Talk:Cactus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cactus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Cactus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 27, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cacti (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cacti, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CactiWikipedia:WikiProject CactiTemplate:WikiProject CactiCacti articles

Cactus and Cactaceae

While this is the name of a Plant family, the name Cactacea is apter as all families are named that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayaraj (talk • contribs) 05:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cactus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thorny problem?

From the current article.

First paragraph.

"Most species of cacti have lost true leaves, retaining only spines, which are highly modified leaves."

Second paragraph.

"Cactus spines are produced from specialized structures called areoles, a kind of highly reduced branch"

Thorns are modified branches. Do cacti have both thorns and spines? AnnaComnemna (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's generally said that the "spines" of cacti are true spines, i.e. are modified leaves, produced from highly condensed branches, the areoles. On the other hand, the "floral tubes" of cacti bear areoles, which is odd if they are branches. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram inconsistency

I would like to suggest a small change in the cladogram in the phylogeny section. It currently contains a mix of genus and subfamily names, which doesn't make too much sense or is at least inconsistent. Therefore I would suggest to change it to Maihuenioideae and Pereskioideae Clade A / B. Additionally Pereskia Clade A should be called rather Leuenbergeria - which even makes the current version slightly wrong (except we talk about Preskia s.l. / s.str. The suggested change says exactly the same but looks much better in my opinion. --Pawel W. (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reference that has this version of the cladogram in it, then fine. But the cladogram that is there is as per the source given; we must follow the source, as per WP:RS and WP:OR; we can't change the cladogram just because we think it would look better. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't provide a different cladogram, but I can provide an 8 years more recent source, proving that this one is outdated. Lode J. 2013. Leuenbergeria, a new genus in Cactaceae. Cactus-Aventures International. 97: 25-27.

So as this revision rises "Clade A" to genus level, the cladogram should be adapted based on the existing sources. And in my opinion mixing up different systematic ranks simply doesn't make any sense at all. To add another source that simply gives the correct subfamily names: http://www.cactus-art.biz/note-book/Dictionary/Dictionary_S/dictionary_subfamily_in_cactaceae.htm. It's simply common sense - and if you actually need a cladogram on which this one is based on, you could still use the current one and add a note like "adapted according to Lode 2013" or something like that. --Pawel W. (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to replace the cladogram with a more recent one, if there's a complete one in the literature. I have modified a cladogram in the way you suggest in the past and been reverted on the grounds of WP:SYNTH, which is justified, I think, according to the policy – if I were writing a paper, I'd have no hesitation, but Wikipedia is very strict about keeping to the source. You say and in my opinion mixing up different systematic ranks simply doesn't make any sense at all, but if it's what the source does, we are not allowed to "correct" it. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil record

The article says no known cactus fossil is known, but there's this article from 1944 that found an Eocene fossil in Utah User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaktos: uncertain over what is uncertain

"κάκτος, kaktos, a name originally used by Theophrastus for a spiny plant whose identity is not certain."

Is that saying "kaktos" means "spiny plant whose identity is not certain?"

Or was "kaktos" that name of one specific plant, but the identity of that plant has since been lost? --Skintigh (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's never easy to know exactly what classical authors meant - what may then have been regarded as one kind of plant might now be seen as several. But my understanding is that the latter is meant; we know that the plant Theophrastus called κάκτος was spiny, but not what it was. Maybe better to say "... for a spiny plant whose identity is now not certain." Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment needed?

Hi article watchers. I'm going over old GAs to see if they need reassessment.

I see two tags in this article (citation needed in lead after unclear sentence, and update needed), and was wondering if people here could address those issues to prevent a WP:GAR?
The conservation section is also a bit out-of-date (sources around 2012..).
The lead probably also needs some details removed, as it's over 700 words.

Thanks! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Artemis1414 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More books in the bibliography needed?

The Wikipedia page has a respectable 120 references, but since there are so many books on cacti, some of which have just been published, I think we might add more to the bibliography section. Let me know your thoughts. Mufasave (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]