, but also because it seems in need of organisation and decluttering. All the different species and forms on the market seem useful in a horticultural sense; but are rather haphazard when I look at it from a botanical standpoint. Any help would be much appreciated! I'm very interested to try and learn as much as I can about these cacti.Lobivia Taxonomy
Lobivia Taxonomy
Does anyone know of any works that have attempted to organize the chaos that is Lobivia/Echinopsis/Trichocereus? It seems there are quite a few species still being described, but I do wonder how many of these are actually valid and not just re-descriptions or differing forms? This group of South American cacti is of interest to me, partially because they are more difficult to kill than some of the mexicans , but also because it seems in need of organisation and decluttering. All the different species and forms on the market seem useful in a horticultural sense; but are rather haphazard when I look at it from a botanical standpoint. Any help would be much appreciated! I'm very interested to try and learn as much as I can about these cacti.
, but also because it seems in need of organisation and decluttering. All the different species and forms on the market seem useful in a horticultural sense; but are rather haphazard when I look at it from a botanical standpoint. Any help would be much appreciated! I'm very interested to try and learn as much as I can about these cacti.Buying a cactus a day will keep the madness away.
Re: Lobivia Taxonomy
Lobivia's tend to be very variable in habitat I believe. We get used to cultivating virtually a single clone and believe then that is typical of the species. In some cases both spine colours and flower colours can vary significantly within the same population in habitat and when sent back to enthusiasts in the past having no "in the field" experience they were often described as different varieties, or even different species.
http://www.theplantlist.org/browse/A/Cactaceae/Lobivia/
This is more Phil's subject than mine but you will find some cladograms in this work if you scroll down.
http://www.umsl.edu/~renners/Schlumpber ... JB2012.pdf
http://cactusclassification.science/lobivia/
http://www.cactusinhabitat.org/publicat ... nt2013.pdf
http://www.comune.pisa.it/apsn/Botanica/Lobien.htm
You can download Rausch's Lobivia books here:-
https://cactuspro.com/biblio/doku.php?id=en:rausch1
http://www.theplantlist.org/browse/A/Cactaceae/Lobivia/
This is more Phil's subject than mine but you will find some cladograms in this work if you scroll down.
http://www.umsl.edu/~renners/Schlumpber ... JB2012.pdf
http://cactusclassification.science/lobivia/
http://www.cactusinhabitat.org/publicat ... nt2013.pdf
http://www.comune.pisa.it/apsn/Botanica/Lobien.htm
You can download Rausch's Lobivia books here:-
https://cactuspro.com/biblio/doku.php?id=en:rausch1
Re: Lobivia Taxonomy
Nothing to add that Dave hasn't already listed. I'd start with Walter Rausch's 1975 trilogy. Although in German, the grouping of hundred of older names into species is clear and the photos are really good. The 1985 follow up refines the names slightly, unlumping some of his bigger species; there are more excellent pictures. There is a translation of it at http://www.royprice.name/ . 40 years on, Rausch's species concepts are still considered to be fairly sound.
Schlumpberger and Renner's paper looks more at which species are related to which, to inform how they might best be grouped into genera. Whilst some of the results were no surprise (Echinopsis leucantha isn't an Echinopsis) many others seem a bit improbable at first sight although they become less so on reflection. Some more investigations along similar lines would be good to confirm their findings.
I might have a go at putting together a rough checklist of likely names over the weekend if I get a chance.
Schlumpberger and Renner's paper looks more at which species are related to which, to inform how they might best be grouped into genera. Whilst some of the results were no surprise (Echinopsis leucantha isn't an Echinopsis) many others seem a bit improbable at first sight although they become less so on reflection. Some more investigations along similar lines would be good to confirm their findings.
I might have a go at putting together a rough checklist of likely names over the weekend if I get a chance.
Re: Lobivia Taxonomy
Thank so very much DaveW and Phil_SK! Those links look very interesting, and I will bookmark them so I can have a good read through when I get the chance.
Dave, it certainly looks like that this has happened, and one scroll through of succseed's webshop shows that there are numerous names documenting the variation within the species. I think one of the troubles for hobbyists is that if we grow several forms with habitat data, it can be difficult to figure out how their variation fits in with the geographical spread of the species. Unless you grow every possible form within a species, or extensively plot out a map, it is hard to see how one species can morph into another. This makes it hard to know when to draw the line.
Phil, thank you for that insight into the past taxonomy of the genus. It's really a testament to the methods of the previous taxonomists if their results can still be considered sound today with all the advances in genetic barcoding. I agree that a species to species approach is the way to go, but I also think that one with details like genetics and seed structure needs to be used alongside this. I will look forward to your rough checklist!
Dave, it certainly looks like that this has happened, and one scroll through of succseed's webshop shows that there are numerous names documenting the variation within the species. I think one of the troubles for hobbyists is that if we grow several forms with habitat data, it can be difficult to figure out how their variation fits in with the geographical spread of the species. Unless you grow every possible form within a species, or extensively plot out a map, it is hard to see how one species can morph into another. This makes it hard to know when to draw the line.
Phil, thank you for that insight into the past taxonomy of the genus. It's really a testament to the methods of the previous taxonomists if their results can still be considered sound today with all the advances in genetic barcoding. I agree that a species to species approach is the way to go, but I also think that one with details like genetics and seed structure needs to be used alongside this. I will look forward to your rough checklist!
Buying a cactus a day will keep the madness away.
Re: Lobivia Taxonomy
As with Echinopsis oxygona, the spiny form (oxygona) grows along with the "spineless" form (eyriesii) in the same population. Flower colour can be variable in a species, even though extremes of the species may have fairly stable colours. These pictures of Eriosyce chilensis, the first in the middle of it's range with the others from north and south of it illustrates the point, since one end of the range has a pink flower but the other a yellow white one, though mixed colours occur in the middle..
It is easier to seperate plants into workable species when they are in disjunct populations and don't form a cline (a continuous population that gradually changes one end of the range to the other). If so then it becomes a matter of opinion as to where you separate them into species or varieties, or if you just consider them all just a very variable species.
http://botanydictionary.org/cline.html
From a horticultural point of view though people may wish to grow selected clones for their spination or flowers. That is OK if we realise that may not be the only form of that species, or even typical of the population in habitat. In the past amateurs who never usually visited habitat often cultivated what was just a single clone of a species and considered any variation from that "standard species" must be a different species or deserving of being a variety. Now thankfully we see pictures of the plants in habitat and realise they vary and don't always fit easily in man made divisions of species and varieties.
You can also get variation caused by the habitat. In those cases, what are seemingly different species or varieties all become the same when grown in the same conditions.
http://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversity/ef ... owers.html
- Eriosyce chilensis.jpg (381.98 KiB) Viewed 6690 times
- Eriosyce chilensis2.jpg (259.29 KiB) Viewed 6690 times
- pichi2.jpg (478.27 KiB) Viewed 6690 times
http://botanydictionary.org/cline.html
From a horticultural point of view though people may wish to grow selected clones for their spination or flowers. That is OK if we realise that may not be the only form of that species, or even typical of the population in habitat. In the past amateurs who never usually visited habitat often cultivated what was just a single clone of a species and considered any variation from that "standard species" must be a different species or deserving of being a variety. Now thankfully we see pictures of the plants in habitat and realise they vary and don't always fit easily in man made divisions of species and varieties.
You can also get variation caused by the habitat. In those cases, what are seemingly different species or varieties all become the same when grown in the same conditions.
http://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversity/ef ... owers.html
Re: Lobivia Taxonomy
That picture of Eriosyce chilensis is very interesting, Dave. It was nice to put a picture to the idea that I had, as in Preston-Mafham's 500 cacti, he mentions this cline, and I have wondered how this would look physically.
I remember when I first getting into cacti I was confused by the lumping of my plant (Echinopsis multiplex) into oxygona- which was further made confusing by it having a closer affinity to eyriesii. The only major difference that my cactus society president could give me was that eyriesii had a white flower!
I took some time to read through the links you and Phil kindly gave me and I was amazed by the complexity of the genus! I had never considered that my favorite genus, Pygmaeocereus, was an Echinopsis! Although, now thinking about it, it does make a lot of sense. At any rate, I hope it stays separate from Haageocereus. Another interesting point I found from the cladogram was that E. mirabilis is very separate from the rest of the genus. It has always seemed somewhat of an odd one out for me, but this makes me more determined to continue to call it a Setiechinopsis.
The PDF from cactus in habitat was quite amusing to read through due to the constant denouncing of the genetic study! At times, the writing became quite rude and prickly (although, to be honest, this is to be expected from cactus enthusiasts!) As a splitter, I favor the division of Echinopsis into the 14 something different genera. In my opinion it makes more sense to recognize the obvious differences between them, rather than noticing the similarities which occur on an unnoticeable level. I can just imagine a first time cactus owner buying an E. oxygona and O. celsianus and being confused by the fact that they are both in the same genus!
At any rate, it looks like there is a lot more to this than I had originally thought, and after only about half an hour of reading, I have immensely expanded my knowledge of this group!
Many thanks!
-Robb
I remember when I first getting into cacti I was confused by the lumping of my plant (Echinopsis multiplex) into oxygona- which was further made confusing by it having a closer affinity to eyriesii. The only major difference that my cactus society president could give me was that eyriesii had a white flower!
I took some time to read through the links you and Phil kindly gave me and I was amazed by the complexity of the genus! I had never considered that my favorite genus, Pygmaeocereus, was an Echinopsis! Although, now thinking about it, it does make a lot of sense. At any rate, I hope it stays separate from Haageocereus. Another interesting point I found from the cladogram was that E. mirabilis is very separate from the rest of the genus. It has always seemed somewhat of an odd one out for me, but this makes me more determined to continue to call it a Setiechinopsis.
The PDF from cactus in habitat was quite amusing to read through due to the constant denouncing of the genetic study! At times, the writing became quite rude and prickly (although, to be honest, this is to be expected from cactus enthusiasts!) As a splitter, I favor the division of Echinopsis into the 14 something different genera. In my opinion it makes more sense to recognize the obvious differences between them, rather than noticing the similarities which occur on an unnoticeable level. I can just imagine a first time cactus owner buying an E. oxygona and O. celsianus and being confused by the fact that they are both in the same genus!
At any rate, it looks like there is a lot more to this than I had originally thought, and after only about half an hour of reading, I have immensely expanded my knowledge of this group!
Many thanks!
-Robb
Buying a cactus a day will keep the madness away.
Re: Lobivia Taxonomy
Unfortunately DNA Sequencing seems not a lot better than morphology at the moment for classifying plants, since different workers seem to disagree on the results.
Classification is really just putting things in handy boxes in order to sort and identify them. Morphology is simply sorting on how similar they look to each other and DNA Sequencing is hopefully trying to sort on lines of ev0lution. Morphology can lead to similar looking plants due to parallel ev0lution, though derived from different ev0lutionary lines, being lumped together (Rebutia and Aylostera for instance) whereas DNA can often associate very different looking plants together. Sometimes a morphological classification can be more use for identifying plants in the field.
See the arguments here:-
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_ ... ne_species
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25065484?s ... b_contents
Classification is really just putting things in handy boxes in order to sort and identify them. Morphology is simply sorting on how similar they look to each other and DNA Sequencing is hopefully trying to sort on lines of ev0lution. Morphology can lead to similar looking plants due to parallel ev0lution, though derived from different ev0lutionary lines, being lumped together (Rebutia and Aylostera for instance) whereas DNA can often associate very different looking plants together. Sometimes a morphological classification can be more use for identifying plants in the field.
See the arguments here:-
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_ ... ne_species
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25065484?s ... b_contents
Re: Lobivia Taxonomy
I've quite enjoyed doing this it has really made me think a bit about some of the species I don't know much about.
Massive caveat: it's my amateur guide and may be error laden. It's based on the list of species under Echinopsis in the New Cactus Lexicon, shuffled around according to the Schlumpberger article and the names he published as seen on the IPNI website with a few tweaks based on things I've read since and the odd personal hunch. Some of the required combinations haven't been published, eg Echinopsis sandiensis, published November 2016 doesn't have a combination in Soehrensia yet, even though I've put it there. I've had to guess where these and a few others really belong - so obviously likely candidates for being in the wrong genus.
A few other links I find useful, for photos, if nothing else:
http://kkplzen.eu/index.php/forum/33-Ro ... -od-a-do-z
http://kkplzen.eu/index.php/forum/5-Kak ... echinopsis
and, to a lesser extent, http://kkplzen.eu/index.php/forum/5-Kak ... chocereusy
also http://lobivia.pl/
Acanthocalycium If you wanted to include Denmoza rhodacantha and Setiechinopsis mirabilis in this genus they'd all need to be renamed as Denmoza (published 1920)
Acanthocalycium leucanthum Long suspected to not be a true Echinopsis on account of its odd flower.
Acanthocalycium rhodotrichum ssp rhodotrichum
Acanthocalycium rhodotrichum ssp chacoanum
Acanthocalycium spiniflorum
Acanthocalycium thionanthum ssp thionanthum
Acanthocalycium thionanthum ssp ferrarii
Acanthocalycium thionanthum ssp glaucum
Chamaecereus Very close to Soehrensia. Chamaecereus is the older of the two names, which is why nobody's merged them yet!
Chamaecereus saltensis ssp saltensis
Chamaecereus saltensis ssp schreiteri
Chamaecereus silvestrii probably extinct in the wild =Echinopsis chamaecereus, never E. silvestrii (a different sp.)
Chamaecereus stilowianus
Echinopsis
Echinopsis albispinosa I've seen increasing use of the name E. tubiflora for this sp. (I thought tubiflora was a synonym of oxygona). Easily confused with aurea when not in flower (they grow together, I think)
Echinopsis aurea ssp aurea
Echinopsis aurea ssp fallax the fierce forms
Echinopsis aurea ssp shaferi the slim, caespitose forms
Echinopsis breviflora Plants in cultivation as Lobivia sanguiniflora are this
Echinopsis callochrysea Until recently, thought to be an aurea form, possibly not that closely related
Echinopsis calochlora
Echinopsis chrysantha
Echinopsis haematantha ssp haematantha
Echinopsis haematantha ssp densispina
Echinopsis jajoana small, smooth, glossy black seeds... I can't tell jajoana and marsoneri apart.
Echinopsis marsoneri larger, rough brownish seeds
Echinopsis oxygona Nice article in Cactus Explorer No 8
Leucostele - the trees and spiny Chilean 'trichocerei'
Leucostele atacamensis ssp atacamensis
Leucostele atacamensis ssp pasacana
Leucostele bolligeriana Don't know much about this
Leucostele chiloensis
Leucostele 'faundezii' published 2012 as T. faundezii Don't know much about this
Leucostele nigripilis maybe the best name for Trichocereus coquimbanus, fulvilanus and deserticolus, which are problematic for various reasons
?? tacaquirensis Don't know much about this
Leucostele terscheckii
Leucostele tunariensis? (or --> Soehrensia?) Don't know much about this
Leucostele 'undulosus' published 2012 as T. undulosus Don't know much about this
Leucostele werdermanniana Don't know much about this
Lobivia
Lobivia ancistrophora Not included: L. arachnacantha
Lobivia arachnacantha
Lobivia backebergii ssp backebergii
Lobivia backebergii ssp wrightiana
Lobivia bridgesii ssp bridgesii
ayopayana might belong here/might be separate sp.
Lobivia bridgesii ssp vallegrandensis
Lobivia bridgesii ssp yungasensis
Lobivia caineana
Lobivia cardenasiana
Lobivia chrysochete
Lobvia cinnabarina
Lobivia ferox
Lobivia hertrichiana
Lobivia lateritia
Lobivia mamillosa
Lobivia maximiliana ssp maximiliana Central form with short, +/- unhairy flowers
Lobivia maximiliana ssp caespitosa SE form with long, +/- unhairy flowers
Lobivia maximiliana ssp westii W form with long hairy flowers
Lobivia minutiflora Formerly thought to be a small flowered form of chrysochete
Lobivia obrepanda
Lobivia oligotricha the oldest valid name for Lobivia acanthoplegma n.n.
Lobivia pampana
Lobivia pamparuizii Don't know much about this. One of several plants that has been confused with obrepanda, apparently
Lobivia pentlandii
Lobivia pugionacantha ssp pugionacantha
Lobivia pugionacantha ssp haemantha
Lobivia pugionacantha ssp rossii
Lobivia rauschii =Echinopsis yuquina, never E. rauschii, a different sp.
Lobivia rojasii L. calorubra may belong here (has been published as a ssp) Don't know much about this. One of several plants that has been confused with obrepanda, apparently
Lobivia schieliana
Lobivia tegeleriana the spiny flowered Acantholobivia tegeleriana
Lobivia tiegeliana
Reicheocactus
Reicheocactus bonnieae
Reicheocactus famatimensis
Setiechinopsis mirabilis --> Acanthocalycium?
Soehrensia - the bulk of what we knew as Trichocereus, the bristly-spined, many-ribbed large-flowered shrubs and sprawlers
Soehrensia angelesiae Don't know much about this.
Soehrensia arboricola
Soehrensia camarguensis Don't know much about this.
Soehrensia candicans
Soehrensia caulescens Don't know much about this.
Soehrensia crassicaulis (grandiflora v. crassicaulis)
Soehrensia formosa ssp formosa
Soehrensia formosa ssp bruchii
Soehrensia formosa ssp kieslingii
Soehrensia formosa ssp korethroides
Soehrensia formosa ssp randallii
Soehrensia formosa ssp rosarioana
Soehrensia grandiflora T. lobivioides might be distinct
Soehrensia hahniana
Soehrensia huascha ssp huascha Not as a ssp of grandiflora
Soehrensia huascha ssp robusta
Soehrensia quadratiumbonata Don't know much about this.
sandiensis described in 2016 as E. sandiensis
Soehrensia schickendantzii Quite variable. The plant we know as Tricho. spachianus may belong here
Soehrensia serpentina described in 2011 as E. serpentina
Soehrensia strigosa Looks like huascha when not in flower
Soehrensia tarijensis ssp tarijensis
Soehrensia tarijensis ssp bertramiana
Soehrensia thelegona
Soehrensia thelegonoides
Soehrensia vasquezii
Soehrensia volliana Don't know much about this.
Soehrensia walteri Confused with L. smrziana (a form of Soehr. schickendantzii?) They grow together and look alike when not in flower
Trichocereus macrogonus The type species of Trichocereus with few ribs and fewer spines than Soehrensia. T. peruvianus, chalaensis, cuzcoensis, pachanoi, T. bridgesii/E. lageniformis, may be distinct though I'm not totally convinced, and th long history of cultivation means we may never know.
Observations and criticisms would be much appreciated if anyone knows these plants well. I instinctively want to lump them a bit more into fewer species.
Massive caveat: it's my amateur guide and may be error laden. It's based on the list of species under Echinopsis in the New Cactus Lexicon, shuffled around according to the Schlumpberger article and the names he published as seen on the IPNI website with a few tweaks based on things I've read since and the odd personal hunch. Some of the required combinations haven't been published, eg Echinopsis sandiensis, published November 2016 doesn't have a combination in Soehrensia yet, even though I've put it there. I've had to guess where these and a few others really belong - so obviously likely candidates for being in the wrong genus.
A few other links I find useful, for photos, if nothing else:
http://kkplzen.eu/index.php/forum/33-Ro ... -od-a-do-z
http://kkplzen.eu/index.php/forum/5-Kak ... echinopsis
and, to a lesser extent, http://kkplzen.eu/index.php/forum/5-Kak ... chocereusy
also http://lobivia.pl/
Acanthocalycium If you wanted to include Denmoza rhodacantha and Setiechinopsis mirabilis in this genus they'd all need to be renamed as Denmoza (published 1920)
Acanthocalycium leucanthum Long suspected to not be a true Echinopsis on account of its odd flower.
Acanthocalycium rhodotrichum ssp rhodotrichum
Acanthocalycium rhodotrichum ssp chacoanum
Acanthocalycium spiniflorum
Acanthocalycium thionanthum ssp thionanthum
Acanthocalycium thionanthum ssp ferrarii
Acanthocalycium thionanthum ssp glaucum
Chamaecereus Very close to Soehrensia. Chamaecereus is the older of the two names, which is why nobody's merged them yet!
Chamaecereus saltensis ssp saltensis
Chamaecereus saltensis ssp schreiteri
Chamaecereus silvestrii probably extinct in the wild =Echinopsis chamaecereus, never E. silvestrii (a different sp.)
Chamaecereus stilowianus
Echinopsis
Echinopsis albispinosa I've seen increasing use of the name E. tubiflora for this sp. (I thought tubiflora was a synonym of oxygona). Easily confused with aurea when not in flower (they grow together, I think)
Echinopsis aurea ssp aurea
Echinopsis aurea ssp fallax the fierce forms
Echinopsis aurea ssp shaferi the slim, caespitose forms
Echinopsis breviflora Plants in cultivation as Lobivia sanguiniflora are this
Echinopsis callochrysea Until recently, thought to be an aurea form, possibly not that closely related
Echinopsis calochlora
Echinopsis chrysantha
Echinopsis haematantha ssp haematantha
Echinopsis haematantha ssp densispina
Echinopsis jajoana small, smooth, glossy black seeds... I can't tell jajoana and marsoneri apart.
Echinopsis marsoneri larger, rough brownish seeds
Echinopsis oxygona Nice article in Cactus Explorer No 8
Leucostele - the trees and spiny Chilean 'trichocerei'
Leucostele atacamensis ssp atacamensis
Leucostele atacamensis ssp pasacana
Leucostele bolligeriana Don't know much about this
Leucostele chiloensis
Leucostele 'faundezii' published 2012 as T. faundezii Don't know much about this
Leucostele nigripilis maybe the best name for Trichocereus coquimbanus, fulvilanus and deserticolus, which are problematic for various reasons
?? tacaquirensis Don't know much about this
Leucostele terscheckii
Leucostele tunariensis? (or --> Soehrensia?) Don't know much about this
Leucostele 'undulosus' published 2012 as T. undulosus Don't know much about this
Leucostele werdermanniana Don't know much about this
Lobivia
Lobivia ancistrophora Not included: L. arachnacantha
Lobivia arachnacantha
Lobivia backebergii ssp backebergii
Lobivia backebergii ssp wrightiana
Lobivia bridgesii ssp bridgesii
ayopayana might belong here/might be separate sp.
Lobivia bridgesii ssp vallegrandensis
Lobivia bridgesii ssp yungasensis
Lobivia caineana
Lobivia cardenasiana
Lobivia chrysochete
Lobvia cinnabarina
Lobivia ferox
Lobivia hertrichiana
Lobivia lateritia
Lobivia mamillosa
Lobivia maximiliana ssp maximiliana Central form with short, +/- unhairy flowers
Lobivia maximiliana ssp caespitosa SE form with long, +/- unhairy flowers
Lobivia maximiliana ssp westii W form with long hairy flowers
Lobivia minutiflora Formerly thought to be a small flowered form of chrysochete
Lobivia obrepanda
Lobivia oligotricha the oldest valid name for Lobivia acanthoplegma n.n.
Lobivia pampana
Lobivia pamparuizii Don't know much about this. One of several plants that has been confused with obrepanda, apparently
Lobivia pentlandii
Lobivia pugionacantha ssp pugionacantha
Lobivia pugionacantha ssp haemantha
Lobivia pugionacantha ssp rossii
Lobivia rauschii =Echinopsis yuquina, never E. rauschii, a different sp.
Lobivia rojasii L. calorubra may belong here (has been published as a ssp) Don't know much about this. One of several plants that has been confused with obrepanda, apparently
Lobivia schieliana
Lobivia tegeleriana the spiny flowered Acantholobivia tegeleriana
Lobivia tiegeliana
Reicheocactus
Reicheocactus bonnieae
Reicheocactus famatimensis
Setiechinopsis mirabilis --> Acanthocalycium?
Soehrensia - the bulk of what we knew as Trichocereus, the bristly-spined, many-ribbed large-flowered shrubs and sprawlers
Soehrensia angelesiae Don't know much about this.
Soehrensia arboricola
Soehrensia camarguensis Don't know much about this.
Soehrensia candicans
Soehrensia caulescens Don't know much about this.
Soehrensia crassicaulis (grandiflora v. crassicaulis)
Soehrensia formosa ssp formosa
Soehrensia formosa ssp bruchii
Soehrensia formosa ssp kieslingii
Soehrensia formosa ssp korethroides
Soehrensia formosa ssp randallii
Soehrensia formosa ssp rosarioana
Soehrensia grandiflora T. lobivioides might be distinct
Soehrensia hahniana
Soehrensia huascha ssp huascha Not as a ssp of grandiflora
Soehrensia huascha ssp robusta
Soehrensia quadratiumbonata Don't know much about this.
sandiensis described in 2016 as E. sandiensis
Soehrensia schickendantzii Quite variable. The plant we know as Tricho. spachianus may belong here
Soehrensia serpentina described in 2011 as E. serpentina
Soehrensia strigosa Looks like huascha when not in flower
Soehrensia tarijensis ssp tarijensis
Soehrensia tarijensis ssp bertramiana
Soehrensia thelegona
Soehrensia thelegonoides
Soehrensia vasquezii
Soehrensia volliana Don't know much about this.
Soehrensia walteri Confused with L. smrziana (a form of Soehr. schickendantzii?) They grow together and look alike when not in flower
Trichocereus macrogonus The type species of Trichocereus with few ribs and fewer spines than Soehrensia. T. peruvianus, chalaensis, cuzcoensis, pachanoi, T. bridgesii/E. lageniformis, may be distinct though I'm not totally convinced, and th long history of cultivation means we may never know.
Observations and criticisms would be much appreciated if anyone knows these plants well. I instinctively want to lump them a bit more into fewer species.