The Question of Echinofossulocactus (Cactaceae) Author(S): P
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 Plant Taxonomy (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 plants 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 genus (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- cactus subgenus Stenocactus Schumann. The Disposition of Echinofossulocactus Lawrence (1841) placed 35 species 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,