to contribute much recently. Between travelling to peru and spreading love and light, me and the old keyboard rarely chill.

keep dreamin!

http://www.cactusconserv..._Haseltonia_17_24-34.pdf

ive sampled t. macrogonus (one of them atleast) a healthy specimen and found it to be inactive or at most placebo level threshold, not too sure.

http://www.cactusconserv...2_Haseltonia_17_3-23.pdf
check out the tree view on page 8, where T bridgesii is and where pachanoi and peruvianus are...

I think that these taxonomy papers are interesting but narrow and naive, maybe they will make a good foundation for some more serious research down the road.

I think the same thing. This lady hasn't done anyhting cool except reaffirm things arent figured out yet.


So often i talk to people and they want me identify this cactus as pedr/peruvian/macrogonus, finally a paper to give their "scientific" names


So i went though and looked at a few of the category trees. checked out the one in 8, which shows bridgesii befroe peruvians and pachanoi, but i don't understand exactly what its saying.

Number 11 doesn't list bridgesii. It list peruvians and pacahnoi as being close. as i understand it they are grouped like that because they have glaucus skin.

would you mind elaborating on what it tree 8 is analysing?

sure, why not...

first let me address why i pointed it out, look at the names on both papers

one is a proclamation of the opinion of the taxonomic status of the plants, which I would generate a novel genus for, but that is me.
The other paper is a study of the relation of these cacti

I think bridgesii is related to pachanoi etc
now the page 8 date is:
Strict consensus of 31371 most parsimonious trees
(L = 313, CI = 0.47, RI = 0.5, using trnL-F and rpl16 combined data set.

molecular strict consensus of
31371 most parsimonious trees (L = 313; CI = 0.47;
RI = 0.58; Fig. 2) shows that T. bridgesii is the first
branching species.

my point here is that in the genetic study bridgesii was basal, even indicated by this as potentially ancestral, in the morphological study in the same paper it is associated with pachanoi and peruvianus, ergo this whole enterprise is confusing and clarifies nothing.

Tight, So its saying Bridgesii is likely to pach/peruvians and a siberian wolf is to a husky. I would say this mirrors mine and mosts anecdotal reports where the bridg foot for foot is wilder and more primal not science, just anecdotes.

What I like about what you explained is also what I liked about this paper. People are writing about our cactus and literature is growing again. Hopefully the study you posted and what you explained is realized by a smart botanist who like our cacti as they read it too, and they decide to do a little more digging with their PCR machine

I hope i didn't give anyone the idea that the paper i posted clarifies anything. Just happy 2012 has some literature ^*^

luvs and lulz and crumbs of cheese.