BCSS - Forum

Found this handy Wikipedia list whilst browsing for something else containing new cactus names and combinations for 2005-2011 which updates most new names since the New Cactus Lexicon:-

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... binationen

What about Banfiopuntia for verschaffeltii. and you could call your O. pachypus a Peruviopuntia.

DaveW

First time I have run down the list, but amazed to see that Halda & Malina in 2005 put what looks like a lot of, if not all the Frailea's into Astrophytum! I presume from the visual similarity of the seed, which could just be convergent evolution unless backed up by DNA Sequencing. I don't think too many of us will follow them without further DNA evidence.

DaveW

Nice to see that both Andinopuntia lagopus : Guiggi , and Punotia lagopus : D R Hunt have now been published .

I can see that we still have years left of new descriptions , genetic redesignation , subsumed species to keep us all on our toe s

DaveW wrote:First time I have run down the list, but amazed to see that Halda & Malina in 2005 put what looks like a lot of, if not all the Frailea's into Astrophytum! I presume from the visual similarity of the seed, which could just be convergent evolution unless backed up by DNA Sequencing. I don't think too many of us will follow them without further DNA evidence.

DaveW

I came across their paper when I was looking for some of their Sulcorebutia combinations.

Thanks Phil.

DaveW

I came across their paper when I was looking for some of their Sulcorebutia combinations.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This particular lumping of Frailea into Astrophytum has no merit and is contradicted by almost everything else ever published on the subject. I predict that it won't catch on.

Some of the other new names are more interesting. I hadn't realised that Eriosyce megliolii was such a new name.

Eriosyce megliolii is just a new combination Ian. It was originally described as Pyrrhocactus megliolii by Rausch in 1974. Fred Kattermann reduced it to synonymy under E bulbocalyx, so no combination existed until recently under Eriosyce if you wanted to retain it as a species in that genus.

There is an RMF picture of it in my post here:-

http://www.bcss.org.uk/foruma/viewtopic ... 62&start=0

One of the best looking Pyrrhocactus along with P. umadeave I think. I have a small grafted one from Graham Charles on Trichocereus spachianus which though only 2" across and about 1.5" high on the graft has flowered well and has the typical bluish-grey body. Perhaps we should graft Pyrrhocactus sensu Backeberg if we want them to flower small?

DaveW

lobman wrote:Nice to see that both Andinopuntia lagopus : Guiggi , and Punotia lagopus : D R Hunt have now been published

No problem, the type of Andinopuntia is A. floccosa, while the type of Punotia is P. lagopus

I would call them all just Opuntia. Would save quite a few name changes. Then the experts could argue about classifying them under the correct subgenus, section, series, etc.

Cheers,

Marlon Machado.

I also notice Faundez & Kiesling gave Kattermann's E. occulta a new name:-

"Pyrrhocactus philippianus Faúndez, nom. nov.
Eriosyce occulta Katt., Eriosyce (Cactac.) gen.
revis. & ampl. (Succ. Pl. Res. 1): 119. 1994,
non P. occultus (K. Schum.) F. Ritter, Succulenta
1959: 131. 1959. TIPO: Chile, Antofagasta,
Taltal, Breas, F. Kattermann 391 (holotipo
DBG no visto)."

Evidently they did not consider it the same as Schumann's plant. If I remember correctly Philippi, who originally coined the name, gave the range of his occulta as from Copiapo to Cobre so it took in possibly what we would now consider other species of cryptic "earth cacti" that pull down into the ground in the dry periods, possibly some of the Thelocephala's along that coastal region, though Fred Katterman thought it might be an older name for E. heinrichiana.

The Breas locality is down to Soehrens who seemingly first sent plants to Europe under this name. No doubt the argument as to what was Philippi's occulta will rumble on forever. Always a problem when no type species exist to compare, plus collection localities are very vague. Perhaps GPS coordinates rather than Latin diagnoses ought to now be mandatory for all new descriptions filed along with the type?

DaveW

P. occultus is a pretty dubious name, or at least what it applies to is dubious. With all the conniptions it has gone through to reach E. occulta, perhaps well worth dropping it though. The previous use of P. occultus for a different plant pretty much rules it out anyway.

Going back to a large Pyrrhocactus genus covering both large Argentianian and small Chilean plants does not seem productive though. Shame I don't have their reasoning for this, or the context within which they are doing it. Presumably they have a world view where Pyrrhocactus is still a meaningful genus.