I chose "Stem, scape, stalk or bark" for this image because cacti do not have thorns, and there was no option for spines or areoles.

The database does not discriminate between thorns and spines. If you look at the entry for this plant you will see it is marked "thorned".

Ah. That's really imprecise. It's still actually a picture of the stem, anyway. I wish there was more than one choice because many of the plants I have submitted are a picture of several things at once but not the entire plant.

I seriously doubt many gardeners would be concerned about the difference between spines and thorns (and prickles, depending on your country of origin). Your picture is fine as a shot of the stem, but it seems more appropriate to me in the thorn/spine/prickle category.

I agree, most people consider plant Spines, Thorns, Prickles, Teeth, the same thing because they are sharp and all serve the same purpose. The following definition is worded almost exactly the same at a few sites; Wikipedia, Revolvy, etc.:

~ In plant morphology, thorns, spines, and prickles, and in general spinose structures (sometimes called spinose teeth or spinose apical processes), are hard, rigid extensions or modifications of leaves, roots, stems or buds with sharp, stiff ends, and generally serve the same function: physically deterring animals from eating the plant material. ~

Since Cacti spines are borne from areoles, they'd probably be placed in the same category as Thorns. I do see both areoles and spines in your photo but only a small amount of the stem. To my eyes, the appropriate gallery would be Thorns, with a notation in the caption area saying "Spines emerging from areoles."

I am with Jack on this, those cacti do not have thorns. It irritates me enormously to see the 'thorned' entry for cacti. This website/organization is incredibly picky about what cacti are legitimate to add in to the database and appear to require quite high standards for entry of plant info, so they should want to get this right too. Really annoys me.

It is like me writing in all the Rose entries that they have spines... Rose people would blow up at that.

But spines and thorns are not the same thing at all.

Thank you. You are correct.

Spines are highly modified leaves. They are immediately and obviously different from thorns (or prickles) if you know what you're looking at.

The term "spinose structures" would cover all of them, but "thorns" covers only thorns.

I think everyone in this conversation is aware that spines and thorns are not the same. I doubt most gardeners would care. It makes zero difference for the care, handling, or placement of the plant.

What would be better then? "Thorns/spines"? How do we improve this feature of the database?

No, they are not the same thing but I guess the database here only has the one category for placing photos of a plants thorns, spines, prickles, teeth. Maybe it could be changed to just that?

We have a category for: Stem, Scape, Stalk, Bark. Maybe we need one that reads:
Thorns, Spines, Teeth, Prickles.

I just submitted a proposal on the Plant Database Forum, asking if the category "Thorns" can be changed to read, Thorns, Spines, Prickles, Teeth: The thread "Database category suggestion" in Plant Database forum

I'm glad other people see things the way I do.

In literature I have seen these plant structures collectively referred to as "spinose structures." That means "spine or spine like."

But "Thorns, Spines, Teeth, Prickles," would also be accurate.

Thank you for starting that thread, Lin. I hate to see people this irritated.

When uploading photos, it can be confusing for some, not knowing which category is appropriate. Changing it to Thorns, Spines, Teeth, Prickles would surely help clarify things.

I'm all for it.