Saturday, January 27. 2007
They Get Questions
The Contra Costa Times tackles a tricky subject:
My take on this issue after the break...
Q I read your answer to question about Hoodia. The use of Hoodia extract as an appetite suppressant is certainly quite interesting; however, I do have a few comments on your column. The genus Hoodia is a member of the flowering plant family Apocynaceae, subfamily Asclepiadoideae. Often, members of this group are referred to as Stapeliads by succulent enthusiasts, after the most commonly grown genus, Stapelia. These are essentially African succulents and are not remotely related to the Cactaceae of the new world. Cacti are simply not found in Africa. The term Cactus describes members of the family Cactaceae and, as such, is scientifically descriptive, regardless of common misuse. Describing Hoodia gordonii as a cactus is a little like describing a pineapple as a member of the orange family. On a similar note, the genus Aloe is not in the extremely large and diverse family Apocynaceae. For what it's worth, Aloe is usually described as being in the family Asphodelaceae, although there is some debate. Sure, calling something a cactus when it isn't has little bearing on the use of Hoodia extracts, but it does propagate commonly held misconceptions in a very prominent place.
A Thank you for this. The scientific resources I consulted used the incorrect "cactus" characterization for hoodia, and I followed their lead without checking. I apologize for this oversight. There may be "cactus-looking" plants in Africa, but, as you point out, they are merely succulents that have taken on their cactus facade as an adaptation to their environment. I have passed the correct information up the line, but I wanted to post your more accurate description here.
A Thank you for this. The scientific resources I consulted used the incorrect "cactus" characterization for hoodia, and I followed their lead without checking. I apologize for this oversight. There may be "cactus-looking" plants in Africa, but, as you point out, they are merely succulents that have taken on their cactus facade as an adaptation to their environment. I have passed the correct information up the line, but I wanted to post your more accurate description here.
My take on this issue after the break...
OK, so the question is the use of the word "Cactus" for plants that are not part of the "Cactaceae" Family. Notice how they are actually two different words. One is a specialized scientific term, and the other is a common word.
In fact, we commonly refer to "plants in the cactus family" rather than use the word Cactaceae. So we mix things up even there.
Anyway, this is a linguistic problem having nothing to do with these particular words, and everything to do with the difference between common words and specialized words. Every profession has their own words that they use in specialized ways. Biology and Taxonomy and the sciences in general are no exception.
There is so much to say about all this, but I am just going to leave it at the fact that the word cactus has both a common definition and a scientific definition. Neither is more correct than the other. Words mean what we mean them to mean, no more or less. So the word "cactus" has more than one definition, just like most words. Look it up.
Noun 1. cactus - any spiny succulent plant of the family Cactaceae native chiefly to arid regions of the New World
2. Any of several similar plants.
In fact, we commonly refer to "plants in the cactus family" rather than use the word Cactaceae. So we mix things up even there.
Anyway, this is a linguistic problem having nothing to do with these particular words, and everything to do with the difference between common words and specialized words. Every profession has their own words that they use in specialized ways. Biology and Taxonomy and the sciences in general are no exception.
There is so much to say about all this, but I am just going to leave it at the fact that the word cactus has both a common definition and a scientific definition. Neither is more correct than the other. Words mean what we mean them to mean, no more or less. So the word "cactus" has more than one definition, just like most words. Look it up.
Noun 1. cactus - any spiny succulent plant of the family Cactaceae native chiefly to arid regions of the New World
2. Any of several similar plants.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Yes, the way people use words is more important than what they "really" mean. But the distinction between cactus and succulent is a useful one that exists for a reason.
More importantly, what kind of "scientific resources" refer to Hoodia as a cactus? Colloquially, this kind of thing is fine, but follow this guy's nutritional advice at your own risk.
By the way, people interested in accurate information on the subject should consult Robert H. Archer and Janine E. Victor, "Plate 479. Hoodia Pilifera subsp. Pillansii Apocynaceae: Asclepiadoideae," Curtis's Botanical Magazine 20 (2003), 219–224; doi:10.1111/1467-8748.00398.
More importantly, what kind of "scientific resources" refer to Hoodia as a cactus? Colloquially, this kind of thing is fine, but follow this guy's nutritional advice at your own risk.
By the way, people interested in accurate information on the subject should consult Robert H. Archer and Janine E. Victor, "Plate 479. Hoodia Pilifera subsp. Pillansii Apocynaceae: Asclepiadoideae," Curtis's Botanical Magazine 20 (2003), 219–224; doi:10.1111/1467-8748.00398.
Of course, any professional should use the word "cactus" in its botanical sense, and we do - explaining the difference to people all the time. But I would also never correct someone calling a spiny desert plant a cactus just because its from Africa. The linguistic issue is bigger than the distinction between cactus and succulent, it has to do with terms like bugs vs. insects, and fruits vs. vegetables. I find it insufferably annoying when someone "corrects" you for referring to a tomato as a vegetable. Or my pet peeve was 7 years ago when the world's experts were all atwitter over the "fact" that the millenium didn't "actually" begin for another year. harrrumph.
Add Comment
T-Shirts
