The Question of Echinofossulocactus (Cactaceae) Author(s): P. V. Heath Source: Taxon, Vol. 38, No. 2 (May, 1989), pp. 281-288 Published by: International Association for (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1220860 Accessed: 18-08-2016 09:19 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1220860?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon

This content downloaded from 195.169.8.17 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:19:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MAY 1989 281 comment "although"although equated equated with with C. C.smithii smithii by byBritton Britton & Rose, & Rose, is not is thoughtnot thought to be tothe be same the hybrid".same hybrid". But OttoOtto andand Dietrich Dietrich had had said said that that their their Cereus Cereus mallisonii mallisonii "ist "istdies dieswahrscheinlich wahrscheinlich dieselbe dieselbe Pflanze, Pflanze, welche auchauch unter unter der der Benennung Benennung Cereus Cereus smithianus smithianus in denin denenglischen englischen Garten Garten vorkommt". vorkommt". Therefore, Therefore, I took upup Sweet'sSweet's epithet epithet and and published published xAporoheliocereus xAporoheliocereus smithianus smithianus (Heath, (Heath, 1983). 1983). Nevertheless, Nevertheless, the rejectionrejection of of Art. Art. 32 32 Prop. Prop. E andE and approval approval of Ex.of Ex.1 in 1 Art. in Art. 32 Prop. 32 Prop. D indicates D indicates that thisthat combination this combination is invalid,invalid, andand a afurther further new new combination combination is required,is required, which which is presented is presented below: below: x AporoheliocereusAporoheliocereus mallisonii mallisonii (Otto (Otto and and Dietrich) Dietrich) Heath, Heath, comb. comb. nov. nov.Basionym: Basionym: Cereus Cereus mallisonii mallisonii Otto andand Dietrich,Dietrich, Verh. Verh. Ver. Ver. Befdrd. Befdrd. Gartenb. Gartenb. 12: 12:134. 134. 1837. 1837. Type: Type: Verh. Verh. Ver. Beford.Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Gartenb. 12: plateplate 1.1. 1837.1837.

The differencesdifferences between between Cereus Cereus mallisonii mallisonii and and Cereus Cereus smithii smithii are slight,are slight, and theand latter the latter can only can be only be recognized asas a aform: form: x AporoheliocereusAporoheliocereus mallisonii mallisonii f. f.smithii smithii (Pfeiffer) (Pfeiffer) Heath, Heath, comb. comb. nov. nov.Basionym: Basionym: Cereus Cereus smithii smithii Pfeiffer, Pfeiffer, Enumeratio diagnostica diagnostica cactearum, cactearum, 111. 111. 1837. 1837. Type: Type: Edwards's Edwards's Bot. Bot.Reg. Reg.19: plate 19: plate1565. 1565.1833. 1833.

If thisthis formform were were treated treated as asa variety,a variety, then then the the final final epithet epithet of Cereus of Cereus speciosissimus speciosissimus var. hybridus var. hybridus Hooker wouldwould have have to to be be taken taken up. up.

Literature Cited Britton, N. L. and J. N. Rose. 1919-1923. The Cactaceae. Caregie Institution, Washington. Heath, P. V. 1983-1984. Six short notes. Epiphytes 7(28): 89-93, 8(30) 39-41, and 8(31): 60-62. Hooker, Sir William. 1841. Cereus speciosissimus hybridus. Curtis's Bot. Mag. 67: plate 3822. Lindley, J. 1833. The crimson creeping cereus. Edwards's Bot. Reg. 19: plate 1565. Otto, C. F. and A. G. Dietrich. 1837. Cereus Mallisoni. Verh. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. 12: 134-137, plate 1. Pfeiffer, (C. G.) L. 1837. Enumeratio diagnostica cactearum hucusque cognitarum. Berlin. Rowley, G. D. 1951-1952. The scientific approach to succulents. Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 13(1) 6-7, (2): 40-42, (3): 52-55, (4): 84-95, 14(1): 6-7, (2): 30-31, and (3): 54-55. 1982. Intergeneric hybrids in succulents. Nat. Cact. Succ. J. 37(1): 2-6, (2): 45-49, (3): 76- 80, and (4): 119. Sweet, R. 1830. Sweet's Hortus britannicus, 2nd ed. James Ridgway, London.

THE QUESTION OF ECHINOFOSSULOCACTUS (CACTACEAE)

P. V. Heath'

The surprising three-way split of the Committee for Spermatophyta concerning the correct name for an attractive group of small Mexican is a matter for some concern. Brummitt (1987) states: "Seven members considered that Stenocactus is at present correct, one thought Brittonrosea was correct, and three thought Echinofossulocactus was correct." One is tempted to ask whether the Code is in need of radical reform if it cannot provide an answer to such a straightforward question. Furthermore, the failure of the Committee to recommend the conservation or rejection of any of the competing names guarantees that the uncertainty will continue.

The Synonymy of the Group The group is a natural one, and has therefore found recognition in many classifications under a variety of names and at a variety of ranks:

Echinocactus ? 1 Costati **** Costis compressissimus, crispatis Pfeiffer, Enumeratio diagnostica Cac- tearum, p. 62, 1837.

9 Hazeldene Meads, Brighton BN1 5LR, U.K.

This content downloaded from 195.169.8.17 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:19:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 282 TAXON VOLUME 38

Echinocactus ?[section] Compressicostati Lemaire, Cactearum aliquot novarum ac insuetarum in horto Monvilliano, p. 27, 1838. Echinocactus ?[no rank] Stenogoni Lemaire, Cactearum genera novae speciesque novae et omnium in horto Monvilliano cultarum, p. 28, 1839. Echinofossulocactus section Gladiatores Lawrence, Gard. Mag. (ed. Loudon) 17: 317, 1841. Echinocactus section Stenogoni (Lemaire) Lemaire, Hort. Univ. 6: 60, 1845 [vide Britton and Rose, 1919-1923, 3: 123]. Echinocactus Gruppe Stenogoni (Lemaire) F6rster, Handbuch der Cacteenkunde, 1 st ed., p. 305, 1846. Echinocactus subgenus Stenocactus Schumann, Gesamtbeschreibung der Kakteen, 1st ed., p. 292, 1898. Brittonrosea Spegazzini, Anales Soc. Cient. Argent. 96: 69. 1923. Echinocactus Group 6 Crispati Vaupel in Engler and Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., 2nd ed., 21: 624, 1925 [fide Hunt, 1975]. Efosus Orcutt, Cactography, p. 5, 1926 [fide Tjaden, 1982]. Stenocactus Berger, Die Kakteen, p. 244, 1929 [fide Tjaden, 1982]. Ferocactus subgenus Stenocactus (Schumann) Taylor, Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 42(4): 108, 1980.

The Validity and Legitimacy of the Rival Names There are four contending names at generic rank:

Echinofossulocactus Lawrence Tjaden (1982) argued that Echinofossulocactus was invalid under Article 34.1(c), "A name is not validly published when it is merely mentioned incidentally", but that clause has since been deleted.

Brittonrosea Spegazzini As this name was an avowed substitute for Echinofossulocactus, it has the same type as that (Article 7.9) and is therefore necessarily an illegitimate later synonym (Article 63.1). Spegazzini rejected Echinofossulocactus because he considered the name to be too long.

Efosus Orcutt This is a further substitute for Echinofossulocactus and again it must have the same type and be illegitimate. It is merely an abbreviation of the older name.

Stenocactus (Schumann) Berger This name is valid and legitimate because it is based on a legitimate basionym (Article 63.3), namely Echinocactus section Compressicostati Lemaire, via Echinocactus ? Stenogoni Lemaire and Echino- subgenus Stenocactus Schumann.

The Disposition of Echinofossulocactus Lawrence (1841) placed 35 and varieties under Echinofossulocactus. These were distributed by Britton and Rose among no less than six genera. The table below gives the Rosean genus for each of Lawrence's names.

Lawrence Britton and Rose

Echinofossulocactus sect I. Gladiatores subsect. 1. 1. coptonogonus Echinofossulocactus 2. c. var. major Echinofossulocactus subsect. 2. 3. ensiformis Echinofossulocactus 4. gladiatus Echinofossulocactus 5. crispatus Echinofossulocactus 6. obvallatus Echinofossulocactus 7. anfractuosus Echinofossulocactus 8. phyllacanthus Echinofossulocactus 9. p. 2. macracanthus Echinofossulocactus 10. p. 3. micracanthus Echinofossulocactus

This content downloaded from 195.169.8.17 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:19:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MAY 1989 283

sect. II. Latispineae subsect. 1. 11. cornigerus Ferocactus 12. c. 2. elatior Ferocactus 13. c. 3. rubrospinus Ferocactus 14. c. 4. angustispinus Ferocactus 15. spiralis Ferocactus subsect. 2. 16. recurvus Ferocactus 17. r. campylacanthus Ferocactus sect. III. subsect. 1. 18. platyceras Echinocactus 19. vanderaeyi Ferocactus 20. v. var. ignotus-longispinus Ferocactus 21. karwinskianus Echinocactus 22. macracanthus Echinocactus 23. echidne Ferocactus 24. helophorus Echinocactus 25. h. var. longifossulatus Echinocactus 26. mirbelii Astrophytum 27. harrisii ? subsect. 2. ? i. 28. oxypterus Ferocactus 29. ignotus-venosus ? 30. robustus Ferocactus ? ii. 31. pfeifferi Ferocactus 32. holopterus Astrophytum 33. hexaedrophorus Thelocactus 34. turbiniformis Strombocactus 35. species novus ?

It will be noted that Britton and Rose referred 13 names to Ferocactus, retained ten in a restricted Echinofossulocactus, placed five in Echinocactus, two in Astrophytum, and one each in Strombocactus and Thelocactus. All the names in the first section were retained in Echinofossulocactus, and all the names in the second section were referred to Ferocactus.

The Lectotypifications of Echinofossulocactus and Stenocactus Britton and Rose (1919-1923) gave no explanation of their choice of lectotype. They merely stated that the "first section, Gladiatores, corresponds to Schumann's subgenus Stenocactus of the genus Echinocactus and represents Echinofossulocactus in our treatment, with Echinocactus coptonogonus Lemaire as its type". Byles (1954-1956) similarly gave no reason for his choice of lectotype for Stenocactus. He just stated "Typ. Etus. coptonogonus Lem. Ref. to Echinofossulocactus Lawr."

Taylor's Stated Aims Taylor wishes to reduce the number of names in use in the Cactaceae at both specific and generic rank. In the summary of a 1979 article he stated "Echinofossulocactus names of recent usage are reviewed and a ruthless attitude is adopted with regard to their usefulness" (Taylor, 1979a). Later that year he turned his "ruthless attitude" towards the group's generic status and asserted "but for the nomenclatural priority of Lawrence's generic name, there would be every justification for its inclusion in Ferocactus as subgenus Stenocactus. A proposal for the conservation of Ferocactus B. & R. (1922) versus Echinofossulocactus Lawr. (1841) and the allied Leuchtenbergia Hook. (1848), is being drafted" (Taylor, 1979b).

Hunt's Disputed Relectotypification of Echinofossulocactus Article 8.1 of the Code states inter alia: "The author who first designates a lectotype must be followed, but his choice may be superseded if it can be shown ... that it was based on a largely

This content downloaded from 195.169.8.17 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:19:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 284 TAXON VOLUME 38 mechanical method of selection". This provision undoubtedly applies to both the Britton and Rose lectotypification of Echinofossulocactus and also the Byles lectotypification of Stenocactus. In both cases the lectotype chosen was the first specific name listed. In 1980 Hunt exercised the option permitted by Article 8, and he selected a new lectotype for Echinofossulocactus in such a way that ceased to be an earlier synonym of Stenocactus, but became instead a later synonym of Echinocactus. Hunt admitted "Since, taxonomically, E. helophorus is referable to Echinocactus platyacanthus, the effect of its designation as lectotype will be to make Echinofossulocactus Lawr. a synonym of Echinocactus Link & Otto, sensu stricto, and thus remove it from contention with later names". This enabled Taylor to transfer all the species names which he had previously accepted under Echinofossulocactus to Ferocactus, which he did on the page following Hunt's article. Taylor announced "In my earlier paper I noted the close affinity of Schumann's next subgenus (VIII Stenocactus) to Ferocactus, and would have treated Stenocactus as a further synonym of Ferocactus but for the priority of the genus Echinofossulocactus Lawr. (1841). However, the relec- totypification of Echinofossulocactus, and its placement in synonymy of Echinocactus (see preceding paper by D. R. Hunt), removes this nomenclatural 'spanner in the works', and allows the combination Ferocactus subg. Stenocactus to be made here". Glass and Forster (1981) commented on this sequence of events as follows: "Taylor has been working on a revision of Ferocactus in which he proposes including the Ancistrocactus, Sclerocactus, Thelo- cactus, Hamatocactus, Glandulicactus and Echinofossulocactus. The 'rub' is that if one simply combines Echinofossulocactus and Ferocactus, Echinofossulocactus would have priority ... and no one wants to change all their Ferocactus labels to an eight syllable generic name. The ingenious solution, performed obligingly by David Hunt, was to propose changing Britton and Rose's lectotype from E. coptonogonus to Echinocactus helophorus on the basis that Britton and Rose's choice was 'mechanical and hence arbitrary' under the terms of the code. Hunt's choice, perhaps not mechanical but certainly far-fetched, E. helophorus just happens to be a synonym of the type of the genus Echinocactus, thus, if one accepts Hunt's proposals Echinofossulocactus becomes a synonym of Echinocactus and Taylor is free to transfer the species of Echinofossulocactus to Ferocactus, which indeed he did on the next page of said journal. The aim of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is 'the provision of a stable method of naming taxonomic groups . .' (Preamble 1). We are distressed to see what we consider the code being 'used' to undo other botanists' work in favor of one's own ideas. The code should not be reduced to a legalistic game that can be manipulated and controlled by anyone shrewd enough to manuever through loopholes." It would appear that Glass and Foster's misgivings are shared by at least some members of the Committee for Spermatophyta. Brummitt reported that of the 12 committee members, seven thought that Hunt's procedure was "acceptable", and five did not.

An Analysis of Article 8.1 The present text of Article 8.1 is incorrectly set out. It is impossible to read clause (c) without borrowing some of the text from clauses (a) and (b), as the following tabular arrangement shows:

8.1. The author who first designates a lectotype or a neotype must be followed, but his choice is superseded if (a) The holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of the original material is rediscovered; it may also be superseded if (b) it can be shown that it is in serious conflict with the protologue and another element is available which is not in conflict with the protologue, or (c) that it was based on a largely mechanical method of selection, or (d) that it is contrary to Art. 9.2.

It would seem that the present wording should be interpreted as follows:

8.1 The author who first designates a lectotype or a neotype must be followed, but: (i) his choice is superseded if the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of the original material is rediscovered; (ii) it may be superseded if it can be shown that: (a) it is in serious conflict with the protologue and another element is available which is not in conflict with the protologue;

This content downloaded from 195.169.8.17 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:19:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MAY 1989 285

(f) it was based on a largely mechanical method of selection; (y) it is contrary to Art. 9.2.

The Status of Brittonian Lectotypifications The arbitrary lectotypifications of Britton are valid and priorable, but "may be superseded". Until a valid, superseding relectotypification occurs, all Brittonian lectotypifications remain in force. Thus the Britton and Rose lectotypification of Echinofossulocactus remains correct under the Code until superseded.

Conditions Required for Supersession Under Article 8. 1(c) As the Code does not require Brittonian lectotypifications to be automatically rejected, it follows that they should only be superseded under certain conditions. Article 8.1 (c) does not state what those conditions are, but they can be inferred by reference to the Preamble and to analogous Articles and Recommendations:

1. "This Code aims at the provision of a stable method of naming taxonomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may cause error or ambiguity or throw science into confusion" [Preamble 1]. 2. "The only proper reasons for changing a name are either a more profound knowledge of the facts resulting from adequate taxonomic study or the necessity of giving up a nomenclature that is contrary to the rules" [Preamble 8]. 3. "In the absence of a relevant rule or where the consequences of rules are doubtful, established custom is followed" [Preamble 9]. 4. "The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon" [Article 7.2]. 5. "In cases where two or more heterogeneous elements were included in or cited with the original description, the lectotype should be so selected as to preserve current usage. In particular, if another author has already segregated one or more elements as other taxa, the residue or part of it should be designated as lectotype provided that this element is not in conflict with the original description or diagnosis" [Recommendation 7B.5]. 6. "A lectotype ... may ... be superseded if it can be shown that it is in serious conflict with the protologue and another element is available which is not in conflict with the protologue" [Article 8.1(b)]. 7. "An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the circumscription of a taxon does not warrant a change in its name" [Article 51.1]. 8. "An epithet or a legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known" [Article 62.1].

From these various sources, the following four basic tenets may be discerned: (i) Supersession cannot take place until it is shown that it is necessary. The only proper reason for changing a typification is a more profound knowledge of the facts resulting from adequate taxonomic study. A typification must not be rejected merely because it is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known. It must not be rejected merely because of an alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the circumscription of the taxon. A type must not be rejected merely because it is not the most typical or representative element of a taxon. [By analogy with Preamble 8, Article 7.2, Article 8.1(b), Article 51.1, and Article 62.1.] (ii) Supersession cannot take place until a valid alternative typification has been proposed. [By analogy with Article 8.1(b).] (iii) Supersession cannot take place unless the alternative typification is less arbitrary and more closely in accordance with the protologue. [By analogy with Article 8.1(b).] (iv) A superseding lectotype should be so selected as to preserve current usage. In particular, if another author has already segregated one or more elements as other taxa, the lectotype should be selected from the residue. [From Preamble 1, Preamble 9, and Recommendation 7B.5.]

The Status of Hunt's Relectotypification In order for Hunt's attempted relectotypification to succeed, it was necessary for him to (i) dem- onstrate that the Britton and Rose choice was in some serious way unsatisfactory; (ii) make a valid

This content downloaded from 195.169.8.17 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:19:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 286 TAXON VOLUME 38 alternative lectotypification; (iii) show that his own choice was superior to that of Britton and Rose; and (iv) preserve current usage. To fail on any one count must invalidate the attempted relectotypi- fication, and Hunt failed on all four counts: (i) Hunt failed to demonstrate that there was any need to change the lectotype. He merely stated "there is no obligation to follow Britton & Rose's choice". Hunt arbitrarily chose to relectotypify Echinofossulocactus but not Brittonrosea, Efosus, or Stenocactus, even though all four names have the same type for essentially the same reason. Hunt mentioned four other Rosean generic names with arbitrarily chosen lectotypes, namely Nopalea Salm-Dyck, Consolea Lemaire, Cereus Miller, and Discocactus Pfeiffer, but he did not relectotypify any of those four either. In is clear that the only reason for Hunt's relectotypification of Echinofossulocactus is the length of the name. He referred to it as "The 19-letter long polysyllabic generic name" and stated that it is "a mouthful to say and inconveniently long for plant labels and data-processing systems". He entitled his article "Decent re- burial for Echinofossulocactus Lawr.", and concluded it with this epitaph "Hic jacet Echinofossulo- cactus, nomen genericum ignoranter generatum, diu ignoratum, denique effosum, nunc denuo infos- sum. R.I.P." By analogy with Article 62.1, it is clear that selecting a generic name for relectotypification merely because of its length is an invalid procedure, and such a relectotypification must be regarded as null and void. All other authors prior to Hunt's relectotypification accepted the choice made by Britton and Rose. These include Higgins (1933), Byles (1954-1956), Backeberg (1977), Endler and Buxbaum (1974), Rowley (1980), even Hunt (1967) and Taylor (1978). As both Hunt and Taylor had previously accepted the Britton and Rose lectotypification, it is not possible to believe that they genuinely thought it needed to be superseded. (ii) Article 10.1 requires that "The type of a name of a genus or a subdivision of a genus is the type of a name of a species". Yet Hunt selected the name Echinocactus helephorus Lemaire, but added the assertion "no type of Lemaire's species is known to exist". While Article 10.1 allows a type to be designated via a species name, if the typifying author states that the name has no type, this must nullify the choice. Thus Hunt failed to make a valid typification. (iii) For Hunt's lectotypification to supersede that of Britton and Rose, Hunt must show that his choice is either less arbitrary or more closely in accordance with the protologue. Hunt asserted that the -fossulo- element of the name Echinofossulocactus referred to the areolar groove. He assumed "Lawrence probably took up Lemaire's usage of the word fossula from the latter's descriptions in Cactearum genera nova speciesque novae in horto Monvilliano (1839). Here Lemaire described Echi- nocactus helophorus Lem. as having 'areolae ... ad apicem in fossulam linearum, aliquando ad summum bifurcatum productae' ". This was the first mention by Hunt of his new lectotype, and he made no attempt at this point to justify his sudden and unexpected choice. He did not list the other species to which Lemaire attributed the same feature. A few sentences later, Hunt stated that: "Although the areoles of the species of Lawrence's section I. Gladiatores, including E. coptonogonus, are somewhat elongate, the feature is neither obvious nor remarked on elsewhere in the literature". Yet Lemaire (1838) stated that his Echinocactus coptonogonus has this feature: "areolis immersis, lana albida, statim decidua, instructis, et extra fasciculos aculeorum elongatis", and in his diagnosis of Echinocactus phyllacanthoides Lemaire included the phrase "areolis remotissimis; junioribus lanatis, in fossulam sursum elongatis". Clearly, Echinofossulocactus coptonogonus does possess the feature to which La- maire applied the term "fossula" and consequently Echinocactus helephorus is not a better choice. However, previous authors (e.g., Higgins, 1933) have taken the -fossulo- element to refer to deep furrows between the narrow ribs. Lawrence stated in his generic diagnosis "Surface angled or furrowed". These furrows are most strongly developed in Lawrence's first section, which includes Echinofossu- locactus coptonogonus, although that species itself is angled rather than furrowed, which is still in accordance with the diagnosis. Lemaire's Echinocactus helephorus was also angled rather furrowed, and therefore, in this respect, it is not more closely in accordance with the protologue. The next element of the diagnosis to be considered by Hunt was the fruit. Hunt argued that the fruit of the lectotype must be downy, and claimed that "This, too, tends to restrict the choice of species eligible as lectotype, operating against the species nowadays referred to Ferocactus B. & R. or Thel- ocactus B. & R. which have naked, scaly fruits. E. coptonogonus and its allies also have scaly rather than woolly fruits, though in some species the umbilicus of the stem is woolly". But all that Lawrence said about the fruit was "like those of Echinocactus". Thus Lawrence did not consider the fruit to be a diagnostic character. The final character to be considered by Hunt was size, which does not feature in the diagnosis at all. Hunt points out that Williams's Echinofossulocactus helephorus was 11 inches high and 1 /4 feet

This content downloaded from 195.169.8.17 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:19:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MAY 1989 287 in diameter, while his Echinofossulocactus coptonogonus was three inches high and broad. However, if we compare those sizes with those to be expected for the species in question, it is clear that the Echinofossulocactus coptonogonus was a mature specimen of flowering size, while the Echinofossu- locactus helephorus was only a juvenile. Britton and Rose gave measurements of "7 to 10 cm high" for Echinofossulocactus coptonogonus, whereas they listed Echinocactus helephorus under Echinocactus ingens, for which they stated "15 dm high, 12.5 dm in diameter (but reported by Karwinsky to be 5 to 6 feet in diameter)". Indeed, as Britton and Rose pointed out, one of the reasons why the application of Echinocactus helephorus is in doubt is that it was described by Lemaire from a juvenile, without flower or fruit, whereas Lemaire's specimen ofEchinocactus coptonogonus had flowered. Hence Echino- fossulocactus coptonogonus must be considered a more suitable choice for lectotype. (iv) The procedure adopted by Britton and Rose is in accordance with Article 52.1, which states: "When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the generic name, if correct, must be retained for one of them". They retained the name Echinofossulocactus for Lawrence's first section, which is the only one of his three sections which is entirely homogeneous. They thereby established the current usage of the name Echinofossulocactus. Recommendation 7B.5 requires that any subsequent lecto- typification should "preserve current usage" and that "the residue or part of it should be designated as lectotype". Hunt failed to select from the residue, and failed to preserve current usage; indeed, he deliberately and openly perverted the current usage. Hunt and Benson (1976) established that failure to preserve current usage nullifies a relectotypifi- cation, when they displaced the relectotypification of Coryphantha by Benson (1969). They stated: "the choice of C. vivipara as the Coryphantha lectotype has very undesirable repercussions. It would mean that Escobaria would become a synonym of Coryphantha, the correct name of Escobaria sensu Buxbaum would be Coryphantha, and another name would have to be found for Coryphantha sensu Britton & Rose [lapsus for sensu Buxbaum], a confusing situation in the extreme".

Conclusion Echinofossulocactus remains the correct name; Brittonrosea, Efosus, and Stenocactus remain later synonyms.

Literature Cited Backeberg, C. 1977. Cactus lexicon. English edition (translated by L. Glass from the 3rd German edition). Blandford Press, Poole, Dorset, England. Benson, L. 1969. Cactaceae. In: C. L. Lundell (ed.), Flora of Texas 2(2): 300. Britton, N. L. and J. N. Rose. 1919-1923. The Cactaceae. Carnegie Institution, Washington. Brummitt, R. K. 1987. Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta 33. Taxon 36(4): 734-739. Byles, R. S. 1954-1956. A dictionary of genera and subgenera of Cactaceae. Nat. Cact. Succ. J. 9(3): 54-57, (4): 80-83, 10(1): 11-14, (2): 33-36, (3): 57-60, (4): 82-85, 11(1): 11-14 and (2): 33-36. Endler, J. and F. Buxbaum. 1974. Die Pflanzenfamilie der Kakteen, 3rd ed. Albrecht Philler Verlag, Minden. Forster, C. F. 1846. Handbuch der Cacteenkunde, 1st ed. Verlag von Im. Tr. Woller, Leipzig. Glass, C. and R. Forster. 1981. What's new. Cact. Succ. J. (U.S.) 53(2): 61. Higgins, V. 1933. The study of cacti, 1st ed. Blandford Press, London. Hunt, D. R. 1967. Cactaceae. In: J. Hutchinson, The genera offlowering plants, 2: 427-467. 1980. Decent re-burial for Echinofossulocactus Lawr. Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 42(4): 105- 107. and L. Benson. 1976. The lectotype of Coryphantha (Engelm.) Lem. Cact. Succ. J. (U.S.) 48: 72. Lawrence, G. 1841. A catalogue of the cacti in the collection of the Rev. Theodore Williams, at Hendon Vicarage, Middlesex. Gardener's Magazine (ed. Loudon) 17: 313-321. Lemaire, (A.) C. 1838. Cactearum aliquot novarum ac insuetarum in horto Monvilliano cultarum accurata descriptio. Paris. 1839. Cactearum genera nova speciesque novae et omnium in horto Monvilliano cultarum ex affinitibus naturalibus ordinatio nova indexque methodicus. Paris. Pfeiffer, (C. G.) L. 1837. Enumeratio diagnostica cactearum hucusque cognitarum. Berlin.

This content downloaded from 195.169.8.17 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:19:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 288 TAXON VOLUME 38

Rowley,Rowley, G. D.G. 1980. D. 1980. Name thatName succulent. that succulent.Stanley Thores Stanley (Publishers) Thores Ltd., Cheltenham,(Publishers) Glouces- Ltd., Cheltenham, Glouces- tershire,tershire, England. England. Schumann,Schumann, K. M. K. 1897-1899. M. 1897-1899. Gesamtbeschreibung Gesamtbeschreibung der Kakteen, 1st der ed. VerlagKakteen, von J. 1st Neumann, ed. Verlag von J. Neumann, Neudamm. Spegazzini, C. 1923. Breves notas cactol6gicas. Anales Soc. Cient. Argent. 96: 61-113. Taylor, N. P. 1978. Taxonomy. In: R. B. Pearce, Forum: Echinofossulocactus. Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 40(4): 92-94. 1979a. A commentary on the genus Echinofossulocactus Lawr. Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 41(2): 35-42. 1979b. Notes on Ferocactus B. & R. Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 41(4): 88-94. 1980. Ferocactus and Stenocactus united. Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 42(4): 108. Tjaden, W. L. 1982. Proposal to conserve Stenocactus (K. Schum.) Berger (1929) over Echinofos- sulocactus Britton & Rose (1922) and other generic names (Cactaceae). Taxon 31(3): 570-573.

TYPIFICATION OF LINNAEAN NAMES NOW IN ANTHRISCUS (APIACEAE)

KrzysztofSpalik' and Charles E. Jarvis2

Summary Three Linnaean species names now recognized in the genus Anthriscus, Scandix anthriscus, Scandix cerefolium, and Chaerophyllum sylvestre, are lectotypified on material in Linnaeus' herbarium (LINN).

Three Linnaean species are placed in the genus Anthriscus Pers., Syn. pl. 1: 320 (1805). These are Scandix anthriscus L. (A. caucalis M.-Bieb.), S. cerefolium L. (A. cerefolium (L.) Hoffm.), and Chaero- phyllum sylvestre L. (A. sylvestris (L.) Hoffm.). These names are typified in this paper.

Scandix anthriscus L., Sp. pl. 1: 257. 1753. Linnaeus used a new diagnosis for the name, citing three polynomials in synonymy. There appear to be three syntype specimens. The first is in Linnaeus' own herbarium (specimen 364.5, LINN) and a second in the Linnaean Herbarium at the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum in Stockholm (fiche number 123.11, S). A voucher specimen for the synonym cited from the Hortus cliffortianus 101 (Linnaeus, 1738), Scandix 4, is in the Clifford Herbarium at BM and is the third syntype. The specimen in the Burser Herbarium (vol. VII(2): 46, UPs), although determined by Linnaeus as S. anthriscus (Savage, 1937), is not connected with the entry 'Myrrhis sylvestris seminibus asperis' in Bauhin's Pinax 160 (1623) cited in the Species plantarum. Therefore, we are reluctant to consider it as a syntype. Linnaeus also cited the plate 'Myrrhis sylvestris aequicolorum' in Colonna's Ecphrasis (1606) which is identifiable as S. anthriscus. The phrase-name in the Species plantarum is as follows: 'Scandix seminibus ovatis hispidis, corollis uniformibus, caule laevi', a more detailed diagnosis than that in previous Linnaean works (Linnaeus, 1738, 1745). The sheet 364.5, LINN is annotated 'Scandixfructis hispidis' in Linnaeus' handwriting (Savage, 1945) which corresponds with 'Scandix seminibus hispidis' of the Hortus cliffortianus (1738) and the Flora suecica (1745) accounts. This suggests that Linnaeus came into possession of this sheet before he started writing the Species plantarum account. The specimen bears both flowers and immature fruits. It corresponds with the protologue and with current usage of the name, and we therefore select 364.5, LINN as the lectotype of Scandix anthriscus (Fig. 1).

I Department of Plant Systematics and Geography, University of Warsaw, Al. Ujazdowskie 4, 00- 478 Warszawa, Poland. 2 British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

This content downloaded from 195.169.8.17 on Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:19:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms