Siler's Pincushion Cactus, Gypsum Cactus, Gypsum Plains Cactus (Pediocactus sile

Watch Reply
More
Mark unread Print Skip to new
CactusJordi El Cajon, CA Apr 07, 2010

Siler's Pincushion Cactus, Gypsum Cactus, Gypsum Plains Cactus
Pediocactus sileri

Grafted and flowering early April in SoCal in a 2+" pot.

Thumbnail by CactusJordi
Post #7688009
Quote
beckstrommarc Livermore, CA(Zone 9a) Aug 19, 2012

This is NOT!!!! Sclerocactus sileri, who identifies plant photos, they need to be looked at more closely. This plant is?



Marc Beckstrom

Post #9247156
Quote
CactusJordi El Cajon, CA Aug 21, 2012

Well, whoever edited this entry in the beginning made the mistake to lump Utahia/Pediocactus sileri as synonym to Sclerocactus sileri. This entry should be divided in two separate ones!

Jordi

Post #9249372
Quote
Xenomorf Phoenix, AZ(Zone 9b) Aug 21, 2012

Actually no mistake, it is listed that way in Andersons 2001 book, which shortly after the entry was made.
Now if Hunts' 2007 book TNCL shows that Sclerocactus and Pediocactus should be divided then okay, but I dont have Hunts book.

Post #9249483
Quote
CactusJordi El Cajon, CA Aug 22, 2012

It IS a mistake because anybody who knows only a little about Pediocactus and Sclerocactus (the most interesting genera in your state) would have realized that this lumping is one of the big mistakes in Anderson's book. The rest of the world and even David Hunt keep the two taxa in separate genera.
This link might help you understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sclerocactus_sileri
Jordi

Post #9249953
Quote
Xenomorf Phoenix, AZ(Zone 9b) Aug 22, 2012

The Entry Page in the PlantFiles is NO mistake because it was transcribed from Andersons book. You Said "EDITED THIS ENTRY", did you not?

If Hunts' 2007 book TNCL says that it is two separate genera, then the entry pages should be divided up into two genera. (Like I said).


This message was edited Aug 28, 2012 12:21 PM

Post #9250506
Quote
CactusJordi El Cajon, CA Aug 22, 2012

"You Said "EDITED THIS ENTRY", did you not?"
At that time I was still to shy to criticize though I was very reluctantly.

Jordi

Post #9250546
Quote
Xenomorf Phoenix, AZ(Zone 9b) Aug 23, 2012

Just so you and others might understand, the timeline goes as such:
1. Andersons' book was released in 2001 (I bought a copy).
2. Andersons' book was used as The guide to the Cactaceae when creating plant entry pages into the PlantFiles from 2003-2005/6 by me.
3. Hunt's book was released in 2007. I haven't been able to afford the set therefore, no one else has had the inclination to take on the task of going through the entire 'New Cactus Lexicon' and sending in reports to have anything corrected in 5 years. (That I know of). Only a handful of species (and what not) have been corrected since it's release and I had to consult other DG members and subscribers who had the books.
.

Post #9251744
Quote
Xenomorf Phoenix, AZ(Zone 9b) Aug 25, 2012

So, is it decided that this is P. sileri?
Preparations are already being made to split the entry page and move the photo(s).

Post #9253271
Quote
CactusJordi El Cajon, CA Aug 25, 2012

Yes, of course, this is Pediocactus sileri.

Jordi

Post #9253394
Quote

Post a Reply to this Thread

Please or sign up to post.
Back to Forum Homepage

More PlantFiles Pictures Threads

Go to all PlantFiles Pictures threads
BACK TO TOP