Another duff name?

[ralphrmartin]

I acquired this, and have passed it on, under the name Hildewintera 'Hot Lipstick' - yet it looks more like Borzicactus samaipatanus to me - any comments?

[Incorrect spelling corrected - thanks to Tony for pointing it out.]

[Tony R]

Indeed, yes, but samaipatanus.

[Phil_SK]

and a Cleistocactus rather than a Borzicactus.

[RayW]

That is not a closed flower Phil, it is a Borzi. flower.

[edds]

Time to print a new label! Thanks for posting it on the forum Ralph.

So, Borzicactus, Cleistocactus or shall I just offend everyone and stick Hildewintera on there!

[PhilipPV]

Go old school and call it Bolivicereus.

[el48tel]

Choose any one of the names. Regardless, it'll be back in fashion before too long. Don't throw away the old label, because that name will be back in fashion ......

[ralphrmartin]

and a Cleistocactus rather than a Borzicactus.

Not according to Joel Lodé's book which tries to detrmina names according to the latest scientific results (at the time of publication).

Taxonomy is supposed to be based on scientific principles, not popularity (or consensus).

[Phil_SK]

That is not a closed flower Phil, it is a Borzi. flower.

I disagree. It's quite similar to Cleistocactus winteri though more flared at the end than many cleistos. Have another look:
samaipatanus: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18847860 (I think this is subsp. divi-miseratus) or https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/139966928 (third photo)
cf. Borzicactus sepium https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/22621615
or Loxanthocereus acanthurus https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/140735138

Don't throw away the old label, because that name will be back in fashion ......

I think we can be pretty certain that Hildewintera 'Hot Lipstick' isn't going to come around again for this one!

and a Cleistocactus rather than a Borzicactus.

Not according to Joel Lodé's book which tries to detrmina names according to the latest scientific results (at the time of publication).

Taxonomy is supposed to be based on scientific principles, not popularity (or consensus).

I'd love to know what scientific results Joel used here because when I had a look through the couple of papers I know contain decent Trichocereeae cladograms I couldn't see this plant in any of them.
Geographically, it sits better with the cleistocacti, which are mostly east of the Andes, than with the loxanthocerei and borzicacti that are exclusively to the west.
The Cleistocactus synopsis in Bradleya (2016, 34, 148-186) includes this species in Cleistocactus based "the otherwise conforming characters, particularly the lateral positioning of the flowers." though it's not altogether clear what that means - the angle that the flower is held? Position on the stem of flower formation?
I agree that good classifications rely on scientific principles but there needs to be good science around which there can be a consensus.

[ralphrmartin]

I'd love to know what scientific results Joel used here because when I had a look through the couple of papers I know contain decent Trichocereeae cladograms I couldn't see this plant in any of them.

Did you see this paper?
https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... jb.1100288

It says "Species formerly placed in Borzicactus but transferred to Cleistocactus turn out not to belong there but instead to the Oreocereus clade), and future studies will have to investigate if other species transferred to Cleistocactus from Winterocereus (syn. Winteria and Hildewintera) and Bolivicereus also instead belong to Borzicactus."

Borziacactus samaipatanus was originally published as Bolivicereus.

Not a definitive conclusion, I admit, but wholesale transfer of Borzicactus to Cleistocactus was not right. Convergent evolution according to type of pollinators seems to have accounted for similarity of flowers. Morphology is not always a reliable guide to relationships.