# Talk:Schlumbergera

Before I edited it, the first sentence said: "... as introduced to Europe by the Kew collector, Allan Cunningham (1791-1839), in about 1816." The source for this was given as http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/currsci/8/292.pdf. However, this source does not support the statement that Cunningham collected what is now Schlumbergera truncata. McMillan & Horobin (1995, p. 44) (detailed reference in the article) quote Hooker (1822) who says that what he called Cactus truncatus was "obtained from the Brazils in 1818", which is after Cunningham left. Various websites repeat the claim about Cunningham, but I can't find a reliable source for it. So unless and until someone does, I've removed this part of the sentence. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Easter Cactus was called Schlumbergera gaertneri (Regel) Britton & Rose back in the 1970s, at the same time that the Christmas cactus was usually called Zygocactus truncatus. Both this article and Hatiora should probably mention that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess so. The Taxonomy section here is a very brief summary of about seven full pages in McMillan & Horobin; the genus and its species have an extensive and tangled nomenclatural history (like many of the Cactaceae), which I think is not of great interest to Wikipedia readers. I've now added a short note about the name S. gaertneri. The Hatiora article needs extensive re-writing, including a proper Taxonomy/Systematics section.
Incidentally, the fact that the Easter Cactus was still called Schlumbergera gaertneri in the 1970s (and still is in some online sources) just shows the conservatism which is a characteristic feature of the nomenclature of plants which get taken up by the horticultural trade. The correct separation between Schlumbergera and Hatiora was sorted out in the 1950s (although the latter genus was then called Rhipsalidopsis).  Peter coxhead (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Even though I was already a taxonomist in the 1970s, most of my exposure to cacti was either through Britton & Rose or through the hobbyist literature. Your addition, plus the fact that Schlumbergera gaertneri redirects to Hatiora. solves the problem at the Schlumbergera end (I agree that the Hatiora article needs work).--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent article Peter!!  I enjoyed reading it. 
Have you considered tackling pronunciation there in the intro?  I ask because I wonder if most people pronounce this wrong.  The web is full of phonetic spellings like "Shloo-berg-er-a" with a very hard anglo/germanic "g", like "hamburger", instead of similar to Mr. Schlumberger, who's name must be pronounced something roughly like "Schlum ber zhay".  
Something else I might be interested in is to possibly see a reference or quick footnote for moving the Easter cactus to Hatiora, or at least an author name.   Thanks again for a great article!  Tom Hulse (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You have cleverly picked up on two points I have thought about and have rather skated over because of the difficulties.
Pronunciation Sources I have looked at vary hugely in suggested pronunciations; sklum-BER-jer-a is another recommendation. The Frédéric Schlumberger most sources refer to is the one whose genealogy is given here. His father was born in Mulhouse, in Alsace. This explains the German origins of his surname (and those of his father's side of the family). However, Alsace was then French and it can be assumed that he would have pronounced it the French way when speaking French, certainly when the family moved to Rouen. So the pronunciation shlum-ber-ZHAY-a is plausible. But this is a general problem with Latin names which are based on people's names. Consider Kniphofia. Johan Kniphof's surname must have been pronounced something like knip-hohf, but I've never heard anyone (other than as a joke) pronounce the genus name as knip-hohf-ee-a; most books I've looked at give nif-OF-ee-a (while gardeners I mix with seem to say nye-FOH-fee-a – nye as in the word nigh). Returning to Schlumbergera, it's not clear to me that there's anything like a consensus on how to pronounce it, or even a couple of front runners, but I agree that something should be added to the article, although just now I'm not sure what. Ideas welcome!
A further complication, which I'd initially forgotten, is that at least one source (Coombes (1994) Dictionary of Plant Names, London: Hamlyn) gives a different person as the origin of the name: Frederick Schlumberger (1804-1865), Belgian horticulturalist, explorer and plant collector; this can be found elsewhere on the web, e.g. here. Of course, if this were correct, he could have been either French or Flemish speaking... Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Genus change As noted above, the taxonomy of all the Rhipsalideae is very confused, and I've found it difficult to produce a summary which is both accurate and suitable for Wikipedia readers (I'm not sure I've succeeded). In the talk pages, I can give you a more partisan account! Four species are relevant (ignore the modern genus): S. russelliana, H. gaertneri (the Easter Cactus), H. rosea and S. truncata. Britton and Rose in 1913 and 1925 used the possession of actinomorphic (or nearly so) flowers to group S. russelliana and H. gaertneri in Schlumbergera and put S. truncata into Zygocactus. But as has been pointed out in a number of sources, if they had actually known the species properly they wouldn't then have created an entirely different genus and put H. rosea into Rhipsalidopsis, since the flower structure of H. gaertneri and H. rosea is identical, and significantly different in detail from that of S. russelliana – which was known by other botanists. Hence Vaupel (1925), Berger (1929), Moran (1953) and Barthlott (1987) all correctly grouped H. gaertneri and H. rosea together, but under different generic names. The muddle created by Britton & Rose seems to have persisted longer in North America (perhaps there was some trans-Atlantic rivalry here, since those who corrected it were Europeans). So there are two answers to your question:
Vaupel in 1925 seems to have been the first to undo Britten & Rose's mistaken grouping of H. gaertneri with S. russelliana instead of with H. rosea.
The current use of the generic name Hatiora for H. gaertneri and H. rosea dates to Barthlott in 1987, but I think that merely saying this is misleading as it implies that from 1923 to 1987 botanists thought that H. gaertneri was grouped with S. russelliana, and they didn't.
Quite what to put in the article, I'm not sure, but I agree that something more should be said. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting points Peter.  :)  I personally tend to think that generally we ought to  follow the author's intended pronunciation.  It not only seems the author's right to dictate pronunciation, but also for us to vary regionally (to accept many "correct" ways to say it) seems to only ADD confusion and go against the core principles of the Code.  But if you were someone who views current consensus as trumping original intent, then your thought that there is no consensus  on Schlumbergera (I agree) would put the responsibility on us (IMHO) to attempt to follow the author's intention.  The author was a Frenchman; it was named after a Frenchman with French Father.  It is a possibility that the name is not pronounced in the French manner, but I think we would need some kind of proof to overturn the most common way to pronounce this name in the world [1].
Additionally, the most noteworthy individuals with that name use the French pronunciation:  Schlumberger (the international corporation), Jean Schlumberger (jewelry designer), even when they are in other parts of the world, like Texas: Schlumberger winery, the still use the French ponunciation.
Also, the Schlumberger brothers, founders of the international conglomerate, were born in a suburb of Mulhouse (where Frédéric's father was born), Guebwiller, while it was still in Germany, yet they also pronounce their name in French manner.

On the genus change, I don't know if I care so much about credit for those authors being partially right from '23 to '87... that might be more a discussion for a longer article or book; I'm more interested in just the basic reference:  on who's authority does gaertneri now carry the current genus name of Hatiora?  That way we can always look it up and find the author's explanations, and probably more info on previous taxonomy.  I tend to think all the in-between partially right authors (even if they are mostly right)are less important, from a reference standpoint, than the first author and the first correct author.--Tom Hulse (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Schlumberger" is pronounced the French way. But that's not the only issue. There doesn't seem to be a consensus between three views on the pronunciation of Latin names derived from personal names (hence my discussion of Kniphofia):
as similar as possible (given the addition of an ending) to the original pronunciation of the name in the country of origin
as if it were 'modern Latin' – something like Church Latin – in which, e.g., k and g are softened before i and e
as if it were classical Latin, with k and g always hard.
My impression is that over the world as a whole, the middle option is the most common, but I don't know of any evidence. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is the best interest of Wikipedia for us to somehow come up with pronuciation for most every plant here, so I might then propose a WP rule for pronuciation:  simply, consensus. Then how to match that for Kniphofia, Schlumberger, and Fuchsia (originally  Fook-see-uh but now Few-shuh)?  We should view the original author's intent as consensus at his time, with his peers and those of the honoree.  To overturn that in our time we need consensus now, as we have in Fuchsia.  I personally, in my own humble opinion, believe that we should always keep the author's original intention, but as can be seen in the Oxford Dictionary and Merriam-Webster, I've been overruled, and clear current consensus is recognized to trump original intent.

Fuchsia's clear current consensus then changes it's pronunciation, so the newer few-shuh is correct.
Schlumberger actually might have a clear current consensus for the original pronunciation, but certainly no consensus to change it, so it should stay in the original French pronunciation.
Kniphofia might be inbetween.  I believe it was originally pronounced like the honoree's name (nip-hoff-ee-uh), but it is almost to the point of having common-usage consensus to have 2 "f" sounds (nih-foe-fee-uh).  I wouldn't argue with an editor that decided either way, but it's probably best that the current WP version just picks the biggest, most widely published reference they could find.
On the general 3 methods you listed, for all plants then, my rule combines them by recognizing that original pronunciation is original consensus and that we need current consensus to overturn it.  Then they can be pronounced in new latin, old latin, pig latin, or any way we like. :)
In any event, this is just a proposal/opinion.  I'd love to hear your thoughts.--Tom Hulse (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your conclusions seem fine to me, but I'd query one point in the logic leading up to them: "the original author's intent". We don't generally know how the author of the name pronounced it. Lemaire would doubtless have called the person honoured shlum-ber-ZHAY, but this doesn't mean that he pronounced the Latin genus this way. I think myself that it's much more likely that he pronounced it as if it were new Latin. We'll never know!
Anyway, in this specific case I'm still researching recommendations. (There's also the issue of which Schlumberger was meant which I've been working on.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It will be interesting to see what you find about which Schlumberger the genus was named after. Quite a coup for you if you can establish the alternate honoree!I agree it is technically true that we can't go back and read the author's mind about how he pronounced it long ago, but we also have to remember that when these are named after individuals it was a form of respect, an honor to that person, and not uncommonly they were friends.  I would have to disagree it would be likely for Lemaire to butcher Schlumberger's name with a hard "g" and a pronounced "r".  It would sound hideously germanic/english to Frenchmen to say their schlum-ber-zhay family name similar to "hamburger".  IMO, I just can't see that as even a possibility actually.  Second, I would propose that there IS current consensus that old original pronunciations did follow closely to the honoree's pronunciation, as evidenced by the myriad of references that say basicly 'Genus should be prounounced as xyz because that was how the honoree's name was pronounced'.  Even though not everyone agrees with them on that point, still no one disputes that the original author used that method.  I have never seen a reference that claimed an original pronunciation fundementally different than the honoree's, have you?  --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but I am now clear that the stress in pronouncing Schlumbergera should ideally be as it was in Latin. This is recommended by almost all sources I've looked at, the argument being that genus names are new Latin nouns. (So not shlum-ber-ZHAY-a.) On the other hand, most sources do recommend trying to keep to at least the consonant pronunciation of the original. For me this produces something like ʃlum ˈbɚ ʒə ɹə since as a speaker of the dialect of English spoken in southern England I can't quite manage the two r's which my French-speaking colleague used when I asked him how he would say it! So I'd like to recommend shloom-BER-zhe-ra but I can't source this at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is that people pronounce scientific names as they will, and it's more important for us to document how they are pronounced than how they should be pronounced. Nevertheless, if the genus is named after the French Schlumberger, I would contend that the last syllable is long, so it would be shloom-ber-ZHAY-ra if given the Latin stress. Ironically this preserves the French stress. (Thinking the honoree were German, I'd always pronounced it SHLUM-ber-ger-a.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like you're on the right track Peter.  I strongly doubt there are any legitimate sources that have honestly looked as deep as we have here.  I don't think it would necessarily be WP:NOR to use more generalized sources about latin pronunciation in general.  Under WP:BEBOLD and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules I think the greater need for at least a close pronunciation (to counter the very wrong one gaining in popularity) outweighs the minor worry of possibly getting it barely off (it can always be further refined later).  I wonder if it might be worth a sentence in the article?  --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Answering Peter coxheads request: To my knowledge the Schlumberger family is from the border region of France and Germany, I thought Alsace/Elzass but this link says Schwabe/Baden-Württemberg. I'd say "Schloom-BER-zjera"; u=oo as in "good", ber = with accent on BÉR, gera = zjera as in "Jerôme". But no phoneticist, nor French or German native speaker and also no botanist, just an interested layman. ;-) Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
That's more-or-less how I pronounce it (although I think the "u" should be more as as in the French "tu"). The problem remains that of sourcing... Peter coxhead (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Schlumbergera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I will go through and make straightforward copyedits as I go. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd list the number of species in the lead.
Done. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd write the two cultivar groups as straight prose, not bulleted points, in the lead.
Any idea how big the "sizeable shrubs" can get?
Very good question. All sources describe the species as "shrubs"; "sizeable" is a paraphrase of one comment, but is clearly evasive. The only dimension I can find is in McMillan & Horobin for one species – a height of 1.2 m. I've added this. I've no idea whether this is typical of other species in the wild; my guess is that as they grow as epiphytes, they haven't been measured very often! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I've no idea either, but at least something to visualise is way better than nothing, so even the one example helps alot here I think...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Peter, The RHS encyclopedia of house plants lists S. russeliana as "up to 15cm(6in) or more tall" if you want a lower range to include.  --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks for the pointer. Not sure if that adds anything to understanding...will muse on it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I think this describes it when grown in cultivation. In McMillan & Horobin, p. 85, there is a photo captioned "an older plant of S. russelliana, showing the woody base". There's an arm in the photo; the part of the plant shown is almost exactly three times the apparent distance from the elbow to the knuckles. The arm is angled towards the viewer, so the apparent length is less than the real length; that part of my arm is 40 cm, projected at say 45° gives about 30 cm. Hence the part shown must at least 90 cm long, so the plant is certainly at least a metre from base to tip as there's stuff off the photo. The thickest part is thicker than the arm's thumb but less so than two fingers side by side, i.e. around 3 cm. I guess these facts are too much like OR to put in Wikipedia. I've been all through McMillan & Horobin again and I can't find any other statement about the size of the plants; they just repeat "shrub" (their italics) in the species descriptions. Anderson (2001) is usually a good source on cacti, but it's clear than almost all of his descriptions are just paraphrases of McMillan & Horobin. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
In taxonomy any info on related genera, where its affinities lie in the Cactaceae? Not much needed but a sentence or two'd be nice.
Added small opening piece to section re their position in the tribe Rhipsalideae. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Any information on root system which can go in ecology section? Any critters eat the fruit?
roots In cultivation, small pots are recommended, apparently based on the idea that the root system is small and can rot if in too large a pot which doesn't dry out, but I can't find anything on the roots in the wild at present. If you look at the top stem – particularly the very middle joint – in the left-hand image at Schlumbergera#Modern_cultivars you can see the roots which typically emerge from many joints in my experience, but this is OR; at present I can't find this described in a source.
fruit The last paragraph of section already noted that birds eat the fruit; I'm not aware of any other information in the sources I have. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Notable pests and diseases?
I can find no information about them in the wild (rather little seems to be known about their ecology). There's a lot of information about pests and diseases in cultivation. I'm always unsure how much to include because of WP:NOTHOW. Can you point me to an example article which you think has about the right amount of information on this topic? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
TO avoid a how-to section, I'd just write something like "Schlumbergeras are vulnerable to...." or "x and x are common pests..." - will see what else has bee nwritten...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've looked around at other articles and now added a short final section which I think is ok within WP:NOTHOW. (I suspect this policy rather frustrates a lot of readers, who really want to know how to care for their house plants. I don't entirely buy the argument that there are lots of other sources which give this information; there are, but the great majority are not reliably based on scientific data but on repeating uncritically what other gardening books say. Wikipedia could often offer much better information. However, the policy is clear.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes that's what I had in mind. Agree about many gardening books having extremely generic and often incorrect information-another reason I try to avoid tertiary sources-as an example, here's what I did at Telopea_speciosissima#Cultivation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a very good example which I will bookmark for the future. (I'll also change my use of "oomycetes" to your "water mould" (British spelling!) which is better here. All the sources I've looked at haven't caught up with them not being fungi.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking pretty good overall, just sorting out coverage first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  Looks good - only thing is you might want to replace the backyardgardener ref with a better one, but fairly mundane fact it references. Nice...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations Peter, very nice article.  --Tom Hulse (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A new section was added on toxicity to pets. Toxicity, both to pets and humans, is a worthwhile addition, if it can be sourced appropriately.

The first ASPCA source used, [2], refers only to what is properly called Schlumbergera × buckleyi. However, it also says that "Easter Cactus" is another common name for this plant. The Easter Cactus belongs to a different genus, Hatiora. So I'm a bit doubtful as to the accuracy of the identification.
The second ASPCA source (the pdf at [3]) I find confusing. The relevant section reads "Christmas cactus exposure has been reported to induce contact urticaria and rhinoconjunctivitis in cactus nursery workers. However, Schlumbergera species are not considered toxic, and ingestions are expected to result only in mild gastric upset. The most common clinical signs reported to the ASPCA APCC are vomiting, depression, diarrhea, and anorexia..." The inclusion of "depresssion" makes me wonder if the second two sentences apply to humans or pets?
So for the present I've removed the section. I'll see if I can find better sources on toxicity or otherwise. (Any such material should be added after the Cultivation section according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree Peter. I removed the vomiting comment (which I believe applies to humans by the context the whole work at that source), since the source is only claiming it was reported to this other organization, not that it was verified, proven, or actually happened. If we included vomiting as a fact coming from this source, then we would also have to say that 'Schlumbergera causes depression' which is ridiculously unsubstantiated, and not what the source meant to present as a solid fact. --Tom Hulse (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Depression is something that veterinarians diagnose in pet animals; please try a web search for e.g., "depression in cats". The ASPCC deals with poison-control issues, and surely can be considered competent to state that something has been reported to them. The citation that was removed was written by a veterinarian for veterinarians, and as such is, I think, the state-of-the-art in advice about these houseplants for people who have pets. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I see. The reported-but-not fact idea still applies though. We can not say, from this source, that Schlumbergera causes depression in animals. It was only "reported". It could very well have been 2 erroneous reports from crazy cat ladies... that would not disagree with what this source says. So it would be a huge leap to say that one factually causes the other. In the same way, vomiting is not all intended to be substantiated by this source; it is just a list of vague possibilities based on the flimsiest of rumor. --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be possible to include something along the lines of "... has been reported to the ASPCC" but I'd rather continue searching for some more substantive information. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone with more experience add a section on filtration of air for "sick buildings?"  Or perhaps there is another wikipedia article that includes the plant's ability to filter that should be linked to somewhere within this article.  http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art64672.asp  The Christmas Cactus has been shown to significantly beat out other plants typically associated with air purification (like Aloe) for filtering out Formaldehyde (one of the more common toxins found in buildings that lack circulation). 2001:1948:414:8:91CE:7FC:4B7D:FFA6 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If a reliable source can be found (which "BellaOnLine" certainly isn't) then I'll be happy to add the information. I rather doubt that it's true that Schlumbergera is particularly good in this respect. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I tried to find secondary sources that commented on primary-source work by NASA & Dr. Wolverton in this field. Not perfect, but here are a few: 1, 2, 3. Since Schlumbergera is widely cited as one of the top 50 clean-air houseplants, we might want to have some mention of it; good, bad or neutral. --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom. I'd still like to see a scientific paper, though. Given that it makes a health claim to say that Schlumbergera cultivars filter out air-borne toxins found in buildings, it could be argued that sources meeting WP:MEDRS are needed, and these sources definitely don't.
I'm also not impressed by "Christmas and Easter Cactus Schlumbergera bridgesii, Schlumbergera rhipsalidopsis". S. bridgesii is a synonym of S. × buckleyi, the 'old fashioned' Christmas Cactus. Schlumbergera rhipsalidopsis is not listed in The Plant List or IPNI, but seems to be an incorrect name for Hatiora gaertneri, the Easter Cactus – at least a Google search shows plants which are obviously specimens of Easter Cactus with this name.
I'll try to get access to Wolverton's book via a library. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, lol, that's a medical claim, really?? That's stretching, Peter. The only medical claim is that the chemicals tested, like formaldehyde and benzene, are toxic. That "claim" is not in question, it doesn't need a reference at all (we don't even have to say they're toxic if you dispute they are). The only real or unique "claim" being made by this research is that some plants can filter these (not a medical claim), and which plants filter more (not a medical claim). Standard ref rules apply here, not WP:MEDRS. Even at MEDRS secondary sources rule, not primary research. These secondary sources are as reliable as will ever comment on this type of research. I don't know how you would expect to get a medical-level sources commenting on something everybody else would consider not a medical claim, but rather interesting houseplant facts?
Regarding the names, yes it doesn't exactly match the most current taxonomy, but it is not out of line based on how how these plants have been sold literally by the millions in recent years, and there is really no confusion that they include plants from our article title. Before you try to hard to sink the proposal, take a serious look at NASA's work and that of Dr. Wolverton. It's legit science, these plants really do filter the air at a substantially powerful level (Yes I formerly thought this was fringe quackery). --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with accepting the transfer of Hatiora subg. Rhipsalidopsis into Schlumbergera, as per Calvente et al. (2011), is that in Wikipedia we are supposed to rely mainly on secondary (or tertiary) sources, as per WP:PSTS. From my searches, almost none of the main plant taxonomic databases seem yet to have accepted this transfer. The only one I can find is NCBI. Most, such as Plants of the World Online, Tropicos, GRIN, etc. still use names in Hatiora (or even older ones).
So I think we should probably not yet say that this transfer is accepted, merely say that it has been proposed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2024 and 9 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CFR0525 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by CFR0525 (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2025 and 9 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soniamstone (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Soniamstone (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)