You seem to be forgetting that this is a botany newsgroup not a butt kissing
newsgroup, Rinkytink.

In many instances, horticulturists are the idiot stepchildren of botany.
Most of what they expound is years out-of-date of botanical knowledge and
often incorrect. Their grasp of plant taxonomy and nomenclature is typically
nil at best. To most of them any name regardless of its validity is good
enough. You should know better.

If you know nothing about the subject your opinion means nothing.


P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
...
As I have said before, there is no such plant as "Cereus
peruvianus".
The plant passing under that name in the horticultural trade is something
else.

Again, quite correct. Again, irrelevant.

+ + +
Let's try and keep some perspective here. If the plant known in
horticultural circles as "Cereus peruvianus" is something else entirely
then
this is not irrelevant and at best the name should be used between quotes.

On the other hand if this name is well established in horticultural
circles
it will be with us for some time to come and any headlong attack on it
will
be pointless and fruitless. These things take time, and a consitent policy
of gentle discouragement is the way to go

PvR