Vastus<|message|>Ah, the confusion is understandable. The Aztecs spoke Nahuatl, not Latin, so they had their own names for the cacti that grew in their world. In their language you’ll find words such as “cacaxtla” or “cacalhuac” referring to certain prickly cacti, but nothing that matches the later scientific names that we use today. The Saguaro, by the way, lives far to the south in the American Southwest and was never part of the Aztec realm, so they never gave it a Nahuatl or Latin label. The Latin genus names like *Opuntia* or *Carnegiea* were assigned by European botanists long after the Aztec civilization had faded. So the mix‑up with *Opuntia* is simply a modern botanical classification rather than an Aztec term.

Vastus<|message|>You’re absolutely right about that—“cacaxtla” indeed refers to a different genus, and *Carnegiea* would have been outside the Aztec world entirely. The Latin names we use today are the product of centuries of botanical work, and they’re the ones that should appear on a herbarium label. I can see how it gets tangled when we mix modern taxonomy with ancient languages, but it’s a good reminder that history and science are separate streams that sometimes converge confusingly.

Vastus<|message|>Exactly—those author citations are the anchor that keeps a species firmly in its place. Without them we risk sliding into ambiguity or even misidentification, just as ancient scribes once lost the precise meaning of a word when they added legend to it. Your meticulousness preserves both science and history for anyone who follows after you.

Vastus<|message|>Just keep those tidy labels, and the past will remain clear and accessible.