Talk:Rhipsalis quellebambensis

Copying discussion that was mis-placed at the top of the article:

R. quellebambensis Johns. nomen nudum Reduced to synonymy under R. baccifera ssp. baccifera by Barthlott and Taylor, Bradleya 13. 1995 Info from Backeberg’s Lexicon 1975 Body. similar to R. cassutha; Fruit. intense red. Habitat - Peru. Comment by Backeberg - A good spec. on the basis of these characters alone, so that it merits a full description

A black and white photo in a B&W version of Exotica has a description as follows: (Peru) , epiphytic cactus with pendant thin cylindrical branches, dull green with occasional purple markings and lightly grooved; glossy carmine-red berry-like fruit at the tips.

Notes made April 2011 by Derek Butcher We know that Wikipedia records this as Rhipsalis Quellebambensis J Mill Stearn BUT did anybody bother to check the erroneous detail? First there is no Quellebamba in Peru but there is a Quillabamba near Cuzco. What does J Mill Stearn mean? Taxonomy rules are quite explicit as to their meaning. We do know that Bartlott & Taylor treated R. quellebambensis as a synonym of R. baccifera which can be correctly cited as Rhipsalis baccifera (J S Mueller) Stearn. Does this look familiar?!! The only published record of this species is that given above and we guess that the Johns. quoted by Backeberg is a shortened version of Johnson and links to a catalogue name from the well known Cactus nursery of Harry Johnson’s in California in the 1960’s and 1970’s. If anyone can advise further it would be greatly appreciated. Let us now look at some facts. In 1984 Karel Knize of Lima, Peru offered KK#11 in his seed catalogue with the note - species Cuzco, var. quillabamba. Derek Butcher, one of the authors of this website, bought some and grew them to maturity. They flowered like R. baccifera AND had red berries. It was assumed at the time that this was the elusive undescribed R. quellebambensis even though the spelling was in possible error. In 1988 Karel Knize offered seed of species Cuzco/Pisac but these turned out to be almost identical to our red berried Rhipsalis quellebambensis. While I appreciate the urge of nurserymen to sell something rare, taxonomists are agreed that this plant is too obscure to be properly described and named. As such it should remain as unidentified.

NOTE If you Google on Rhipsalis you will find a site which shows authenticated information on this genus and related genera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeyflowerSSF (talk • contribs) 05:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not accepted

This name is not accepted by Plants of the World Online as of 10th March 2021. It is not listed as a synonym of R. baccifera. Brunswicknic (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by both editors above, there's no evidence that this is an accepted species – it's not in IPNI or PoWO, etc. Further, not one of the "references" that were listed actually mentions "Rhipsalis quellebambensis". I found one source (see below – an undergraduate thesis) that gives it as a synonym of Rhipsalis baccifera, so I've made it a redirect there. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rojas, Juan Pablo Schulze (2004). Elaboración de una guía ilustrada de Cactáceas en Honduras (BEng). Universidad Zamorano. Retrieved 2022-10-25., p. 33