Talk:Cactus

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)

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)

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)

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)

I can't provide a different cladogram, but I can provide an 8 years more recent source, proving that this one is outdated.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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Article review

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that there were uncited statements and an "update needed" banner from 2021 in the "Phylogeny" section. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Cactus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Nearly a month with no action taken to address these concerns. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

An "update needed" banner from 2021 in the "Phylogeny" section and some uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Fossil record. The article states that there is no fossil record. There is a candidate macrofossil (Eopuntia douglasii), but this has also been identified as cyperaceous. There is also a putative Cretaceous cactus , but this is chronologically implausible (Cactaceae is by consensus a young family).

An absence of macrofossils is not especially surprising, but I would expect there to be a fossil pollen record, and indeed there are some papers reporting fossil Cactaceae pollen. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Citations. I've dealt with the two "citation needed" templates by adding citations (and in one case slightly revising the text). I've also restored consistent citation style: the article uses CS2, including no terminal period/full stop on short footnotes. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.