Trying to Understand Eriosyce

[DaveW]

Since Kattermann's book, Nyffeler & Eggli reviewed his work on Eriosyce which may interest you:-

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... mFfr_fYpC9

Some quotes from it:-

THELO1.jpg (95.73 KiB) Viewed 1661 times

THELO2.jpg (196.42 KiB) Viewed 1661 times

[Grimm]

I finally got around to reading the above paper!

As a summary - the main "new" work was microscopic/cellular level characterisation of the genus from both habitat and greenhouse/glasshouse plants. Other features were analysed as well, with the results put through mathematical analysis.

The work strongly supports the old Thelocephala subgenus rather than Kattermann's Chiliosyce, putting E.napina and E.odieri back with their tiny relatives. Similarly E.chilensis fits comfortably within Neoporteria despite its flower form, with features present that would exclude it from other sub-genera.

E.islayensis and E.laui are both still outliers that don't fit comfortably within any of the subgenera of Eriosyce.

Horridocactus looks like it needs more work, especially as the authors struggled to get enough samples of some of the species to include them in the study (E.crispa and E.occulta for example were not in the study).
As you would expect E.kunzei/eriosyzoides, E.curvispina and E.marksiana all group together.
E.taltalensis sits on it's own, as close to the Thelocephala as it is to the Horridocacti.
E.heinrichiana and E.aspillagai are also in slightly confused positions.

E.taltalensis ssp paucicostata is surprisingly different at a microscopic level to E.taltalensis itself and so there is an argument here to raise it back to species level.

There is a hint that Pyrrhocactus may need more work as well with E.strausiana sitting quite separate in the cladistic analysis to E.andreaeana and E.bulbocalyx.

My opinion - The genus Eriosyce as a whole seems to be valid, with the sub-genera (or whatever you want to call them) being handy ways to define particular parts or the genus but unable to justify themselves as genera in their own rights. E.aurata sits comfortably in the middle of the cladistic analysis, so cannot really be separated out as many of us like to do (even if we do prefer the name Neoporteria ).

[DaveW]

There is currently a new set of articles by Fred Kattermann in the American Journal on some DNA work being done by Pablo Guerro in Chile. Only the first two parts published so far. If you do not get the American Journal and PM me your email I can attach the PDF of the articles Fred sent me so far, or scan them and even put them on a memory stick if you send me your address.

As with the above article you review, many of these DNA Sequences are only based on a limited number of species, and as with all things are based on interpretation of the results.

I am not a fan of combining Eriosyce sensu stricto with the Neoporteria types as the fruits are very different.

[Grimm]

There is currently a new set of articles by Fred Kattermann in the American Journal on some DNA work being done by Pablo Guerro in Chile. Only the first two parts published so far. If you do not get the American Journal and PM me your email I can attach the PDF of the articles Fred sent me so far, or scan them and even put them on a memory stick if you send me your address.

As with the above article you review, many of these DNA Sequences are only based on a limited number of species, and as with all things are based on interpretation of the results.

I am not a fan of combining Eriosyce sensu stricto with the Neoporteria types as the fruits are very different.

Thanks for the offer, I may take you up on it, but not right now as I've not got too much time to myself at the moment

Having not seen any of the fruits in person (or even the flowers, or many of the species including aurata itself!!!) I'm in no position to argue either way about including Eriosyce ss with Neoporteria etc. On paper it seems entirely logical and justified to combine them, but I know enough to know that there's nothing like seeing these plants in person. Unfortunately the chances of me ever getting to Chile, or having a fruiting sized plant anytime soon, are both very slim indeed! I do have some rodentiophila seeds but it will be a very long time before they're ready to flower, if I can even get them to germinate (apparently they are a bit more difficult than most, and the seeds are old).

[DaveW]

Regarding Eriosyce sensu stricto, the name is derived from the Greek erion = wool + sykon = fig, hence fruit like a "woolly fig", a reference to the fruits which are unlike the other genera Fred Kattermann lumped under Eriosyce:-

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... uit_01.JPG

Many will be familiar with the visually different hollow elongating red bladder like fruit the other genera included under Eriosyce sensu Katterman produce. Whether you consider this is just a matter of degree is personal opinion:-

http://www.cactus-art.biz/catalog/produ ... teria.html

Of course if you wish you can lump the entire Cactaceae in a single genus since they are all related, it is just how fine you draw your generic divisions. Before DNA Sequencing the flower and fruit were considered one of the best ways of determining relationships since as they are only fleeting structures they were considered less likely to undergo profound changes due to ev0lution, however this not entirely true as pollinators can have just as big an ev0lutionary effect on these as can habitats on plant morphology. An instance is Matucana where you have both zygomorphic hummingbird pollinated flowers and open rotate ones which are insect pollinated. Or the claim that the open rotate flowered insect pollinated E. chilensis is a Neoporteria sensu stricto, even though it's flowers differ from the rest.

As to getting to Chile at your age, don't worry about it as in spite of being interested in this group of plants since the 1960's I did not get there until 2015 when I was 74. You also need somebody to go with who knows the habitats too, since many you would simply pass without realising there were likely to be plants there.

[DaveW]

There is an article on Thelocephala by Roger Ferryman in the latest issue of the Free downloadable Essex Succulent Review:-

https://mailchi.mp/2757389339ba/essex-s ... 523b0ccb64

[Grimm]

One thing I'm working on before I even think about looking at the new DNA studies is distributions/locations. My first step was to convert Katterman's maps to a digital format. The points therefore aren't very accurate, perhaps 5km or so accuracy, which is completely useless for finding cacti out in the field But it gets a bit more of the information to stick in my head

It also lets me take measurements, for example I can tell by a couple of clicks that the outlying Pyrrhocactus (umadeave) is 570km away from the next nearest point (andreaeana), and Islaya is spread over c.1000km.

[DaveW]

I have a series of 39 PowerPoints from Arica in the north of Chile to Conception in the south Fred Kattermann sent me where he has plotted his plant localities on Google Earth.

[Grimm]

I have a series of 39 PowerPoints from Arica in the north of Chile to Conception in the south Fred Kattermann sent me where he has plotted his plant localities on Google Earth.

Sounds interesting! As I've said, the problem I have with converting his paper maps is the accuracy I end up with. Here's my conversions of Katterman's Pyrrhocactus maps turned into coordinates, then fed into Google (remember these are only accurate to a few kilometers as far as I can tell - still, better than most 19th century location descriptions!):

strausiana:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/31% ... 9611?hl=en
and
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/31% ... 6401?hl=en
and
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/32% ... 6793?hl=en
and
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/32% ... 8637?hl=en

villicumensis:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/31% ... 9145?hl=en

bulbocalyx:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/30% ... 2415?hl=en
and
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/31% ... 6466?hl=en

andreaeana:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/29% ... 4912?hl=en

umadeave:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/24% ... 7593?hl=en

EDIT:

Rimacactus Laui
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/22% ... 6307?hl=en

Hard to believe anything lives here.... Horridocactus recondita var. iquiquensis is nearby, however, about 8-9km north and 24km south according to my inaccurate plots.

[7george]

In the last number of International CACTUS-ADVENTURES, #1, 2020, p. 50 - 56, Joël Lodé states that there is no Islaya any more and their at least 3 species and subspecies belong to Eriosyce:

Concretely, today we have 7 clades which are separately monophyletic (Guerrero et al.
2019) which allow a better classification and comprehensive study and conservation of
these genera: Eriosyce sensu stricto now includes Islaya.
* Eriosyce bicolor (Akers & Buining) Lodé STAT.NOV.
* E. islayensis;
* Eriosyce islayensis subsp. divaricatiflora (Ritter) Lodé STAT NOV.
* Eriosyce krainziana (Ritter) Lodé STAT NOV.

So these things continue to change with new research coming out.

Eriosyce_omasensis_1.jpg (161.46 KiB) Viewed 1083 times

Eriosyce omasensis - photo credit: Pieter Colpaert©

[7george]

In many places like http://www.theplantlist.org, the mess-up continues as different "accepted names" and not synonyms refer to the same species:

* Eriosyce taltalensis (Hutchison) Katt.
* Neoporteria taltalensis Hutchison
* Pyrrhocactus taltalensis (F. Ritter) F. Ritter
and many others.

[One Windowsill]

In many places like http://www.theplantlist.org, the mess-up continues as different "accepted names" and not synonyms refer to the same species:

I get the impression that POWO run by Kew Gardens is a lot more reliable for the correct naming and synonyms, though I haven't been using it for Cactaceae. I think a lot of the Plant List was autogenerated from previous databases, then they tried to patch it up. I pointed out a few necessary corrections to the admins a few years ago but I don't tend to use it now, except for finding the numbers in a genus. GIGO.

And this one sometimes has photos of the plant and links to Kew Herbarium specimens, much more fun.
http://powo.science.kew.org/