Coryphantha macromeris is now apparently known as Pelecyphora macromeris, according to the CoL. There are still 2 subspecies.

Nipple Beehive Cactus (Pelecyphora macromeris subsp. macromeris)


Big Nipple Cory-Cactus (Pelecyphora macromeris subsp. runyonii)

It might be a good idea to see if other Coryphanthas have been moved. There has been some ongoing reorganization of this group recently.

Actually, it's now Pelecyphora macromeris subsp. macromeris.

I'll take a look at the other Coryphantha entries tonight. Thank you, Baja.

Thank you as always for making the magic happen.

zuzu said: Actually, it's now Pelecyphora macromeris subsp. macromeris.

If that were true, there would not be a P. m. subsp. runyonii, but there apparently is (according the CoL). And without a second subspecies, there would be no reason for a type subspecies. A bunch of contradictions there. So their synonymy apparently could use some fine tuning.

I see that we now have a P. macromeris entry without any associated data. I will fill that out with what was in the C. macromeris entry before. I think our synonyms could use some reworking. Unless I am confused, and it's happened before, the CoL is wrong about this detail (or at least it stands in contradiction to the taxa they recognize). So here in the database we should point the synonyms of C. macromeris (species and subspecies) directly onto P. macromeris:

C. macromeris = P. macromeris
C. macromeris subsp. macromeris = P. macromeris subsp. macromeris
C. macromeris subsp. runyonii = P. macromeris subsp. runyonii

I am not going to propose any changes, will leave the decision and action up to higher powers. If I am right, I think all the images under P. macromeris subsp. macromeris probably belong under the species entry (not sure where they were before, but I think most or all were in the species entry before).

Appreciate you taking a second look at this.

Baja, this often happens when a plant is reclassified. Sedum maximum became Hylotelephium maximum subsp. maximum, for example.

If you look at the P. macromeris entries in the CoL, you'll see that P. macromeris has no synonyms, P. macromeris subsp. macromeris lists C. macromeris as a synonym, and P. macromeris subsp. runyonii lists C. macromeris subsp. runyonii and C. macromeris subsp. macromeris as synonyms.

The species entry ended up with no associated data because I merged our two entries for C. macromeris and P. macromeris and renamed the resulting entry P. macromeris subsp. macromeris. I then renamed the previous entry for C. macromeris subsp. macromeris, which had no data, P. macromeris.

I do not understand why the synonyms ended up like that in the CoL, and I read the paper where the names were changed (which says that C. macromeris is a synonym for P. macromeris). It makes no sense whatsoever to me. Presumably there is a reason for this weird convoluted thinking, but I can't even imagine what it could be. It's like a cat chasing its tail.

In mathematical set terms, a species is the union of the sets representing all of its subspecies, right? So all of the plants currently in the database under P. macromeris (and its subspecies) were formerly in the database under C. macromeris (and its subspecies). Yet the one species is not a synonym for the other species. And now any images of one subspecies (runyonii) which were formerly filed under the species entry, a perfectly acceptable location, are now filed under the entry for the other subspecies, where they explicitly do not belong.

Whatever, I give up.

I appreciate you taking the time to try to explain this to me, Zuzu. And I realize you are not responsible for the choices made by the CoL.

I agree with Baja's view of how the taxa should be mapped across, but it looks like this is an issue with the upstream datasource (WorldPlants) and not the COL:

Whatever images that may now be misfiled under the type subspecies (despite being the other one as it is currently described) will have to stay there because I am not enough of an expert to distinguish one from the other by sight, at least not reliably. In my experience subsp. runyonii seems to be more common than the type subspecies in cultivation.

I have left just this comment for subsp. runyonii explaining what I think here. I'm happy to walk away from this issue, no need for further intervention.

https://garden.org/thread/post...

As always I welcome correction and clarification, and I will revise my comments to reflect whatever I learn in the process.