• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

SULCOREBUTIA, FOOD FOR TAXONOMISTS ? Johan Pot Many cactus lovers seem to have an opinion about the nomenclature of their plants. But do they really know the right name? Who will determine this and in particular, how is it done ? We haven’t heard the last word on this subject. Creation of the image this from the name. And I heard it perso- My cactus hobby was scarcely born, when nally from Backeberg. He cannot be I met Karel. He presented himself as a wrong, as he found them himself. You say very experienced collector. He invited me Echinopsis? You mean Echinocactus? But emphatically to visit him. And not to hesi- these plants are lobivias and there is an tate in asking any question. As I was eager end to it !” to learn, I accepted the invitation gladly. I didn’t understand much of it. Had Jaap Within a week I had entered his sanctum. really had contact with the famous Backe- It was indeed a paradise. Many plants berg ? On the other hand Gijs didn’t look were in bloom. In every flowerpot there stupid. I chose to keep silent as I didn’t was a label with a name on it. This was want to be thought a dummy. A few mi- quite a different experience to “120 cacti nutes later the guests left. Karel muttered in colour”. to me in offended tones “This Jaap, he Shortly before the visit somebody asked must always know better! The only thing me, if I already had the “hand of the ne- that really matters is that you understand gro” (Maihuenopsis clavarioides). I hadn’t me. Isn’t that right?” a clue, but Karel showed me the plant Not lobivias, but sulcorebutias took up all immediately. He was definitely an expert. my attention during the next years. But “But”, he said, “my great love are the during my search for possible correct jonias.” These I also knew nothing of but names I have heard such conversations Karel showed me them and he was entran- over and over again. Apparently we cactus ced as he described the beautiful flowers. lovers feel a deep satisfaction in such At that very moment Jaap and Gijs talks, in which expertise is not really re- dropped in by chance. quired. I believe that German-speaking “These are not jonias”, Jaap corrected. people use the word “Bierernst” in such “These are lobivias. To be more precise cases. I was struck by the fact that many Lobivia jajoiana from Bolivia.” Karel statements made no reference to suppor- looked bewildered but kept silent but Gijs ting information. Observations were har- raised his eyebrows: “Actually they are dly done, but this was no obstacle to ha- echinopsis from Argentina.” As if stung ving a firm opinion. by a wasp Jaap turned. “They do come for For the record I should say that names sure from Bolivia. After all you can derive used in this article correspond to what hobbyists on the continent use to say. This wer originated from outside the areole, it does not mean that the original authors had to be related to Mamillaria “without will always still support these names. any doubt”. The shape of the corolla and Therefore author citations are omitted in the pericarp however prevented clas- this paper. sifying it here. Some years later Schumann withdrew Rebutia. Rebutia 28 years later on Spegazzini (1923) defi- A small plant with the name Echinopsis ned the genus Aylostera. The decisive minuscula was brought onto the market feature was a partial fusion of the style by Pierre Rebut. It probably came and the tube. Using this characteristic one originally from Argentina. Later on such could clearly distinguish Aylostera from plants were indeed found in the province Rebutia. (Fig 2 and Fig 3) of Tucuman. Have the observations of Schumann been In 1895 the genus Rebutia was defined by checked ? I suppose so. Though I was K. Schumann. (Fig 1) Schumann had ob- never able to confirm that Rebutia did not served that the new plant did not bloom bloom from the areole. But I have heard from the areole, so it could not be an echi- amateurs discussing seriously about pistils nopsis. The plant itself resembled an echi- which had grown together to the tube op- nocactus or malacocarpus, but as the flo- posite free pistils. Fig. 1 Rebutia minuscula Fig. 2 Flowersection Rebutia minuscula Fig. 3 Flowersection Fig. 4: Browningia candelaris (Photo: Craig Howe) Aylostera schatzliana JK423 http://cactiguide.com/cactus Berger (1929) did not mention a genus proach is a natural way of acting, but of Aylostera. He recognized only one genus course it contains the risk of overlooking a Rebutia. He wrote: “Small plants, roughly significant characteristic. globular, reminiscent of mamillaria, with In the same way relationship between tubercles in spiral rows and small spines. plants will not only be accepted, but de- Flowers from the older areoles, often ori- nied as well. Many people do accept Re- ginating close to the base, small, funnel- butia minuscula and Aylostera pseudomi- shaped, with slender tube, open by day. nuscula to belong to the same genus. But These small plants from the mountains are who will for example expect a closer rela- not to be classified in Echinocactus nor in tionship between Rebutia minuscula of Echinopsis.” only a few centimetres diameter and I have some problems with this statement. height and a 5 meters high Browningia Schumann used the observation that the candelaris ? (Fig. 4) Nobody, don’t you plant did not bloom from the areole to think ? More about this later. distinguish the genus. The same characte- During the winter of 1929-1930 the plant ristic was denied by Berger. What did he collector José Steinbach sent Werdermann observe instead to be still able to reco- a plant, which “probably had been disco- gnize a genus Rebutia, distinguishable vered in the wider surroundings of Cocha- from other genera? We never will know. bamba (Bolivia) at an altitude of 2500 m”. Berger mentioned 6 species: Rebutia mi- Unfortunately Steinbach died shortly af- nuscula, R. deminuta, R. pseudominuscu- terwards. Werdermann identified the plant la, R. pygmaea, R. fiebrigii and R. stein- as “doubtless” being related to Echinocac- mannii, of these the first four species came tus minusculus. “Schumann had defined, from Argentina and the others from Boli- based on its special flowering characteris- via. tics, the genus Rebutia, which he wi- Does the characteristic, that pistil and tube thdrew later on, and classified this plant as are partially grown together, make any Echinopsis.” But Werdermann himself sense? One taxonomist will find it impor- argued to reintroduce the genus Rebutia tant, the other will dismiss it. It was Rit- for this “well characterized” group. It may ters opinion (1980), that the fusion hardly be just me, but I have no idea what Wer- had taxonomical meaning, as it would dermann meant with “well characterized”. have developed simultaneously in diffe- Did he possibly understand Rebutia in the rent separated lines. same way as Berger ? Often the characteristic is ignored. How Werdermann (1931) described the would early taxonomists have decided “interesting” plant, which strongly whether a plant belonged to Rebutia or resembled Lobivia boliviensis qua habitus, not ? I suspect that plants have been but nevertheless was called Rebutia stein- thought to be related after a rough obser- bachii based upon one single flower. A vation without a real check. Is this second opinion was impossible, as the strange ? No, because such things still plant had died when the publication was happen. It would be really strange, if one made. By the way, to my mind a plant can used a formal checklist of characteristics be called interesting if it is little known for every new plant to decide to what ge- and in the mean time is or will be desi- nus it belongs. The rough and ready ap- rable. It must be more than just a study- object. The possession of interesting in 1849, was also classified in this genus. plants works as a lure for collectors by the The result of this remarkable sequence of way. Thinking back, I guess, that in this events was nevertheless correct. Not only sense Karel did not have many interesting was the genus Weingartia poorly defined plants. Who indeed wants a “jonia”? by the summary description of Backeberg, the plant description also was not clear, as Weingartia the name had been used twice, for com- As far as I know all authors mentioned pletely different plants, which had died above were professional botanists. But long ago. Boom (1962) dedicated a very amateurs also made their contributions worthwhile article to the correct name of heard. Very well known was Curt Backe- the plant. He ended his account with the berg. According to Wikipedia he met the remark “Look at what the consequences Czech plant collector Alberto Vojtěch Frič may be if the international Rules for Bota- by chance in 1927. His stories stimulated a nical Nomenclature are not employed in desire for adventure in Backeberg who the right way; it is definitely necessary, decided to import cacti himself. He was so that everybody, who is occupied with the strongly fascinated by these plants that he taxonomy of cacti (and of course of all published a lot, for example the standard other plants) acquaint themselves with the work of six parts „Die Cactaceae“. proper use of these rules. Especially in the In 1933 Backeberg defined the genus Spe- case of cacti much incompetent work has gazzinia with the species fidaiana (Fig. 5) been done in this area.“ Then a list of and neumanniana (Fig.

Load more

  9

Copy Link