Trying to Understand Eriosyce

[Grimm]

Earlier this year I bought my first Eriosyce, namely one of the types of E. esmeraldana. Rather than Eriosyce they came with Neoporteria as the genus on the label, which I didn’t think much of at the time as new names come and go. I have added more Eriosyce to my collection and eventually got around to reading up on what genus name seemed to be the most accepted and why. I read DaveW’s Chile Trip thread and loved the photos of these plants in habitat, and also found his decision to split the genus quite sensible. I wanted to read a little more though, so that I could try to make my own mind up.

I have now read, amongst other things, a pdf of “Reunion of the Genus Neoporteria” by J. D. Donald and G. D. Rowley which is published in two parts in The Cactus and Succulent Journal of Great Britain: 1966. For the most part their lumping of the old seven genera seems to be sensible as well, and the paper seems to form a balance point between the older over-splitting generation and the newer over-lumping generation.

But this still left me confused. The genus, or genera, have so many synonyms, sub-species, and varieties that I have little idea how many plants there really are. I’m not sure if it was DaveW, or DaveW quoting Ferryman, but it seems that at least one of the early writers gave a species or variety name to every minor difference he saw. I know that Ritter was immersed in the Chilean landscape for many years, and I assume that he became overly familiar with the plants and saw major differences where most of us would be very minor ones.
The lumping of everything into Eriosyce hasn’t helped either. I have therefore put the following together to help myself work things out, as I find it easier to remember things one I have written them out. Maybe it will be of use to other people, maybe not, but hopefully so.

I have listed out every species accepted by Donald and Rowley (D&R), then checked them against both Cactus Guide and Llifle to see if the species seems to still generally accepted or not (mostly not as far as I can tell). I have also added the Eriosyce that are not listed by D&R either because they fall outside of Neoporteria, they did not consider them to be a valid species, or because they have been found since. The only problem I’ve had is with Neoporteria subg Pyrrhocactus series C – Reicheocactus. I’m not sure exactly what cactus this was originally referring to, but it now seems to be considered part of Eriosyce/Neoporteria odieri. There is some confusion though with Echinopsis famatimensis (formerly known as Echinocactus reichii and Reicheocactus pseudoreicheanus).

I’m still not sure what I think, and know I need to do more reading, but D&Rs sub-divisions seem to make at least some sense. I’m hoping that breaking up the genus in this way, with illustrations, helps me (and maybe other people!) I have learnt that I like “Series A” the most! One thing I haven't done is separate off the taprooted cacti of "Series A" (aka Thelocephala) from the fibrous rooted cacti (aka Horridocactus). I have linked though to photos on the main site only so far.

Any suggested corrections are welcome

Eriosyce

Original Latin description by R A Philippi, 1872. Descripcion de las plantas nuevas incorporatda ultimamente en el herbario chileno. in Anales de la Universidad [of Chile]
Tubus calycinalis supra ovarium productus eoque longior sicut ovarium ipsum sepalis numerosisimis in lana densa elongata absconditis tectus, apice petala a sepalis bene distinta, numerosa cum spinis elougatis tenuibus mixta eademque lana stipata gerit, que tubam supra ovarium productum subæquant sed vix lanam. Stylus cylindricus, fistulosus, apice multifidus stamina aequans. Bacca exsucca parietibus tenuibus, semina innumera, gerens. Fruitex simplicis simus, carnosus, semiglobus, aphyllus, costatus, costis dorso aculeorum fasciculos gerentibus, ut in Echinocactis; a quibus difert: tubo elongato supra ovarium producto, apice spinas cum petalis gerente; bacca exsucca.
Original type species - Eriosyce sandillon (formerley Echinocactus sandillon, described 1847).

English description from Britton and Rose, 1922: The Cactaceae
A very large, globular to thick-cylindric cactus; ribs numerous, very spiny; flowers from the apex of the plant, campanulate, the tube longer than the perianth-segments; outer perianth-segments linear, more or less pungent; inner perianth-segments narrow, acutish; stamens borne near the base of the flower-tube, included; ovary densely clothed with matted wool; fruit oblong, becoming dry, dehiscing by a basal pore, very spiny above; seeds rather large, dull, black-pitted with a subbasal sunken hilum.
D&R demote the original type species, sandillon, to a syn of ceratistes which was described in 1837. Also considered junior is aurata/auratus which was described in 1847.

aurata
First described in 1837 as Echinocactus ceratistes then in 1847 as Echinocactus sandillon, both now seem to be considered invalid leaving the 1937 name Eriosyce aurata to take precedent.

Photo by Daiv Freeman of a cactus at the Huntington Library and Gardens, San Marino, CA

rodentiophila
First described as Eriosyce rodentiophila in 1980 although the name of Rodentiophila atacamensis was given without description in 1957 (nom. nud.)

Photo by Vicent Bueno Ripoll of a plant in habitat

Sub species, variants, synonyms etc

algarrobensis - Seems to be considered a syn of aurata
fleischeriana - A subs of rodentiophila
ihotzkyanae - Seems to be considered a syn of aurata
lapampaensis - Seems to be considered a syn of aurata
megacarpa - Seems to be considered a syn of rodentiophila
spinibarbis - Seems to be considered a syn of aurata

---------------------------------------------------------

Neoporteria

Original description by Britton and Rose, 1922: The Cactaceae
Plants globose to cylindric, sometimes much elongated and then sprawling or pendent over cliffs; more or less hairy at the crown; ribs usually straight, more or less tubercled; flowers from the center of the plant, short-funnelform, usually pinkish or reddish; stigma-lobes cream-colored to reddish; scales on the flower-tube bearing wool and long bristles in their axils; fruit as far as known small, more or less globular, dehiscing by a basal pore; seeds brown, somewhat wrinkled, tuberculate with a somewhat depressed hilum.
Original type species - Neoporteria subgibbosa (formerley Echinocactus subgibbosus)
Also included nidus (combined with senilis), occulta, nigricans [now part of curvispina], jussieui [now part of curvispina], chilensis, fusca [now paucicostata]
B&R also suggest that the following may possibly be included: castaneoides [now subgibbosa], kunzei, neumannianus [now Rebutia neumanniana], neumannianus rigidior, supertextus [now kunzei], malletianus [now Copiapoa malletiana], pepinianus [now Copiapoa coquimbana], and subniger [now Hildmannia subnigra].

chilensis
First described as Echinocactus chilensis in 1898

A photo of one of my plants - chilensis v.albidiflora FK192- newly purchased and young

senilis
First described as Echinocactus senilis in 1886

Photo by Jens Karweck of their own plant

sociabilis
First described as Neoporteria sociabilis in 1963

Photo by Süleyman Demir of his own plant

subgibbosa
First described as Echinocactus subgibbosus 1831

Photo by Daiv Freeman of his own plant

villosa
First described as Cactus villosus in 1839

Photo by Phil Crewe of his own plant

Sub species, variants, synonyms etc

clavata - Now considered a ssp of subgibbosa
coimasensis - Seems to be an accepted ssp of senilis
elquiensis - Seems to be considered a syn of senilis
laniceps - Now considered a var of villosa
litoralis - A var of subgibbosa
nigrihorrida - Now considered a syn of subgibbosa
nidus - Seems to have been re-named or absorbed entirely into senilis
rapifera - A syn of subgibbosa subs. clavata
robusta - Seems to be considered a syn of senilis subs. coimasensis
vallenarensis - Seems to be considered a subs of subgibbosa
wagenknechtii - Seems to be considered a syn of subgibbosa subs. clavata or a subs of subgibbosa

---------------------------------------------------------

Horridocactus
Sometimes also called Neochilenia or grouped with the Argentinian plants in Pyrrhocactus [/size]

Horridocactus ?Original? description, Backeberg 1938.
Dies sind die einstigen chilenischen Pyrrhocactus, aber ohne stachliges Ovarium wie bei den argentinischen, das Ovarium ist fast kahl, die Blüte ziemlich groß und radförmig. Nächste Stufe nach Pyrrhocactus? Geographisch sind beide Vorkommen durch die Kordillere getrennt.
Google Translate:
These are the one-time Chilean Pyrrhocactus, but without like the argentinian, the ovary is almost bare, the flower quite large and radoid. Next stage after Pyrrhocactus? Geographically both occurrences are separated by the Cordillera [a chain of mountains].
Type species: Cactus horridus (Echinocactus tuberisulcatus) - now known as Eriosyce curvispina

aspillagai
First described as Echinocactus aspillagai in 1929

A photo by Daiv Freeman of a plant at the Huntington Library and Gardens, San Marino, CA

confinis
First described as Pyrrhocactus confinis in 1961, although it was called Horridocactus confinis in 1957 without description.

A photo of one of my plants - newly purchased and young

crispa
First described as Pyrrhocactus crispus in 1959

Photo by Tini and Jacob Wijpkema of a plant in habitat

curvispina
First described as Cactus curvispinus in 1829

A photo of one of my plants

engleri
First described as Horridocactus engleri in 1959

Photo by Süleyman Demir of his own plant

heinrichiana

A photo of one of my plants - newly purchased and young

kunzei
First described as Echinocactus kunzei in 1846

Herman Olivares of a plant in habitat

occulta
First described as Echinocactus occultus in 1860

Photo by Andy Cook of his own plant

recondita
First described as Pyrrhocactus reconditus in 1962

Photo by Jens Karweck of their own plant

taltalensis
First described as Neoporteria taltalensis in 1955

Photo by Daiv Freeman of a plant at the CSSA Show at Huntington Library and Gardens, San Marino, CA

Sub species, variants, synonyms etc

aricensis - Seems to be considered a syn of recondita
armata - Seems to be considered a ssp of curvispina
atroviridis - Seems to have been considered a ssp of crispa at one time, now seems to be considered a ssp of eriosyzoides
calderana - Seems to be a cover-all term for pulchella and pilispina
caligophila - Seems to be considered a syn of iquiquensis, which is itself considered a subs of recondita
carrizalensis - A var of crispa
choapensis - Seems to be considered a syn of curvispina
chorosensis - Seems to be considered a syn of heinrichiana
deherdtiana - Seems to be considered a syn of heinrichiana
dimorpha - Seems to be considered a syn of heinrichiana
echinus - A ssp of paucicostata
eriocephala - Seems to be considered a syn of taltalensis
eriosyzoides - A syn or var of kunzei
floccosa - A ssp of paucicostata
fusca - Seems to be considered a syn of taltalensis subs. paucicostata
garaventae - potentially a subs/var of curvispina
hankeana - Seems to be considered a syn of taltalensis
huascensis - Seems to be considered a var of crispa
intermedia - Seems to be considered a syn of taltalensis
iquiquensis - Seems to be considered a subs of recondita
jussieui - Seems to be considered a syn of curvispina
limariensis - a subs/var of curvispina
maechlerorum - Possibly a ssp of aspillagae
marksiana - Some consider this a ssp of curvispina
mutabilis - A var of curvispina
paucicostata - Seems to be considered a subs of taltalensis
pilispina - Seems to be largely ignored, need more research. Related to taltalensis?
pulchella - Seems to be largely ignored, need more research. Related to taltalensis?
See thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=39491&p=335730#p335730 for the two above
pygmaea - A ssp of taltalensis
residua - Seems to be considered a syn of recondita
ritteri - Seems to be considered a syn of heinrichiana
robusta - A var of curvispina
rupicola - Seems to be considered a syn of taltalensis
scoparius - Seems to be considered a syn of taltalensis
setosiflora - Seems to be considered a var of heinrichiana
simulans - Seems to be considered a var of heinrichiana by some, a valid sp by others
totoralensis - Seems to be considered a var or subs of crispa
tuberisulcata - Seems to be considered a syn of crispa var. atroviridis or curvispina ssp armata
vexata - A var of recondita

---------------------------------------------------------

Thelocephala

aerocarpa
First described as Chileorebutia aerocarpa in 1959

A photo by Tini and Jacob Wijpkema of a plant in habitat

esmeraldana
First described as Chileorebutia esmeraldana in 1963

A photo of one of my plants

krausii - Note that there was another cactus within Pyrrhocactus called krausii
First described as Chileorebutia krausii, or Chileorebutia kraussii in 1959

A photo of one of my plants

napina
First described as Echinocactus napinus in 1872

A photo of one of my plants - newly purchased and young

odieri
First described as Echinocactus odieri in 1849-50

Photo by Gunnar Hatletveit of his own plant

spectabilis
First described as Eriosyce spectabilis in 2011

tenebrica
First described as Thelocephala tenebrica in 1980

A photo of one of my plants - tenebrica v.fankhamser FK402 - newly purchased and young

Sub species, variants, synonyms etc

challensis - A subs of napina
duripulpa - A ssp of napina, now considered a syn of napina lembckei
fulva - A ssp of odieri, now considered a syn of napina glabrescens
glabrescens - A ssp of napina, but once a ssp of odieri
lembckei - A ssp of napina
malleolata - a syn of krausii
mitis - A subs of napina, or just a var.
monte-amargensis - Seems to be considered a var of odieri
riparia - a var of napina, possibly extinct in the wild
weisseri - A var of odieri

---------------------------------------------------------

Pyrrhocactus

Original German description by Berger, 1929: Kakteen.
Rippen gekerbt; Areolen groß, mit vielen pfriemlichen, steifen Stacheln. Blüten rötlichgelb; Fruchtknoten beschuppt, mit weißen Wollbüschelchen und manchmal mit Borstenstacheln.

Translation:
Indented ribs, large areoles, with many awI shaped stiff spines, reddish-yellow blossoms; ovaries scaly with white woolly tufts and sometimes with bristles

Type species seems to be strausianus.
Also included tuberisulcatus (now considered a subs of curvispinus), curvispinus and centeterius (now considered to be curvispinus).

andreaeana
First described as Neochilenia andreaeana 1959

Photo by Joel Lode of a plant in a private collection

bulbocalyx
First described as Echinocactus bulbocalyx in 1937

Photo by Tony Marino of their own plant

strausiana
First described as Echinocactus strausianus in 1901

Photo by Süleyman Demir of his own plant

umadeave
First described as Friesia umadeave in 1929

Photo by Tini and Jacob Wijpkema of a plant in habitat

villicumensis - Previously known as Neoporteria melanacantha. There is an entry in Cactus Guide, but no photo.

Sub species, variants, synonyms etc

backebergii - Seems to be considered a syn of strausiana
catamarcensis - Seems to be considered a syn of strausiana
dubia - Seems to be considered a syn of bulbocalyx
kattermannii - Seems to be considered to be a syn of andreaeana, or vis-versa
marayensis - A var of bulbocalyx
megliolii This seems to be considered a syn of bulbocalyx
melanacantha - Seems to be considered a syn of villicumensis
pachacoensis - A ssp of strausiana
sanjuanensis - Seems to be considered a syn of strausiana
setiflora - Seems to be considered a syn of strausiana
subaiana - Seems to be considered a syn of garaventae
volliana - Seems to be considered a syn of strausiana
vertongenii - Seems to be considered a syn of villicumensis

---------------------------------------------------------

Islaya

Original Latin description by Backeberg, 1934: Blatter Fur Kakteenforschung.
Genus plantarum raro proliferantium, apex Iana Ianuginosa-tomentosa obtectus. Aculei grisei, pungentes. Flos ex apice lanuginoso, luteus, subparvus. Fructus cavus, ruber, seminibus nigris opacis anulariter ordinatis.

Interpretation (i.e. not a true translation)
Rarely offsetting, very woolly areoles with dark spines turning grey with age. Flowers develop from younger aeroles amongst the yellow apical wool. Hollow fruit, red, ?seeds? dull-black and usually oval.

Type species is islayensis (formerley Malacocarpus islayensis).

islayensis
First described as Echinocactus islayensis in 1861

Photo by Tony Marino of their own plant

Sub species, variants, synonyms etc

bicolor - Seems to be considered a syn of islayensis
grandis - A ssp of islayensis
krainziana - Seems to be considered a syn of islayensis
lindleyi - Seems to be considered a syn of islayensis
minor - A var of islayensis
omasensis - Seems to be considered a subs of islayensis

---------------------------------------------------------

Rimacactus

laui
First described as Eriosyce laui in 1994. An unusual cactus of uncertain placement, potentially sitting in it's own genus/sub-genus of Rimacactus.

Photo by Juergen Menzel from his own collection

[DaveW]

Great plants Grimm

I have not had time to digest all your post, but will try to deal with the Reicheocactus problem. Albert Buining did an article on the confusion which was reprinted in The Chileans in the link below. Reicheocactus has nothing to do with Eriosyce sensu Kattermann, but is a group of Thelocephala lookalike Lobivia's from Argentina, hence the confusion:-

http://www.grahamcharles.org.uk/Chilean ... ssue19.pdf

See also the following links for how similar to Thelocephala's that group of Argentinian Lobivia's look, but it is merely convergent ev0lution from occurring in similar habitats.

http://www.ibiologia.unam.mx/slccs/www/ ... esling.pdf

http://forum.bcss.org.uk/viewtopic.php? ... 2&start=10

Regarding generic and subgeneric names that have been used in the past for plants in Kattermann's Eriosyce. Just to confuse you even more I did this list sometime ago. Some were published in obscure publications, some are valid and some synonyms.

Edates.jpg (103.36 KiB) Viewed 5568 times

The Chileans is now a defunct organisation, but Graham Charles has made all their issues available for download here:-

http://www.cactusexplorers.org.uk/Chileans_home.htm

Regarding Eriosyce as a catchall genus for this group. I was told that the Chilean botanists now think Eriosyce sensu stricto is distinct from the rest having different fruits. You mention the 1966 Donald and Rowley Reunion. John Donald told me at the time, since we were then corresponding, that he thought Eriosyce should be included, but they left it out as being the oldest name it would cause too many name changes. As we now know Fred Kattermann eventually "bit the bullet" and made all the changes required.

However in not embodying Eriosyce in view of modern doubts it belongs together with the rest, it does provide a useful reunion for all the rest under Neoporteria instead, if Eriosyce is no longer considered closely related. Where I would disagree is including the Argentinian Pyrrhocactus sensu stricto, or sensu Backeberg. Probably this was done as Ritter used the "catch all" genus Pyrrhocactus for Backeberg's genera Pyrrhocactus, Neochilenia and Horridocactus, but kept Neoporteria and Thelocephala separate. As Roger Ferryman pointed out to me, at the time of the Donald & Rowley Reunion Eriosyce sensu stricto was virtually unknown to us in the UK, and certainly as a flowering and fruiting plant so probably D&R had never seen the fruits, but were familiar with the pink elongating ones of the other genera.

Backeberg originally invalidly published a genus called Chilenia, which I think from memory even contained Weingartia's (hope my memory is correct?) Anyway he attempted to re-publish it later removing the discordant elements as Neochilenia (neo = new + Chilenia) not realising that Bullock at Kew had already done it by coining an anagram of Chilenia = Nichelia. Therefore if you want to use Backebergs "Neochilenia" group the valid genus is Nichelia for it.

Whilst many species consistently produce tap roots, they are not always diagnostic since some Neoporteria sensu stricto sometimes do and have received different varietal names for that reason. For instance Neoporteria sociabilis FR 655 and Neoporteria sociabilis v. napina FR 655a also Neoporteria wagenknechtii FR 715 and Neoporteria wagenknechtii v. napina FR 714 (napina = napiform or tuberous root). According to Roger Ferryman the formation of the tuberous root in these species can depend on the soil they are growing on. Juan Acosta (Spiniflores) did some experiments on Chilean tuberous rooted plants and plants growing in purely mineral composts produced more tuberous root growth below ground, but less above ground growth, whilst those in largely peat based composts produced more fibrous roots, but much more above ground growth. Probably the reason the Continental nurserymen grow in peat based composts since it's top growth that sells not roots!

If I can help with any information you can always PM me, but I can't guarantee I will know the answers. Fred Kattermann's Eriosyce book is still one of the best treatments if you can get hold of it, but rather expensive even secondhand now. Ritter's 4 volume work as is Backeberg's 6 volume work are both in German and long out of print. I think Keith's Cactus Books in the UK has it secondhand though:-

http://www.keithscactusbooks.co.uk/

See also:-

http://doc.rero.ch/record/295148/files/800767.pdf

http://www.essexsucculentreview.org.uk/ ... t-2016.pdf

Edit: andreana is a true Argentinian Pyrrhocactus sensu stricto or sensu Backeberg. Not had time to go through rest yet.

Dave Whiteley (DaveW)

[DaveW]

The Argentinian Pyrrhocactus vertongenii and P. villicumensis are often considered the same species. They have a rather dark body colour.

vertongenii.jpg (97.52 KiB) Viewed 5561 times

You can download Lambert's book (in English) on Argentinian Cacti including Pyrrhocactus here and if you want save it to your computer for future reference.

https://www.cactuspro.com/biblio_fichie ... bertEN.pdf

[phil_SK]

The 3rd edition of the CITES Cactaceae Checklist should help you put the species names you've found into the groups/subgenera a bit better, so, for example, andreaeana (which you have with the Horridocactus group) is treated there as a synonym of strausiana ssp strausiana, telling you that it's a Pyrrhocactus, even if you don't agree with the synonymy. http://assets.kew.org/files/CITES%20Cac ... dition.pdf This publication should closely match the New Cactus Lexicon designations although, regrettably, all the Neoporteria, Pyrrhocactus etc synonyms have not been listed.

The timing of publication can be a factor that you need to consider when assigning species to groups - E. laui was first published at the same time as Kattermann was expanding Eriosyce and isn't necessarily a reflection of a close relationship to E. aurata and rodentiophila.

The http://www.ipni.org/ipni/plantnamesearchpage.do is a great place to check the validity of names. There are some omissions and incorrect inclusions but it is 99% accurate.

[Grimm]

Great plants Grimm

I'd say thanks, but they're not my plants They're photos that are on the Cactiguide main pages - I will put credits under them to clarify this. Sadly my collection is still too small and young. At the moment I have a curvispina var. robusta from John Henshaw's own seeds (BH 01.01), a pot full of curvispina seeds that won't germinate (FR225), three of the clustering esmeraldana (FK795), a "normal" esmeraldana, an aspillagae, a paucicostata that you helped identify, and a Thelocephala kraussii (aka odieri). I'm hoping to get a crispa soon to add to this.

Thanks to you and phil_SK for the links and suggestions, I will get on with reading up I already have a set of Ritter's 4 book set of South American cacti in pdf form, but I don't know any German so will have to spend some time translating.

[DaveW]

Yes though Kew was involved in the Kattermann book, in David Hunts later "Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives" Roger Ferryman made some changes to Fred Kattermann's species, which were embodied in Hunts "New Cactus Lexicon".

I was told when asked why if they thought Eriosyce did not belong with the others did they continue to include it? One botanist said "it was the fashion at the time to call them all Eriosyce". Therefore often botanists simply go along with the latest classification because it is the fashion and they don't want to step out of line until somebody else breaks ranks.

Your "kunzei" Grimm is gerocephala or senilis. These days nidus/multicolor/senilis are all lumped together since spination/spine colour varies from south to north and in the case of so called multicolor (named nidus on my picture) often different spine colours are found together.

nidus5.jpg (207.11 KiB) Viewed 5534 times

[Grimm]

If I can help with any information you can always PM me, but I can't guarantee I will know the answers.

I forgot to thank you for this kind offer

With regards to kunzei - Cactiguide has images which seem to show N.senilis. The Cactaceae Checklist has a question mark next to it, which I assume means that either David Hunt isn't sure what plant the name refers to or he isn't sure if it is a valid species. However Llifle shows what seems to be, from the photo of a flower, a Horridocactus type and call it a syn of eriosyzoides.
It was first described in the 19th century in Handbuck der Cacteenkund, and I have attached a screenshot of the entry - unfortunately I struggle to read Gothic writing and I don't know any German, so I can only pick out a few words here and there I tried to download the 2nd edition which isn't written in Gothic, but it isn't in the first volume and the link for the second volume seems to be broken. Are there any Germans reading this that would like to help please

Eriosyce kunzei.jpg (148.88 KiB) Viewed 5479 times

Edit: Using the second edition description of kunzei I have transcripted all but a couple of words of the first section of the original description:

Kugelig, etwas platt, grün, der Scheitel wenig eingedrückt und ziemlich stachellos. Rippen: 16, davon sind 4 nach oben getheilt, also 20, an der ?????? des ???? ziemlich spiralisch, oben vertical, zigebrüdt, stumpf, um die Stachelpoister verdickt, höckerig-gekerbt, unter den jüngeren Stachelpolstern spitzig hervorragend. Furchen scharf, spater ziemlich flach. Stachelpoister genähert, sehr lang und schrnal, auf dem Scheitel stachellos unbewaffhet kaum etwas schmutzig-weis-silzig, später nackt. Stacheln fast alle aufwärts-zergebogen, abstehend, in der jugend gelblich, an der Spitze hornfarbig, dann gran-hornfarbig, zuleβt aschgrau. Randstacheln 10—12, die untern kürzer, der unterste ziemlich gerade und nach unten gerichtet. Mittelstacheln 2 - 4, wenig länger und stärker.

Google translate:
Bulky, slightly flat, green, the crest little crushed and quite prickly. Ribs: 16, of which 4 are divided upwards, thus 20, at the ?????? of ???? fairly spiral, top vertical, tufted, blunt, thickened to the throat pits, bony-notched, excellent under the younger spine-pads. Furrows sharp, later fairly flat. Stachelpoister approached, very long and narrow, on the apex stiffly unarmed little dirty-white-silky, later naked. Spines almost all upwards-bent, protruding, yellowish in the youth, horn-colored at the tip, then gran-horn-colored, admitting ash-gray. Margins 10-12, the lower one shorter, the lower one fairly straight and downward. Middle spines 2 - 4, little longer and stronger.

[DaveW]

I can't translate German either Grimm, except laboriously with a dictionary.

But going from my shaky memory as I can't at the moment locate the data, I believe the original kunzei was said to receive occasional snow. From what Roger Ferryman told me Fred Kattermann considered Ritter's P. kunzei FR 220 from Sierra Hornillos 50km south of Copiapo was not Forster's plant since the area did not receive snow in winter, therefore considered Ritter's P. eriosyzoides FR 484 from Huanta to be it since that area does get some snow. However Roger Ferryman disputes Fred Kattemann's conclusions and says Ritter's locality does get occasional snow and agrees with Ritter the description fits better.

As with a lot of these old descriptions the original localities given were fairly vague and subject to interpretation.

My pictures of Ritter's FR 484, P. eriosyzoides from the Huanta location = Kattermann's kunzei are at the bottom of this link. Unfortunately I did not get to Ritter's P. kunzei FR 220 Sierra Hornillos location. E. kunzei and E. eriosyzoides are much larger and quite different to E. senilis/nidus group which are Neoporteria sensu stricto not Horridocactus/Neochilenias. You will get a better picture if you click your mouse on them to enlarge them as they were optimised for projection not web use.

http://forum.bcss.org.uk/viewtopic.php? ... es#p257281

Kunzei woud not be a synonym of eriosyzoides since it is the older valid name, eriosyzoides if considered the same would have to be a synonym of kunzei as Fred Kattermann listed it.

[Grimm]

I found a copy of the 2nd edition, 2nd volume on Archive.org. The description is as follows (note that this is not by the original author). Looks to me like it is closely related to taltalensis, depending on how representative the illustration is, and Copiapo is just down the road from Taltal.

107. Echinocactus Kunzei Foerst, Kunze’s Igelcactus
Nomenclatur. Von Förster dem vormaligen Professor und Director des botanischen Gartens in Leipzig Dr. Gustav Kunze (+ 1851) gewidmet.
Synonyme. Echinocactus Neumannianus Cels., E. supertextus Pfr.
Vaterland Chile, auf den höchsten Gebirgsrucken, bisweilen unter einer leichten, bald wieder verschwindenden Schneedecke, nach Labouret bei Copiapo, Provinz Coquimbo. Körper kugelig, etwas platt, grün, der Scheitel wenig eingedrückt und fast stachellos. Rippen 16, davon 4 nach oben getheilt, unten etwas spiralig, oben vertikal, zusammengedrückt, stumpf, um die Stachelpoister herum verdickt, höckerig-gekerbt. Höcker sehr zusammenfliessend, unter den jüngeren Stachelpolstern spitz hervorragend. Furchen scharf, spater ziemlich flach. Stachelpoister genähert (13—17 mm), sehr lang und schrnal, auf dem Scheitel unbewaffhet, kaum mit etwas schmutzig-weissem Filz besetzt, später nackt. Stacheln fast alle aufwärts gebogen, abstehend, in der Jugend gelblich, an der Spitze hornfarbig, dann graulich-hornfarbig, schliesslich aschgrau. Randstacheln 10—12, bis 4 cm lang, die unteren kürzer, der unterste ziemlich gerade und nach unten gerichtet. Mittelstacheln 2 bis 4, ein wenig länger (bis 5 cm) und stärker.
Eine ausgezeichnete und sehr schöne Art, 1844 in einer grossen Anzahl von Originalpflanzen eingeführt, von denen die kleinsten 8, die grössten 15 cm hoch waren, jetzt aber, wie es scheint, ziemlich selten geworden.
Die Blüthen waren vertrocknet und weder der Form, noch der Farbe nach zu beurtheilen. Auch die Früchte fanden sich stets zerquetscht vor, enthielten aber eine Menge reifer Samen.
Varietät. Echinocactus Kunzei β rigidior S., mit steiferen, aschgrau-braunen Stacheln.

Google Translate:

Fatherland Chile, on the highest mountain ranges, sometimes under a light, sometimes disappearing snow cover, to Labouret near Copiapo, province of Coquimbo. The body is globular, somewhat flat, green, the crown slightly depressed, and almost prickly. Ribs 16, of which 4 are divided upwards, at the bottom somewhat spirally, top vertically, compressed, blunt, thickened around the stinging oars, bony-notched. Cusps very coalescing, among the younger stingpods excellent. Furrows sharp, later fairly flat. Stachelpaster close (13-17 mm), very long and narrow, unarmed on the apex, barely covered with a filthy white felt, later naked. Spines almost all bent upward, protruding, yellowish in youth, horn-colored at the tip, then gray-horn-colored, finally ash-gray. Marginal spines 10-12, up to 4 cm long, the lower one shorter, the lower one fairly straight and downwards. Middle spines 2 to 4, a little longer (up to 5 cm) and stronger.
An excellent and very beautiful species, introduced in 1844 in a large number of original plants, of which the smallest 8, the largest were 15 cm. High, but now, it seems, quite rare.
The flowers were dried up, and were not to be judged either by form or by color. The fruits were always crushed, but they contained a lot of ripe seeds.
Variety. Echinocactus Kunzei β rigidior S., with stiffer, ash-gray spines.

[DaveW]

Not had chance to go through all my old papers yet. Will do so when I get time.

Note:- "Fatherland Chile, on the highest mountain ranges, sometimes under a light, sometimes disappearing snow cover (according?) to Labouret near Copiapo province of Coquimbo"

This is the problem with a lot of early descriptions their habitats are vague "on the highest mountain ranges" in the original description, but Labouret seems to have added Copiapo. The question is where did he get the information from, Foerster or somebody else?

[Grimm]

The question is where did he get the information from, Foerster or somebody else?

Exactly what I was thinking with this second edition description, and particularly the illustration. In my opinion (which doesn't mean much ) it shows a taltalensis or related ssp/var, and given that the other illustrations in the book seem to be very accurate I see no reason to doubt that it is an acurate depiction of what the illustrator was asked to depict, but does it portray the plant Foerster was describing? I haven't compared it to the text yet, nor have I compared the 2nd edition text to the 1st edition text.

On another subject, going back to my ID request that you identified for me as the green form of paucicostata, and you highlighted the issue with pulchella/pulchellus and whether the light spined or the dark spined plants are pulchella/pulchellus - Ritter only has a black and white photo in his book, as you say, but at the end of the description he points us to Backeburg's 6-volume set for a colour photo which I have attached here. I'm not sure if this confuses the issue or clears it up as it shows both the dark and light spined plants!

[Grimm]

I think I have a grasp on kunzei now, after seeing images of "kunzei var. transitensis" which has shorter, more robust, spines than eriosyzoides and therefore seems to match the illustration.

I've also done more reading, trying to get an idea of the original genera, and bought 6 more Eriosyce (and got another sent as a free gift, as well as a Copiapoa).

[DaveW]

Not had time to check the locality of Ritter's concept of kunzei, but Ilifie illustrates a plant from Balala, Elqui Valley that better matches the original kunzei drawing and appears different to Ritters eriosyzoides that Kattermann considered kunzei. Will have to check Ritter's localities for his kunzei and eriosyzoides when I get time, but am away at the weekend.

http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACT ... tus_kunzii

[Grimm]

I found an interesting diagram in Cactáceas Nativas De Chile by Florencia Señoret Espinosa and Juan Pablo Acosta Ramos. This shows the flowers of the sub-genera within Eriosyce.

Flower Types.jpg (52.9 KiB) Viewed 5245 times

This is the description that they give (translated from Spanish)

This genus belongs to the subfamily of the Catoidea, is found in Chile and Argentina, having a greater amount of species in our country. It lives from the Biobío Region, to Peru; on the shores of the sea, up to great height above 2,000 meters. The name of this genus comes from two Greek words, erion = wool and syke = fig, due to the fruits in the form of wooly fig. This is the case of the "sandillones", which have their fruits completely covered with whitish wool and are of fig form. But this characteristic does not belong to all species of this genus. What happened is that previously the genus Neoporteria Britton & Rose, included the Pyrrhocactus Berger, Islaya Backeberg, Horridocactus Backeberg, Neochilenia Backeberg and Thelocephala Ito, and in the last correction of this genre, "Eriosyce, genre revised and amplified" by Fred Katterman in 1994, the author was to group the aforementioned genus Neoporteria (with all the genera mentioned above) together with Eriosyce Philippi sensu stricto 1872, but since the latter has priority (antiquity) on Neoporteria 1920, by taxonomic rule, it was integrated the largest group in the smallest. Stems subglobular to globular or elongated, very variable in size, shapes, thorns, colors; also the spine; the floral tube is variable, sometimes naked, or with areolas, these in turn with scales, thorns, bristles or lanosidad in them. Fruits with basal dehiscence, where the seeds come out, with the sole exception of Eriosyce rodentiophila, which has no basal pore, and is closed or indehiscent. To detect the different "subgenres" of Eriosyce more easily, we leave a graph with the different types of flowers.

Edit:
The pulchella/pilispina issue is further confused in here, as they lump them into calderana (or maybe Ferryman does and they're following him, I'm not sure)

calderana.JPG (116.86 KiB) Viewed 5225 times

Rough/bad translation:
This species is found in the coastal hills from the south of Chañaral, to Cifuncho. In very arid zones, but with influence of the camanchaca. Its spine is very variable in thickness and color. The southernmost E. taltalensis ssp. pilispina, have hair-like spines, very thin, twisted and the color varies from black to whitish. The most northerly are thicker curved but less twisted spines ranging from yellow to reddish tones, these would be the so-called Pyrrhocactus pulchellus. The flowers also vary from the yellow-white to the carmine tones. The threats of this species are a mixture between the great dryness of the place and the collection by collectors

Edit 2:

Back to kunzei - the following photo is from a seller called "botanical-archive" on ebay, based in Italy. The same plant is shown on Cactus-Art. This corresponds well to both the original description and the 2nd edition illustration of kunzei, although the spines start off yellow-red rather than yellow, but the pattern is correct i.e. Spines almost all bent upward, protruding, yellowish in youth, horn-colored at the tip, then gray-horn-colored, finally ash-gray. Marginal spines 10-12, up to 4 cm long, the lower one shorter, the lower one fairly straight and downwards. Middle spines 2 to 4, a little longer (up to 5 cm) and stronger.

Eriosyce kunzei var. transitensis.jpg (89.13 KiB) Viewed 5210 times

And this is Ritter's kunzei FR220 (published by Backeberg as copiapensis, an old nom. nud. of Ritter's that Ritter later corrected):

Pyrrhocactus kunzei.jpg (89.87 KiB) Viewed 5168 times

Edit: Ritter's description:

31.) PYRRHOCACTUS KUNZEI (FOERST.) Y. ITO 1957
syn. ECHINOCACTUS KUNZEI FOERST. 1846
syn. NEOPORTERIA KUNZEI (FOERST.) BACKBG. 1935
syn. NEOCHILENIA KUNZEI (FOERST.) BACKBG. 1942
This species was imported from Chile in 1844 without a location and was first described by FORSTER in his handbook in 1846 as ECHINOCACTUS KUNZEI in honor of the then Director of the Botan. Garden in Leipzig, Prof. GUSTAV KUNZE. The plant exports from Chile at that time originated for the most part from COPIAPO. LABOURET, apparently describing the same species under the name ECHINOCACTUS NEUMANNIANUS 1853 (Monogr. Cact.), Cites COPIAPO as the place of origin and makes it synonymous with ECHINOCACTUS KUNZEI; but the publication under the latter name is the older one. I relate these two descriptions at that time in a way that grows as only PYRRHOCACTUS at COPIAPO and rises high in the mountains. This is in keeping with the old statement that he grows on the highest mountain ridges, where he is sometimes covered by a thin blanket of snow in winter. The flower was unknown.
SCHUMANN rediscovered a description of the flower in his monograph some fifty years later, but apparently he did not have the original KUNZEI, but a different species, as his statement of the largest diameter of the areoles of only 5-6 mm might not agree; for in the original description it is said of the areoles only: "very long and narrow", to which the dimensions taken by me from ¾ to 1 and 1/4 cm in length with 1/3 to 1/2 cm width better than that much smaller diameter taken by SCHUMANN. Schumann has thus probably taken the information which he has added in his description from another species erroneously designated by him as "KUNZEI." False determinations of this kind are extraordinarily frequent in SCHUMANN, so that one receives his determinations and synonymizations only with great skepticism may.

The species was published by FÖRSTER 1846 without illustration, 40 years later RUMPLER delivered a picture in the 2nd edition of FÖRSTER's handbook, but this seems to be the same as in the later flowering description, because the illustration is not true to the first description of this kind. The fact that the picture has fewer ribs could be due to individual variability, but that it shows rather small and roundish areoles is quite incompatible with the original. There is probably a copy of ECHINOCACTUS CURVISPINUS (BERT.) REMY, as in the same manual ECHINOCACTUS SUPERTEXTUS PFEIFF. as synonymous with KUNZEI is set, while he is said to have been an ECHINOCACTUS CURVISPINUS.

There is a second illustration, by PHILIPPI in Gartenflora 1882 on Plate 1082. But, as with most of PHILIPPI's species, there must have been a misidentification in this case as the plant does not match the original description. Moreover, the flower shown is smaller than in the species of Copiapoa, to which the original diagnosis fits, and it has reddish shades as well as yellowish, which does not exist there.

Therefore, there is no valid image or valid flower description for the identification of our species, and thus only the original description of the plant supplied by FÖRSTER is left (replacing the term "spine cushion" with "areola"): "Body globose, somewhat flat, green, the vertex slightly dented and almost stingless, ribs 16, of which 4 are divided upwards, below somewhat helical, above vertical, compressed, obtuse, thickened around the areoles, tuberculo-notched, cusps very confluent Fissures sharp, later rather flat, Areoles approached (13-17 mm), very long and narrow, unarmed on the apex, scarcely covered with dirty-white felt, later naked, spines (thorns) almost all upturned, spreading, yellowish in youth, horn-colored at the tip, then greyish-gray, finally ash-gray. the lower ones shorter, the lower ones pretty straight and downwards. Medium spines 2-4, slightly longer (up to 5 cm) and stronger. An excellent and very beautiful species, introduced in 1844 in a large number of original plants, of which the smallest 8, which were 15 cm high, have now, however, become quite rare. - The flowers were dried up and judged neither the shape nor the color. The fruit was always crushed, but contained a lot of ripe seeds. "

Since the above description in the manner of Copiapo well past and better than any of the otherwise known to me PYRRHOCACTUS species that could be detected in years of travel almost completely, and since LABOURET even for the interchangeable set by him ECHINOCACTUS NEUMANNIANUS Copiapo as the place of origin I do not hesitate to refer this ECHINOCACTUS KUNZEI to the PYRRHOCACTUS that I have identified with COPIAPO. The taxonomic backup then requires a rewriting according to the data recorded by me.

Body one by one, grass green, hemispherical, later a bit elongated, 7-12 cm thick, roots almost turnip-free, apex slightly recessed, stingless, covered by spines (thorns). Ribs 13-21, rather narrow, broad and obtuse at the areoles, 10-13 mm high, deeply notched; Humps in the age often preferred chin-like. Areoles white-tipped, 7-13 mm long, 3-5 mm wide, 10-15 mm free space. Spines (thorns) coarse, reddish yellowish or brownish, darkly pointed, soon graying, not flattened; 8-12 peripheral spines, 1-4 cm long, bent upwards, namely the upper ones, the lower ones the shortest; Medium spines in adolescence mostly one, in ages 4-8, in some places only 3-5, increased 3-6 cm long, strongly bent upwards. Flowering (registered 4 flowers of different specimens) 32-38 mm long, 30-35 mm wide open, odorless, closing at night. Ovary (ovary) green to brownish-green, with very small white flakes and vanishingly small, very short, same-colored scales; Fruchtknoten (ovary) inside something reddish. NECTAR CHAMBER tubisch, 3-4 mm high and as wide, with purple floor, top half closed by wall thickening and inclined against the stylus basal stamens. Rom. above about 10 mm high, below 3 mm wide, above 13-16 mm, in the area of the NECTAR CHAMBER outside a little constricted, ro. funneled, but at the hem a little bit retracted, outside brownish green with tiny, just above slightly larger narrow scales, the lower more green, the upper more reddish brown, and with small white flakes, with white hair bristles on the hem. Stamens (filaments) all slightly inclined towards the stylet, lower 7-8 mm long, upper 10-12 mm, bag pale lemon colors, are about from the beginning to 1/3 of the height of the petals (bracts, petals), insertions to about 4 mm under the hem. Stylish, carmine, 20-23 mm long, 1 mm thick, with 4-8 reddish, 6 mm long scar branches. Petals (bracts, petals) 15 to nearly 20 mm long, 4-5 mm wide, narrow below, long pointed top, white with broad red center stripe, the outer more red and with more brownish red ends, ends of the inner more white, petals ( Bracts, petals) bent slightly inwards at the bottom, slightly outwards at the top. Fruit reddish green, oblong, genus typical. Seeds about 1.5 mm long, 1.0 mm wide, 0.7 mm thick, sometimes smaller, dorsally strongly curved with stronger spinal keel, ventrally somewhat indented, black, dull, very finely tuberculate and secondarily roughly tuberculate ribbed; this secondary sculpture may also be missing; Hilum white, round-oval, basal obliquely ventral. Distribution west, east and south of COPIAPO. Before I identify with ECHINOCACTUS KUNZEI FOERST. I had this style as HORRIDOCACTUS COPIAPENSIS RID. nom. nud. designated. Under this name is a seedling picture of PYRRH. KUNZEI in BACKEBERG's Handbook, vol. 6, p. 3799. No. FR 220. Fig. 840 is a specimen from the SIERRA DE HORNILLOS, about 50 km south of Copiapo.

[Grimm]

The splits between the sub-genera seems to be based in part upon flower form, as I've said above, and I can see how the true Neoporteria can be distinguished by their narrow humming-bird pollenated flowers, but the split of the Pyrrhocacti seems over-stated to me - Backeberg states that with Horridocacti "the ovary is almost bare, the flower quite large and radoid" compared to the Argentinian plants, and in fact this seems to be his only justification other than the fact that the two groups are separated by a mountain range. If anything, the Thelocephala are more different! Here's photos taken from Ritter's Kakteen in Südamerika (hopefully it's okay for me to put up so many screenshots):

Eriosyce

Eriosyce aurata

Eriosyce rodentiophila

Neoporteria

Eriosyce subgibbosa subs. clavata

Eriosyce senilis subs. coimasensis

Eriosyce senilis var. multicolor

Chilean Pyrrhocactus

Eriosyce recondita

Eriosyce confinis

Eriosyce garaventae

Eriosyce recondita

Eriosyce simulans

Eriosyce taltalensis

Argentinian Pyrrhocactus

Eriosyce strausiana

Thelocephala

Eriosyce odieri subs. glabrescens

Eriosyce odieri subs. krausii

Eriosyce odieri

Eriosyce napina var. tenebrica