Gymnocalycium (Gymnocalycium anisitsii subsp. multiproliferum)

Gymnocalycium
Gymnocalycium anisitsii subsp. multiproliferum

Here's the pink version Palmbob is talking about. Flowering in early March.

I'm speechless!

Hi franj,
Great shot of a magnificent bloom.
I believe you have pictured here is the subspecies of G. anisitsii.
In the book "The Cactus Family - 2001" it says that the base type species has white flowers and the G. anisitsii subsp. multiproliferum has rose/pink flowers and the longer spines. Your spination and flower are an identical match to the photo in the book.
Would you like to have your photo moved to the subspecies page?
Here: http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/108361/

Again the only reference I'm finding to it on the net is here at Daves or a few obscure European sites. No pictures, no description. At least not in English. I can't even have them translated because I have no idea what language it is. Do you know? There's probably good info here but there's no English version.
http://www.gymnocalycium.org/informacje.html

On this page they seem to suggest that Hunt lumped it in with subspecies damsii in the new Cactus Lexicon.
http://uc.privat.t-online.de/alpha.htm
But what do I go by? And how do I justify the move? I really don't understand why these Botanists and Taxonomists can't come up with a consensus. Do Zoologists have the same problem? Are there subspecies of Siberian Tiger that they can't agree on names for? Do Geologists argue over rocks and minerals? Is Science really as inexact and undisciplined as that?

I don't know Xeno. We're laymen here at Daves. If the Scientists can't even agree, who are we to try and second guess them. I think it's enough to have the Genus and species right and Daves shouldn't try to move beyond that. I feel all the varieties and subspecies of a particular plant should be confined to a single page for the plant. I'm thinking of doing that on my own website. Here at Daves people can upload pics and in the subject line state "This may be subspecies so and so according to so and so".

Let the Taxonomists and Botanists fight it out. Now if they actually come to some consensus some day or break out a variety or subspecies as a seperate species, then a new plant page should be created. Creating all these seperate subspecies and variety pages with little more than the information from one book, or no information at all, and no pictures, really doesn't do anyone much good. In my personal opinion we shouldn't be allowed to add new plants unless we can provide verifiable information on it and a picture. If I don't have at least a picture, I don't create a new plant page here.

I'm sorry, I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings. I know you have probably been the most prolific as far as adding new plants to the database. And I respect your opinions immensely. But it can be a little daunting when I get a new plant and search for it on Daves and find there's dozens of varieties and subspecies that I can find no information on. So Daves members are possibly denied, for example, a magnificent flower pic. Because it's a different color than is noted for the type species, and I haven't a clue where else to put it.

Thanks also for the compliment on the picture. It's one of my favorites. Unfortunately I lost the original plant to rot but have acquired several others from different sources. Labled variously G. torulosum, G. damsii or G. tucavocense. All listed as synonyms of G. anisitsii at Desert tropicals. They all bloom pink.

Dave

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%5Bcommon%5D=&searcher%5Bfamily%5D=&searcher%5Bgenus%5D=Hibiscus&searcher%5Bspecies%5D=&searcher%5Bcultivar%5D=&searcher%5Bhybridizer%5D=&search_prefs%5Bblank_cultivar%5D=yes&search_prefs%5Bsort_by%5D=cultivar&images_prefs=both&Search=Search

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=&publisher=&category=0&search_text=Aizoaceae&sorter=book_name&submit=Search

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)

I see your point and don't disagree with it. But who is the legitimate authority on the taxonomy of Cactaceae? It strikes me as odd that in this field of science anyone can do some studies and publish a book and completely reorganize a plant family. I do have some faith in the DNA studies. I'm hoping that will bring about some order.

Another thing to consider is that many variations occur due to locality and environement. Variations can occur even within a single population. I'm glad they are doing environmental studies as well.

Also plants grow much differently in cultivation than in the wild. Light, water and fertilizer can have profound effects on how well a plant grows, spination, I suspect even flower color. So is it a new plant? No just a well grown one.

I could request the plant be moved to G. anisitsii subsp. multiproliferum. Or create a new page for G. anisitsii ssp. damsii and request it be moved there. But I see some other pink flowers on the G. anisitsii page. Maybe not as vibrant and impressive as mine, which could could be no more than lighting and camera quality. I think I would have to request that those pics be moved as well.

I don't know, I think I'm better off leaving things alone. Until the Botanists, Taxonomists, and Growers all agree, I don't feel it's all that important that I'm 100% right on an ID. I'm way down on the Totem Pole.

Dave

I don't think the Botanists would split it off into a subspecies if there was not significant differences in growth habits and type locality. There are certian criteria that have to be met before that can happen. So I will have to trust the career botanists with what they come up with. There are rules to naming a plant, if a rule is broken, then that name is invalid. If a botanist wants to create a variety or subspecies, they have to follow the taxonomic rules, that's what makes it scientific.
I don't think they would split it off as a subspecies if the flower color variance was a result of only environemental conditions. Gymno's have been studied for more than a hundred years now.
You don't have to create a new page for G. anisitsii ssp. damsii because the 'multiproliferum' page title will be changed eventually when the PF catches up with the 2006 classifications.
I have already left notes to the authors of the other pink flowered plants on that page:
http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/398174/
http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/459280/

Xeno.

To try and answer one of your questions......
This is an old argument that I've seen many times of a lot of people that I've talked to.
No, there is no one person who is the highest authority on taxonomy. The taxonomy you see today is a culmination of more than a hundred years of research from dozens of world class botanists. Anyone can publish a book and give a bunch of names to plants if they want. Wether or not the names and groupings and classifications will be accepted as truly scientific will depend on the level and depth of the logistics that went into the classifying of that particular plant. The better the research and factual data of a given plant, the better chance of it being accepted by the leading botanists of the world. Anyone can contest and disagree with a classification of a plant, but they had better have some darn good research data to back it up. That is why it is constantly being refined and proven or disproven. Usually the latest book on the subject are (or should be) the most refined classifications.
If you ever get ahold of "The Cactus Family" by Anderson 2001, then turn to page 93 and it will explain the problems that there have been while trying to classify the evolutionary relationships of Cacti. Your local public library might have one, or you can pick one up used (like I did) from Bookfinder.com for about $50.