Donnie wrote: "Is this enough information to justify calling the plant: *Opuntia charlestonensis* CLOKEY 1943 instead of just writing the plant off as another hybrid." In my opinion, it's not enough information. Here's the first thing which pops into my mind: how do you know that the hillside with many plants is not in fact a single plant which has formed a clone over the years? You mention " The plants were extremely uniform." That's suspicious; you would expect a hybrid swarm to show variation. I would leave the decisions about the appropriate ranks for the taxa in question to the taxonomists. If I had to put something into print about these in a formal publication, I would probably say something like this " the existence of the purported hybrid Opuntia x charlestonensis Clokey suggests that Opuntia phaeacantha and O. erinacea are in a species-like relationship in the areas where the purported hybrid occurs." Since you are not writing a taxonomic treatment, why take up someone else’s battles? Let people (the taxonomists in particular) sort it out on their own in accordance with their own views. Jim McKenney jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, 39.03871º North, 77.09829º West, USDA zone 7 My Virtual Maryland Garden http://www.jimmckenney.com/ BLOG! http://mcwort.blogspot.com/ Webmaster Potomac Valley Chapter, NARGS Editor PVC Bulletin http://www.pvcnargs.org/ Webmaster Potomac Lily Society http://www.potomaclilysociety.org/