Eriosyce

All posts relating to the CactiGuide.com Big Picture Project
Post Reply
iann
Posts: 17184
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: England

Eriosyce

Post by iann »

I was reading the description for this genus today and felt it didn't completely capture the complexities of this genus in its enlarged form.

Eriosyce is currently divided into five groups, I think they are all now named as subgenera: Eriosyce; Horridocactus; Neoporteria; Islaya; Pyrrhocactus; and Thelocephala now renamed Chileonapina. These cover a wide variety of body forms, spination, flowers, and geography, all loosely grouped by similar expanding hollow fruits.

Eriosyce was originally a fairly narrowly defined genus with just a handful of species. They are moderately large globular cacti from the Andean foothills of Chile, strongly spined, quite slow growing, and with touchy roots. All of them are now combined into E. aurata. There is also another species in the subgenus, E. rodentiophila, which includes two or three species once placed in the genus Rodentiophila. These were already lumped together by Ritter even before Katterman came along to enlarge Eriosyce.

Islaya was a genus of perhaps two dozen names scattered across Peru and into northern Chile. All are now included in the single species E. islaya. E. iquiquensis (formerly E. recondita ssp iquiquensis), the odd E. laui, and the new E. caligophila (quickly lumped into E. iquiquensis) have also been placed in subgenus Islaya. Like subgenus Eriosyce, these are moderately large plants, but slow growing and not easy in cultivation. More than anything else they seem to dislike being disturbed.

Subgenus Pyrrhocactus is restricted to a handful of fairly large species from Argentina. Ritter expanded the genus Pyrrhocactus to include many of the Chilean species now called Eriosyce and so there are dozens of Pyrrhocactus names that you might come across, but it is becoming rare to find it used for anything other than the Argentinian plants. They're surprisingly variable and scattered across a large area.

Thelocephala is a fairly recognisable name for some fairly recognisable plants, flat with large taproots. They are now reduced to three species with 8-10 subspecies, each one occupying a separate foggy valley along the Chilean coast. The subgenus has recently been renamed Chileonapina because that was the name of a subgenus of Hildmannia with type species H. napina, before Thelocephala even existed.

Neoporteria is perhaps the most recognisable name now included under Eriosyce. Like Pyrrhocactus, it has previously been used for a lumping of many of the plants now called Eriosyce. Nearly all the Chilean Eriosyce species have a Neoporteria synonym or two. Subgenus Neoporteria only includes those species with distinctive hummingbird pollinated flowers. These have a unique colour and shape and also stay open at night. They are mostly small globular plants although they can become cylindrical with age.

That leaves Horridocactus, a complex subgenus still with about as many species as the rest of Eriosyce combined. They can appear very similar to Neoporterias but have different flowers, widely opening in pale shades, often scented, and only opening during the day. Some species have intermediate flowers with Neoporteria, pinkish or somewhat closed. The name has never been popular and members of this subgenus will still usually be seen with names like Neoporteria or Neochilenia.

I don't fully understand the reason behind all the historical names that are now included in Eriosyce. Chilenia, Neochilenia, Malacocarpus, Hildmannia, and Chileorebutia, have come and gone, grouping species by various characters no longer considered significant such as the ability to produce multiple flowers per areole.
--ian
User avatar
CoronaCactus
Posts: 10421
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 6:16 pm
Location: Corona, California USA [Zone 10]
Contact:

Post by CoronaCactus »

Great info, thanks for posting.

I remember reading an article in the CSSA journal by Elton Roberts. In where he says the plants with hummingbird type flowers are Neoporteria and those that open wide are Neochilenia. I'm not sure how accurate this is, but it helped me to atleast distinguish between them easier or at least place them with a somewhat educated guess.
iann
Posts: 17184
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: England

Post by iann »

Neochilenia was one of Backeberg's attempts to impose order on all those Chilean plants. It has a complicated history, but as a fairly recent name it has been ignored in later lumpings.

Backeberg's first attempt seems to have been Chilenia, but I think it was invalidly published, or perhaps just very poorly researched and documented. At the same time the even more obscure Nichelia was published for some of the same plants. Neochilenia was a second and more comprehensive attempt and it covered most of the plants now in subgenus Chileonapina and Horridocactus, plants with pale fully opening flowers. I don't know if there was any particular rationale beyond that. All those Chilean Eriosyce plants are clearly different from Copiapoas and there isn't much else to confuse them with.

Neoporteria as originally conceived by Britton & Rose included both the hummingbird-pollinated plants we have today in subgenus Neoporteria, and also the plants that Backeberg placed in Neochilenia. Neoporteria was enlarged by Donald & Rowley and then by Ferryman, very much a precursor to Eriosyce. So nearly all the plants in subgenus Neoporteria, Chileonapina (Thelocephala), Horridocactus, and Islaya, including everything that has been called Neochilenia, have also been called Neoporteria at some point in the past. I prefer only to use the name Neoporteria to refer to the hummingbird-pollinated species, and not to use Neochilenia at all since it refers to two distinct groups of plants that now have separate names.

As an example of some difficulties, I have a plant that came labelled as Neochilenia chorosensis. This is a Backeberg name for plants from the Choros valley. It has large open red flowers (not hummingbird-red and not narrow hummingbird-shape) on a small dark body, and was included by Donald & Rowley as Neoporteria chorosensis. Curiously, the first publication was by Ritter as Pyrrhocactus chorosensis (Ritter's Pyrrhocactus was another early attempt at an Eriosyce-style lumping). It is now included in Eriosyce heinrichiana and so in subgenus Horridocactus although the name Horridocactus chorosensis has never been published. I am without a useful valid name for this plant. Eriosyce heinrichiana is correct but does not distinguish it from other very different forms of E. heinrichiana. Neoporteria chorosensis and Pyrrhocactus chorosensis are unsatisfactory because they imply that it either has hummingbird-purple flowers or is a large Argentinian plant. Elton would just call it Neochilenia chorosensis and be happy, but that is a name with no meaning within the current classification.Image
--ian
User avatar
Jens
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:47 pm
Location: coastal northern Germany

Post by Jens »

That is the problem with plants that come with no locality of origin wich can be trusted.
The plants that are bought (or traded from other collectors) might be selected by means of color of flowers or neatness of spination, they might also be the result of accidential hybridisation.
I think Friedrich Ritters is reliable in the matter of field work and descripition of discovered plants but is not in the matter of classification of his discoveries.
At least Katterman found all the species he described by use of the field work done by Ritter as stated in the foreword of the book.
So If we look at the descripion of Ritters Pyrrhocactus chorosensis it is said to be found in the Choros Valley north of la Serena and on the Hills near the El Tofo mine. To compare it with Kattermans Eriosyce heinrichiana it should be interesting to take a look at the plants of FK 176 and FK 177 (east of mina El Tofo), and FK 470 (East of choros Bajos)to compare for resemblance.
Unfortunately I have none of those species in my collection.- But maybe someone else does?
EDit: I just found some nice pictures taken by Fred Kattermann himself on the succseed webpage
http://www.succseed.com/

Eriosyce: The wooly fig
Image
Post Reply