Talk:Echinopsis

message: Here's how I made the species list: got all species from IPNI, confirmed each one with one of the other references (or confirmed it was a synonym and commented it out.) Those I couldn't find in one of the other references I labeled with a <! --?-->
Here's a list of the unconfirmed species:
* Echinopsis amoenissima Werdermann 
* Echinopsis apiculata Linke 
* Echinopsis aurata Salm-Dyck 
* Echinopsis berlingii Y. Ito 
* Echinopsis bolligeriana Mächler & Helmut Walter 
* Echinopsis bonnieae (Halda, Hogan & Janeba) Halda & Malina 
* Echinopsis campylacantha Pfeiffer & Otto 
* Echinopsis caulescens (F. Ritter) M. Lowry 
* Echinopsis chereauniana Schlumb. 
* Echinopsis colmariensis Hort. 
* Echinopsis cristata Salm-Dyck 
* Echinopsis decaisniana Walp. 
* Echinopsis gibbosa Pfeiffer 
* Echinopsis gigantea Rud. Meyer 
* Echinopsis gladispina Y. Ito 
* Echinopsis hamatispina Werdermann 
* Echinopsis hossei Werdermann 
* Echinopsis imperialis Hort. 
* Echinopsis jajoiana Hort. 
* Echinopsis jamessianus Hort. 
* Echinopsis knotti Schlumberger 
* Echinopsis lorethroides Werdermann 
* Echinopsis macrodiscus Frič 
* Echinopsis melanacantha A. Dietr. 
* Echinopsis mihanovichii Frič & Gurcke 
* Echinopsis misleyi J. Labouret 
* Echinopsis nigrispina Walp. 
* Echinopsis nodosa Linke 
* Echinopsis octacantha Muehlenpf. 
* Echinopsis pectinata Fennel 
* Echinopsis pelecygona Y. Ito 
* Echinopsis picta Walp. 
* Echinopsis pulchella Zucc. 
* Echinopsis reichenbachiana Pfeiff. 
* Echinopsis robinsoniana Werdermann 
* Echinopsis rubescens Backeberg 
* Echinopsis salmiana F. A. C. Weber 
* Echinopsis salpigophara A. C. Lemaire 
* Echinopsis schelhasii Pfeiff. & Otto 
* Echinopsis scopa Carrière 
* Echinopsis setosa Linke 
* Echinopsis simplex Niedl 
* Echinopsis spegazzinii K. Schumann 
* Echinopsis sphacelata Gravis 
* Echinopsis strausii Graessn. 
* Echinopsis tacuarembense J. Arechavaleta 
* Echinopsis tephracantha Hort.  
* Echinopsis tricolor A. G. Dietrich 
* Echinopsis tuberculata Niedt 
* Echinopsis tucumanensis Y. Ito 
* Echinopsis verschaffeltii Hort. 
* Echinopsis zuccarinii Pfeiff. & Otto 
Matt 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

message: The references to Echinocactus and Mexico here are odd.
Are they nicked from some very old (before 1950 or so) book?
As far as I know, no modern sources link Echinopsis and Echinocactus together,
and Echinopsis (however you define it) are native only to
Paraguay,
Bolivia,
Argentina,
Chile,
Peru,
southern Brazil,
Uruguyay
and (one species)
Ecuador.
Echinocactus on the other hand, is restricted
to Mexico and the USA.
Jgrahn 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right , 1889 to be precise. If you know better than this then please edit the article to bring it up to date. Matt 21:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The section of the article you're talking about is copied directly from http://cactus-succulents.webgardenguide.com/Echinopsis_spachiana_4790_650_2.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.120 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Echinocactus, Mexico 

message: I am tangopaso on french Wikipedia.
There is a redirection of Lobivia to Echinopsis.
But Lobivia and Echinopsis are two different genus. --81.249.154.161 (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the latest with the taxonomy? Kew shows Lobivia is accepted and so is Trichocereus, Leucostele, Soehrensia --Cs california (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me what PoWO's source is for cactus taxonomy. As I noted below, sadly, cactus taxonomy seems to remain in flux, with no clear consensus. Some sources continue to use Hunt's 2016 CITES Cactaceae Checklist, others have revised parts. Whether we should choose PoWO's approach for article titles and taxonomy isn't clear to me. (I recently revised Opuntia a bit, where Kew seems to have a lumping approach, not followed by everyone, so I left the species list with taxa PoWO doesn't accept.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of separating out everything out based on what is on Wikispecies and Wikicommons but I wanted to check if there is anyone had issues with that. Cs california (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikispecies and Wikicommons aren't sources that can be used; what reliable source would you use? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure they mirror what Kew has. I am fine with whatever you guys think is more recent --Cs california (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, using PoWO ensures consistency, even if they aren't always the most up to date. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lobivia 

message: Is it really notable that a pseudonym author from the drug scene (and apparently
not a professional botanist) dislikes the merge of Trichocereus into E.?
Especially since numerous amateur and professional growers also dislike it.
I won't remove it, but it looks silly.
JöG (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: how is he not a valid source when he works at the Cactus Conservation Institute and has several publications on conservation and chemistry as shown in the link. Just because he works on pharmacology of some of drug chemicals does not invalidate his other work--Cs california (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  your link doesn't show K. Trout to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: not sure why the link does not work and redirects https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Keeper-Trout --Cs california (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "K. Trout" and taxonomy criticism