What published taxonomic treatment is this based on? There has been much confusion about these names and we should be careful to only follow the best evidence.

@jeremygilmore how can we separate these as two different species? Clearly they are not the same species!

How much time is reasonable for @najera_tutor to explain this.
In fact, it should have been explained and properly referenced on this swap.

It is referenced as Source: Taxonomy of the Cactaceae Vol:I to IV (Citation) - unfortunately no page and no volume.
It is mentioned in volumes 3-4 as
"2019: in September, a new phylogenetic work on Cylindropuntia still more complete was done by Majure et al."
it is not mentioned here: https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajb2.1364
Phylogenomics in Cactaceae: A case study using the chollas sensu lato (Cylindropuntieae, Opuntioideae) reveals a common pattern out of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts
Lucas C. Majure, Marc A. Baker, Michelle Cloud-Hughes, Andrew Salywon, Kurt M. Neubig First published: 23 September 2019 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1364Citations: 30

So not sure what this is based on.

In POWO we have:
.* Cylindropuntia imbricata subsp. rosea (DC.) M.A.Baker First published in Madroño 66: 93 (2019) This subspecies is accepted
Native to: Mexico Central, Mexico Gulf, Mexico Northeast
Introduced into: Cape Provinces, Free State, Northern Provinces, Peru, Canary Is.
.* Cylindropuntia pallida (Rose) F.M.Knuth First published in C.Backeberg & F.M.Knuth, Kaktus-ABC: 126 (1936) This species is accepted
Native to: Mexico Central, Mexico Northeast
Introduced into: Namibia, Zimbabwe, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, Saudi Arabia, South Australia, Spain, Western Australia