• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

2 TEPHROCACTUS BOLIVIANUS - OR NOT TEPHROCACTUS BOLIVIANUS? From R.K.Hughes In Chileans No.51 there is a comparison between the original Salm-Dyck description of Opuntia bolivianus and Ritter’s description of Tephrocactus bolivianus, from which it is concluded that they are one and the same species. On the other hand, I conclude exactly the opposite - that they cannot be the same. The main point that I see separating the two descriptions is that of the spination. Salm-Dyck’s four long, flexible, needle-like hardly diverging spines can only be describing the altiplano-type plant. The spines on the large fat segments of the T.ferocior-like plants are long, strong, and very stout. They diverge in all directions, the longest tending to be straight (although some do have a slight twist in them) whilst the shorter ones are often curved or twisted. Ritter’s description refers to spines spreading, bending, and interweaving. A check on my T.ferocior-like plants show they have 10 to 11 spines per areole spreading in this manner. My altiplano-type plants from Bolivia have four needle-like spines per areole. Other dactylifera forms from Peru have up to six spines per areole on one plant and up to seven per areole on another. By using a magnifying glass, white spots can be found to occur on both types of plant. The altiplano type plants can readily be described as having elongate egg-shaped segments. In contrast to this, the large chunky segments of the T.ferocior-like plants are better described as ovoid or ellipsoid in shape. My main reference in the literature is to the Tephrocactus book by Leighton-Boyce and Iliff, which is put together in a scholarly manner with regard to references and original descriptions. They quote the full latin text for both O.pentlandii and O.boliviana, with any differences or additions to the earlier text. Their O.bolivianus translation, although essentially the same as that quoted in Chileans No.51 p.146, is longer, with a preceeding and a following additional paragraph. There are also slight differences, such as: Chileans 51 - “The old stem is a foot high” Leighton-Boyce and Iliff - “The plant in full age reaches 30 cm or more” as well as: Chileans 51 - “Spines flexible upright below and not radiating away from each other” Leighton-Boyce and Iliff - “Spines suppley stiff, erect and close-set at the base, divergent above, straight or flexuous”. There is a possibility that T.pentlandii could be accepted as the altiplano-type plant but, if so, then T.bolivianus has a to become a synonym of it and not used for the ferocior-type plant. In addition, the reference to the travels undertaken by Pentland suggests that he collected the plants personally before despatching them to Europe. Is it not just possible that people travelled to places beyond his reach and, knowing of his interest, could have brought or sent plants to him which he he then despatched to Europe? .....from H.Middleditch There is certainly a difference in the manner in which the height of Tephrocactus bolivianus is translated, as given in Chileans No.51 compared with the Leighton-Boyce and Iliff version. As indicated in Chileans 51 p.146, this species was first published in Allgemeine Gartenzeitung in 1845 with Salm-Dyck as author, and later in 1850 in Salm-Dyck’s own publication. It is the 1850 description which is reproduced by Leighton- Boyce & Iliff, together with a translation of the same 1850 text, whilst they also make reference to one or two points from the 1845 AGZ text. Both the 1845 and 1850 descriptions follow the layout typical of many of those which first appeared in the first half of the 19th century. These commonly consisted firstly of a diagnosis, or description proper, followed by a further paragraph which was frequently headed “Obs”, short for observations. Strictly speaking, it would be the first paragraph which would be regarded as the official description. Whilst the “Obs” usually repeated much of the data in the preceeding paragraph, quite often some additional data was included which was not infrequently quite significant. The description of Opuntia bolivianus by Salm-Dyck, both in 1845 and 1850, followed the format typical of the time, but in this instance the second paragraph was not subtitled “Obs”. But. again typical of the time, the second paragraph did include some valuable additional scraps of data. The 1845 desciption consisted of 7 lines of latin diagnosis followed by 17 lines of “Obs” in German. The 1850 description comprises five lines of latin diagnosis followed by 7 lines of “Obs”. Because it is always the original description by which we are bound, it is the 1845 description which appeared in Chileans No.51. Not surprisingly, there was more data in the 17 lines of the 1845 “Obs” than in any of the other three paragraphs, so that, to avoid undue repetition, it was that paragraph and only that paragraph which appeared in Chileans No.51. Certainly this is not identical to the other three paragraphs from 1845 and 1850, but fortunately there does not appear to be any confliction between the four paragaphs. Attention is drawn by R.K.Hughes to that phrase in the translation in Chileans 51 which reads “The old stem is a foot high ..” whilst Leighton-Boyce and Iliff render the 1850 version as “The plant in full age reaches 30 cm or more”. The 1845 description reads in German “Der alte stamm is uber einen Fuss hoch”. According to my Collins’ German-English dictionary, “Fuss” means amongst other renderings appropriate to other contexts, “foot, (measure)”. Thus, from the German, the plant is over a foot tall. The 1850 description is all in latin and reads “Planta senecta pedalis et ultra”. In Stearn’s Botanical Latin (1973) we find “pedalis = a foot long (about 30 cm)”. whilst my Chamber- Murray Classical Latin dictionary (1985) gives “pedalis = a foot long”. Neither the 1845 nor the 1850 description make any specific reference to a height of “30 cm or more”. In regard to the suitability of these alternative translations from the latin, Stearn’s ‘Botanical Latin’ is a valuable compilation of present-day usage; as Stearn himself observes, “botanical latin [is] now so distinct from classical latin .... as to require independent treatment”. But in the early 19th century such a ready reference for botanical latin simply did not exist. At that time the latin language was still of significant importance for the clergy and the legal profession, although it probably diverged here and there from the 3 classical latin of Vergil and Pliny. In the early 19th century the form of latin used by botanists probably diverged appreciably from classical latin in respect of words for parts of plants and particularly in regard to parts of flowers, for in the days of the Roman Empire there was probably little or no need for such words. Available evidence suggests that botanists of the early 19th century used classical latin where it was adequate for their purposes. Hence for Salm-Dyck’s “pedalis”, a rendering of “a foot”, as from the German, might seem to be appropriate. However, a far more down-to-earth consideration applies when it comes to interpreting Salm-Dyck’s description of the height of Opuntia bolivianus. When Napoleon was in his heyday of conquering much of Europe, he appears to have recognised that an army marches on its stomach. So his quartermaster-general had to purchase victuals where-ever the army went. But apparently he failed to do this to Napoleon’s satisfaction and on being castigated for this, he complained that his task was made excessively complicated by the individual system of weights and measures used, not just in each state, but in a great many of the towns where victuals had to be purchased. So Napoleon cured that problem by by establishing a common set of weights and measures which he imposed throughout the length and breadth of Europe occupied by his armies - the metric system. However, one may care to recollect whose side the Prussians were on at Waterloo. It would be difficult to imagine Prince Joseph Maria Franz Anton Hubert Ignaz zu Salm-Reifferscheid-Dyck being prepared to even acknowledge the existence of Napoleon’s metric system, never mind actually use it. The Prussians measured in Fuss, Zoll, and Linien and not in Napoleon’s metric system. Hence the “over a foot high” for Salm-Dyck’s Opuntia bolivianus quoted in Chileans No.51. However, it does appear that Napoleon did finally succeed in converting Leighton-Boyce and Iliff to his system, even though he failed to do so with Salm-Dyck’s description of Opuntia bolivianus. A quick comparison of the description of the spination provided by Ritter with that given in the 1850 Salm-Dyck rendering in latin could understandably lead to the conclusion reached by R.K.Hughes that they are dissimilar. The 1845 and 1850 descriptions of O.bolivianus both start with a compact latin diagnosis which describes the spines as “erecto-divergentibus”. The 1845 description of the spines (in German) runs “unten aufrecht und nicht strahlenformig auseinanderstehend, und [oben] hin und her gebogen” i.e. upright below and not disposed apart from each other and [then] bent in various directions. The Leighton-Boyce and Iliff description of Opuntia bolivianus is the 1850 version, together with brief notes relating to the 1845 version. This 1850 latin description of the spines reads “basi erecti, collecti, superne divergentes” i.e. upright and bunched closely together at the base, divergent above.

Load more

  50

Copy Link