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
comment "although
"althoughequated
equated
with
with
C. C.
smithii
smithii
by by
Britton
Britton
& Rose,
& Rose,
is not
is thought
not thought
to be to
thebesame
the hybrid".
same hyb
But
But Otto
Otto and
andDietrich
Dietrichhad
had
said
said
that
that
their
their
Cereus
Cereus
mallisonii
mallisonii
"ist "ist
dies dies
wahrscheinlich
wahrscheinlich
dieselbe
dieselbe
Pflanze
P
welche
welche auch
auchunter
unterder
derBenennung
Benennung
Cereus
Cereus
smithianus
smithianus
in den
in den
englischen
englischen
Garten
Garten
vorkommt".
vorkommt".
Therefore
The
I took
took up
up Sweet's
Sweet'sepithet
epithet
and
and
published
published
xAporoheliocereus
xAporoheliocereus
smithianus
smithianus
(Heath,
(Heath,
1983).1983).
Nevertheless
Nevert
the
the rejection
rejectionof
ofArt.
Art.3232Prop.
Prop.
E and
E and
approval
approval
of Ex.
of Ex.
1 in1Art.
in Art.
32 Prop.
32 Prop.
D indicates
D indicates
that this
thatcombination
this combin
is invalid,
invalid, and
anda afurther
furthernew
new
combination
combination
is required,
is required,
which
which
is presented
is presented
below:
below:
x Aporoheliocereus
Aporoheliocereusmallisonii
mallisonii
(Otto
(Otto
and
and
Dietrich)
Dietrich)
Heath,
Heath,
comb.
comb.
nov. nov.
Basionym:
Basionym:
Cereus
Cereus
mallisonii
mal
Otto
Otto and
and 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.
Gart
12:
12: plate
plate 1.
1.1837.
1837.
The
The differences
differencesbetween
between
Cereus
Cereus
mallisonii
mallisonii
andand
Cereus
Cereus
smithii
smithii
are slight,
are slight,
and the
andlatter
the latter
can only
canbe
o
recognized
recognizedas
asa aform:
form:
x Aporoheliocereus
Aporoheliocereusmallisonii
mallisonii
f. f.
smithii
smithii
(Pfeiffer)
(Pfeiffer)
Heath,
Heath,
comb.
comb.
nov. nov.
Basionym:
Basionym:
Cereus
Cereus
smithii
smithii
Pfeiffer,
Pfe
Enumeratio
Enumeratiodiagnostica
diagnosticacactearum,
cactearum,
111.
111.
1837.
1837.
Type:
Type:
Edwards's
Edwards's
Bot. Bot.
Reg. Reg.
19: plate
19: plate
1565. 1565.
1833. 1
If this
this form
formwere
weretreated
treated
asas
a variety,
a variety,
then
then
thethe
final
final
epithet
epithet
of Cereus
of Cereus
speciosissimus
speciosissimus
var. hybridus
var. hybr
Hooker
Hooker would
wouldhave
havetotobebe
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): 7680, 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 Cactearum, 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 i
Monvilliano, p. 27, 1838.
Echinocactus ?[no rank] Stenogoni Lemaire, Cactearum genera novae speciesqu
in horto Monvilliano cultarum, p. 28, 1839.
Echinofossulocactus section Gladiatores Lawrence, Gard. Mag. (ed. Loudon) 17:
Echinocactus section Stenogoni (Lemaire) Lemaire, Hort. Univ. 6: 60, 1845 [vid
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 Echinocactus 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
23.
echidne
Echinocactus
Ferocactus
24. helophorus Echinocactus
25. h. var. longifossulatus Echinocactus
26. mirbelii Astrophytum
27.
harrisii
?
subsect. 2.
? i.
28.
29.
30.
oxypterus Ferocactus
ignotus-venosus ?
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
Echinofossulocactus, placed five in Ech
and Thelocactus. All the names in 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 generi
rank. In the summary of a 1979 article he stated "Echinofossulocactus names of recent usage ar
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 fo
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 Brit
lectotypification of Echinofossulocactus and also the Byles lectotypification of Steno
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
Echinofossulocactus in such a way that ceased to be an earlier synonym of Stenocact
instead a later synonym of Echinocactus. Hunt admitted "Since, taxonomically, E.
referable to Echinocactus platyacanthus, the effect of its designation as lectotype w
Echinofossulocactus Lawr. a synonym of Echinocactus Link & Otto, sensu stricto, and
it from contention with later names". This enabled Taylor to transfer all the species n
had previously accepted under Echinofossulocactus to Ferocactus, which he did on the
Hunt's article. Taylor announced "In my earlier paper I noted the close affinity of S
subgenus (VIII Stenocactus) to Ferocactus, and would have treated Stenocactus as a fu
of Ferocactus but for the priority of the genus Echinofossulocactus Lawr. (1841). How
totypification of Echinofossulocactus, and its placement in synonymy of Echinocactu
paper by D. R. Hunt), removes this nomenclatural 'spanner in the works', and allows t
Ferocactus subg. Stenocactus to be made here".
Glass and Forster (1981) commented on this sequence of events as follows: "Taylor ha
on a revision of Ferocactus in which he proposes including the Ancistrocactus, Sclero
cactus, Hamatocactus, Glandulicactus and Echinofossulocactus. The 'rub' is that if one s
Echinofossulocactus and Ferocactus, Echinofossulocactus would have priority ... an
to change all their Ferocactus labels to an eight syllable generic name. The ingenious solut
obligingly by David Hunt, was to propose changing Britton and Rose's lectotype from
to Echinocactus helophorus on the basis that Britton and Rose's choice was 'mechan
arbitrary' under the terms of the code. Hunt's choice, perhaps not mechanical but certain
E. helophorus just happens to be a synonym of the type of the genus Echinocactus, thus,
Hunt's proposals Echinofossulocactus becomes a synonym of Echinocactus and Taylor is fr
the species of Echinofossulocactus to Ferocactus, which indeed he did on the next page
The aim of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is 'the provision of a st
naming taxonomic groups . .' (Preamble 1). We are distressed to see what we consider
'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"
a valid, superseding relectotypification occurs, all Brittonian lectotypifications remain in forc
the Britton and Rose lectotypification of Echinofossulocactus remains correct under the Cod
superseded.
Conditions Required for Supersession Under Article 8. 1(c)
As the Code does not require Brittonian lectotypifications to be automatically rejected, it f
that they should only be superseded under certain conditions. Article 8.1 (c) does not state wha
conditions are, but they can be inferred by reference to the Preamble and to analogous Artic
Recommendations:
1. "This Code aims at the provision of a stable method of naming taxonomic groups, avoiding an
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 f
resulting from adequate taxonomic study or the necessity of giving up a nomenclature that is contra
to the rules" [Preamble 8].
3. "In the absence of a relevant rule or where the consequences of rules are doubtful, establishe
custom is followed" [Preamble 9].
4. "The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a tax
[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) demonstrate 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 o
and (iv) preserve current usage. To fail on any one count must invalidate the att
fication, and Hunt failed on all four counts:
(i) Hunt failed to demonstrate that there was any need to change the lectotyp
"there is no obligation to follow Britton & Rose's choice". Hunt arbitrarily chos
Echinofossulocactus but not Brittonrosea, Efosus, or Stenocactus, even though all
same type for essentially the same reason. Hunt mentioned four other Rosean g
arbitrarily chosen lectotypes, namely Nopalea Salm-Dyck, Consolea Lemaire, C
Discocactus Pfeiffer, but he did not relectotypify any of those four either. In i
reason for Hunt's relectotypification of Echinofossulocactus is the length of the
it as "The 19-letter long polysyllabic generic name" and stated that it is "a m
inconveniently long for plant labels and data-processing systems". He entitled hi
burial for Echinofossulocactus Lawr.", and concluded it with this epitaph "Hic ja
cactus, nomen genericum ignoranter generatum, diu ignoratum, denique effosum
sum. R.I.P." By analogy with Article 62.1, it is clear that selecting a generic name fo
merely because of its length is an invalid procedure, and such a relectotypificatio
as null and void. All other authors prior to Hunt's relectotypification accepted
Britton and Rose. These include Higgins (1933), Byles (1954-1956), Backeberg
Buxbaum (1974), Rowley (1980), even Hunt (1967) and Taylor (1978). As both H
previously accepted the Britton and Rose lectotypification, it is not possible
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
of a name of a species". Yet Hunt selected the name Echinocactus helephorus Lem
assertion "no type of Lemaire's species is known to exist". While Article 10.1
designated via a species name, if the typifying author states that the name has
nullify the choice. Thus Hunt failed to make a valid typification.
(iii) For Hunt's lectotypification to supersede that of Britton and Rose, Hunt m
choice is either less arbitrary or more closely in accordance with the protologue.
the -fossulo- element of the name Echinofossulocactus referred to the areolar g
"Lawrence probably took up Lemaire's usage of the word fossula from the latte
Cactearum genera nova speciesque novae in horto Monvilliano (1839). Here Lemai
nocactus helophorus Lem. as having 'areolae ... ad apicem in fossulam linearu
summum bifurcatum productae' ". This was the first mention by Hunt of his ne
made no attempt at this point to justify his sudden and unexpected choice. He d
species to which Lemaire attributed the same feature. A few sentences later, Hunt st
the areoles of the species of Lawrence's section I. Gladiatores, including E. coptonogo
elongate, the feature is neither obvious nor remarked on elsewhere in the liter
(1838) stated that his Echinocactus coptonogonus has this feature: "areolis im
statim decidua, instructis, et extra fasciculos aculeorum elongatis", and in his diagno
phyllacanthoides Lemaire included the phrase "areolis remotissimis; junioribus la
sursum elongatis". Clearly, Echinofossulocactus coptonogonus does possess the fe
maire applied the term "fossula" and consequently Echinocactus helephorus is no
However, previous authors (e.g., Higgins, 1933) have taken the -fossulo- eleme
furrows between the narrow ribs. Lawrence stated in his generic diagnosis "Surface a
These furrows are most strongly developed in Lawrence's first section, which in
locactus coptonogonus, although that species itself is angled rather than furrow
accordance with the diagnosis. Lemaire's Echinocactus helephorus was also angled
and therefore, in this respect, it is not more closely in accordance with the proto
The next element of the diagnosis to be considered by Hunt was the fruit. Hu
fruit of the lectotype must be downy, and claimed that "This, too, tends to restrict
eligible as lectotype, operating against the species nowadays referred to Ferocac
ocactus B. & R. which have naked, scaly fruits. E. coptonogonus and its allies als
than woolly fruits, though in some species the umbilicus of the stem is woolly". Bu
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. H
if we compare those sizes with those to be expected for the species in question, it is clear th
Echinofossulocactus coptonogonus was a mature specimen of flowering size, while the Echin
locactus helephorus was only a juvenile. Britton and Rose gave measurements of "7 to 10 cm
for Echinofossulocactus coptonogonus, whereas they listed Echinocactus helephorus under Echi
ingens, for which they stated "15 dm high, 12.5 dm in diameter (but reported by Karwinsky
to 6 feet in diameter)". Indeed, as Britton and Rose pointed out, one of the reasons why the appli
of Echinocactus helephorus is in doubt is that it was described by Lemaire from a juvenile,
flower or fruit, whereas Lemaire's specimen ofEchinocactus coptonogonus had flowered. Hence Ec
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 s
"When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the generic name, if correct, must be reta
one of them". They retained the name Echinofossulocactus for Lawrence's first section, whic
only one of his three sections which is entirely homogeneous. They thereby established the c
usage of the name Echinofossulocactus. Recommendation 7B.5 requires that any subsequen
typification should "preserve current usage" and that "the residue or part of it should be des
as lectotype". Hunt failed to select from the residue, and failed to preserve current usage; in
deliberately and openly perverted the current usage.
Hunt and Benson (1976) established that failure to preserve current usage nullifies a relecto
cation, when they displaced the relectotypification of Coryphantha by Benson (1969). They
"the choice of C. vivipara as the Coryphantha lectotype has very undesirable repercussions. It
mean that Escobaria would become a synonym of Coryphantha, the correct name of Escobar
Buxbaum would be Coryphantha, and another name would have to be found for Coryphanth
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): 105107.
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
TAXON VOLUME 38
288
Rowley,
Rowley,
G. D.
G.1980.
D. 1980.
Name that
Name
succulent.
that succulent.
Stanley Thores
Stanley
(Publishers)
Thores
Ltd., Cheltenham,
(Publishers)
GloucesLtd., Ch
tershire,
tershire,
England.
England.
Schumann,
Schumann,
K. M.
K.1897-1899.
M. 1897-1899.
Gesamtbeschreibung
Gesamtbeschreibung
der Kakteen, 1stder
ed. Verlag
Kakteen,
von J.1st
Neumann,
ed. Verla
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.
Brit. 40(4): 92-94.
1979a. A commentary on the genus Echinofossulocactus Lawr. Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 4
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): 570-57
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, Scan
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 ar
Scandix anthriscus L. (A. caucalis M.-Bieb.), S. cerefolium L. (A. cerefolium (L.) Hoffm.), and Cha
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 appe
to be three syntype specimens. The first is in Linnaeus' own herbarium (specimen 364.5, LINN)
a second in the Linnaean Herbarium at the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum in Stockholm (fiche num
123.11, S). A voucher specimen for the synonym cited from the Hortus cliffortianus 101 (Linnae
1738), Scandix 4, is in the Clifford Herbarium at BM and is the third syntype. The specimen in t
Burser Herbarium (vol. VII(2): 46, UPs), although determined by Linnaeus as S. anthriscus (Sav
1937), is not connected with the entry 'Myrrhis sylvestris seminibus asperis' in Bauhin's Pinax
(1623) cited in the Species plantarum. Therefore, we are reluctant to consider it as a syntype. Linnaeu
also cited the plate 'Myrrhis sylvestris aequicolorum' in Colonna's Ecphrasis (1606) which is identifiab
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, 00478 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