PlantFiles Pictures: Gymnocalycium (Gymnocalycium anisitsii subsp. multiproliferum), 1 by Xenomorf

Xenomorf wrote:
Yes according to this http://uc.privat.t-online.de/alpha.htm , G. anisitsii subsp. multiproliferum has been rolled into G. anisitsii ssp. damsii as of 2006. I don't have the New Cactus Lexicon yet, $210 is not in my budget. Hopefully I'll be getting it someday when the price comes down or something. Then some updates can be made to the PF, unless someone else wants to tackle the task first? The thing I see with The New Cactus Lexicon, is it dosen't list all the old synonyms that people nowdays are using for thier plants, so it is almost impossible for someone to know what the new name for a plant is unless they have the older books as well so they can cross reference back, Unless someone with a website feels like transcribing the book to online which might defeat the purpose of 'buying the book'.

The PF has moved way beyond the Genus and species point long ago, almost at it's inception. Here's you see 7566 cultivars for one species alone, and you think we have it rough with just a few subspecies or varieties per species?
http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/adv_search.php?searcher[com...

I for one welcome the separation of different plants, rather than lumping them all into one species page. If the plant that was found in nature or the new hybrid that was created is "different enough" from the rest enough to warrant a new botanical name, then why not give it it's own spot? As an example look how different these two varieties are when put side to side.
Mammillaria grahamii v. grahamii http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/117725/
Mammillaria grahamii v. oliviae http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/147315/

That's the way I feel, "let the botanists and taxonomists fight it out", after all thats thier job. But as far as making everything a separate species, you would end up with a different species name for every cultivar/variety/forma/subspecies, which would violate the laws of taxonomy and the way the ranks are set up, and we would be in the same boat we are in now with the same number of different plants only with different species names.

Over the last 15 years or so, there has been a tremendous amount of reorganization in the Cactaceae, with the advent of Genetic sampling and many field and habitat studies. That's why there have been an inordinate amount of name changes. I've been decyphering the taxonomy for years now. It may seem daunting at times, but take a look at the Aizoaceae, same thing going on there but it's a bigger family.
No, no feelings hurt here, Farmerdill & Palmbob hold those titles, but I don't see myself as holding or gaining any particular title, that's just the way it happened because I decided to take on the large Cactaceae family. That's why everyone at DG tries to work as a team as far as researching descriptions and photos go. Those persons with the descriptions and photos in books can provide information and pool it here if it can't be found on the internet in a complete state.

BTW- Other than the "New Cactus Lexicon", I also have the books "Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants: Aizoaceae" (both volumes)" on my wish list (about $240)
http://davesgarden.com/products/gbw/advanced.php?author=&pub...

Here's the description for the two species/subspecies from 'The Cactus Family - 2001':
G. anisitsii ssp. anisitsii:
Has white flowers; occurs in Bolivia and paraguay.
G. anisitsii ssp. multiproliferum
Has numerous violet-green stems, longer spines, and rose colored flowers; it occurs in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil.

Here's the photo, (photocopy for educational purposes only)