Thelocactus 'Longispina' (Thelocactus tulensis subsp. matudae)

El Cajon, CA

This can't be Th. matudae, because at least the flower color is absolutely wrong. Should be dark purple like this!

Jordi

Thumbnail by CactusJordi
Vista, CA

Your profound and conclusive statement precluding this flower to the absolute prompts a retort that paraphrases a quote by a world-known taxonomist in a statement regarding taxonomy,

"in the study of botanical taxonomy the ONE absolute is that there is never anything regarding taxonomic morphology that can be termed in the absolute".

Your statement does make a great sound bite for the masses as well as sounding plausible to the more casual less passionate succulent collector/hobbyist.

What your statement denies is the infinite variability that can occur within a species in nature -

The phrase also shows how easily one can mistakenly believe that natural pigmentation variability can be flagrantly applied as THE key to affect exclusion.

Finally, such a way of stating, illustrates a lack of interest in study to further understand.

The taxonomy of this species/subspecies continues to be in controversy.



bob:>)

El Cajon, CA

WOW, what a powerful statement! ... though obviously useless to argue about it with you ;-))

Jordi

Phoenix, AZ(Zone 9b)

The inner parts of the flower are the same on both flowers. Is it possible it's albino or a variant flower color. Jordi, it may just be the lighting or something, but In my view your flower isn't dark purple, I would call it pink or maybe even a pink/pale-magenta.

El Cajon, CA

Xenomorf, I am not good in color description, so you may be well right.
BTW according to the flower color I think the plant Bob entered might just be a typical Thelocactus tulensis.
Now Bob might argue again about the adjective 'typical' :-)

Post a Reply to this Thread

Please or sign up to post.
BACK TO TOP