Cactus and Succulent Review

[Sheila]

Hi,

Just to let you know that the December issue of the Cactus and Succulent Review is now available at https://www.cactusandsucculentreview.org.uk/

This month I am pleased to include an item on Gymnocallycium cabreraense which is a comparatively new discovery. Other items include a review of 'Cleistocactus – an updated summary', a Kaktusy Special issue written by Martin Lowry. The English version should be available through the BCSS.

In addition I have items on Dudleya, an introduction to some caudiciforms and pachycauls and the genus Weberocereus and more besides of course.

I hope that you will enjoy this issue.

Best wishes,

[iann]

Always look forward to this. I especially liked the Dudleya article; looks like there are a lot more changes coming to keep up with in this genus.

[Paul in Essex]

Another cracking read - thanks Sheila!

[Tony R]

Excellent! Many thanks to Sheila and her authors. A very informative issue.

[Phil_SK]

I'm only just getting stuck into this today. I'm pleased to see Colin Walker taking hildewintera by the scruff of the neck and manoeuvring it towards the exit - good riddance! I'm surprised that he places 'Andre Mora' in × Cleistoborzicactus, however, as I think 'Helm's Neue' is a hybrid of Cleistocactus winteri and Chamaecereus silvestrii, so a × Cleistochamaecereus rather than a Cleistocactus. I can't find a published hybrid genus name for 'Andre Mora', either of the borzeistochamaecereus mash-up type or the [name]-ara type. Does anyone know of one?

[RayW]

Hi Phil; Maarten van de Meer in his paper had a cross between a Cleisto/Borzicactus and silvestrii and the new Nothogenera was X Chamaezicactus.
Hope this helps.
PS. yes I was glad to see hildewintera put into the right place ( the waste bin )

[Phil_SK]

Is that in one of his Cactologia Phantastica? I don't think I've got that edition (I have 1-7). × Chamaezicactus is an older name, from 2003, for a Paulo Panarotto hybrid they called × Chamaezicactus cintiae (I have a strange chamaelobivia called 'cintia' which I wonder might be this - I know it's a Panarotto hybrid).

× Chamaezicactus is fine as a genus for a hybrid involving Chamaecereus and Borzicactus but no good for one involving the three: Chamaecereus, Cleistocactus, Borzicactus.

[SimonT]

I enjoyed reading the latest issue of Cactus and Succulent Review.

In terms of the intergeneric hybrids 'wrongly known as Hildewintera', I think the nomenclature is only part
of the issue. Surely if these are being generated (and especially if hybrids are fertile) then this suggests it is time for
some 'lumping'? It seems odd that these can generated abundantly in the first place?
Also, I don't see how nothogeneric names capture the true relationship of hybrids to their parental species?
If a hybrid was fertile, then you could backcross until almost all the genetic contribution of one parent had
vanished or you could have 50% contribution to the genetics from both parents- would these have the same
name? They would have almost completely different genetics.

[Phil_SK]

Surely if these are being generated (and especially if hybrids are fertile) then this suggests it is time for some 'lumping'?

It has been done (based on molecular studies rather than hybridisation trials) within the last decade, with Harrisia, Arthrocereus, Leucostele, Cleistocactus, Mila, Trichocereus, Lobivia, Soehrensia, Denmoza, Borzicactus, Reicheocactus, Acanthocalycium, Oreocereus, Pygmaeocereus, Matucana (inc. Oroya), Haageocereus, Espostoa, Rauhocereus, Weberbauerocereus, Yungasocereus, Samaipaticereus, Chamaecereus and Setiechinopsis all being lumped into Echinopsis, though it hasn't caught on. That would make 'Andre Mora' an Echinopsis hybrid.

Also, I don't see how nothogeneric names capture the true relationship of hybrids to their parental species? If a hybrid was fertile, then you could backcross until almost all the genetic contribution of one parent had vanished or you could have 50% contribution to the genetics from both parents- would these have the same name? They would have almost completely different genetics.

I agree, but I don't think there's any way of capturing that subtlety. This type of naming, of complex and repeated crosses, is, as Colin points out in the article, common in the orchid world and I suppose they just accept that that's how it is.

[edds]

Except while they have complex hybrid names for various orchidaceae, people usually refer to them as a group name, such as Cattleya hybrids, that reflect their often similar cultivation requirements. I have a bunch of Odontoglossum hybrids and none of them are officially Odontoglossum, but everyone who grows them would know what I meant! I think Hildewintera is a similar state of affairs - not accurate but many people would recognise one if they saw it!

(I've not read this issue yet as work has been rather intense!)