Hamatocactus bicolor?

[Justin]

100_6361.JPG (70.79 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

100_6293.JPG (67.23 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

100_6203.JPG (73.26 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

100_6224.JPG (51.08 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

100_6277.JPG (44.58 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

100_6291.JPG (53.39 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

100_6232.JPG (50.7 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

100_6299.JPG (48.59 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

100_6301.JPG (42.56 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

100_6237.JPG (40.91 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

Recently I bought the plant from pictures above.
It is labeled Hamatocactus hamatacanthus.
(Species reclassified as Ferocactus hamatacanthus).
I think it is mislabeled, and that the plant is actually Hamatocactus bicolor.
What do you think?

[Peterthecactusguy]

guess mine was labeled wrong too, because I have the same plant and have it labeled as Ferocactus hamatocanthus.

[DaveW]

No combination Hamatocactus bicolor exists that I am aware of? You may mean Thelocactus bicolor, but that's not it.

I would think it is probably Hamatacactus setispinus. from the red centre to the flower, now often placed in Thelocactus:-

http://www.cactus-art.biz/schede/HAMATO ... spinus.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

F. hamatacanthus has an all yellow centred flower I think?

http://www.cactus-art.biz/schede/HAMATO ... amatus.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thelocactus bicolor is a totally different plant:-

http://www.cactus-art.biz/schede/THELOC ... icolor.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[vlani]

Powell-Weedin use this combination in they books and yes this is the plant.

[Justin]

Thank you!

Hamatocactus bicolor still exist. It is only species in Hamatocactus genus on Flora of North America. Description here:

http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx? ... =242415315" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Full name is Hamatocactus bicolor ( Terán & Berland. ) I.M.Johnst., 1924.

See IPNI

http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSea ... t%3Dnormal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was first describe by Manuel de Mier y Terán and Jean Louis Berlandier in 1832 under name Cactus bicolor and moved by Ivan Murray Johnston in the genus Hamatocactus in 1924.

In Flora of North America, Cactus bicolor Terán & Berlandier, Ferocactus setispinus (Engelmann) L. D. Benson; Hamatocactus setispinus (Englemann) Britton & Rose; Thelocactus setispinus (Engelmann) E. F. Anderson all are synonyms for Hamatocactus bicolor ( Terán & Berland. ) I.M.Johnst., 1924.

---------

About Hamatocactus setispinus
Was first described by Georg Engelmann in 1845 under name Echinocactus setispinus and moved by Nathaniel Lord Britton and Joseph Nelson Rose in the genus Hamatocactus in year 1922 (I think), see this search on IPNI

http://www.ipni.org/ipni/simplePlantNam ... _ipni.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So if Hamatocactus bicolor and Hamatocactus setispinus, mentioned above, are the same species must be keep the name Hamatocactus bicolor, in the priority of epithet.

If this species must be moved in Thelocactus it is a problem because Thelocactus bicolor (Galeotti ex Pfeiffer) Britton & Rose, 1922 it is a different species, and will be two species in the genus with the same epithet: bicolor.

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

Few notes about Thelocactus bicolor (Galeotti ex Pfeiffer) Britton & Rose, 1922.
Was described by Henri Guillaume Galeotti and Louis(Ludwig) Karl Georg Pfeiffer under name Echinocactus bicolor in the year 1848, and moved by Nathaniel Lord Britton and Joseph Nelson Rose in the genus Thelocactus in the year 1922.

http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSea ... story=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like many other cacti species and this has a lot of synonyms. Anderson in The Cactus Family mentions among many other and

Hamatocactus bicolor (Galeotti ex Pfeiffer) I. M. Johnston 1924

I think somewhere, in time, there was an error and the "Hamatocactus bicolor (Galeotti ex Pfeiffer) I. M. Johnston, 1924" it is wrong name.

Jonston moved in the genus Hamatocactus the plant described by Terán & Berlandier and not the plant described by Galeotti and Pfeiffer.

So correct would be Hamatocactus bicolor ( Terán & Berland. ) I.M.Johnst., 1924, but this is a different species of Thelocactus bicolor (Galeotti ex Pfeiffer) Britton & Rose, 1922 and those are not synonyms.

-----------

I do not know what or if Hunt write something about these two species in The New Cactus Lexicon.

[DaveW]

With Hunt hamatacanthus is now a Ferocactus and setispinus a Thelocactus.

Hamatocactus bicolor is interesting as it seems to have slipped into obscurity. Just looked up Britton & Rose and they say for Hamatocactus setispinus, the type of their new genus:-

"According to Englemann (Cact. Mex. Biundary 21) this species was sent to him by Berlandier as Cactus bicolor and Schumann refers to it as Echinocactus bicolor Berlandier (Gesambt. Kakteen 339. 1898). It is however, very different from Cactus bicolor Berlandier (Mem. Comm. Limites 1, 1832)."

Marshall & Bock do not refer to it at all.

I will see if I can get any comment from David Hunt on the matter.

[peterb]

i think Powell and Weedin's use of Hamatocactus bicolor is *extremely* unfortunate and confusing.

peterb

[vlani]

Why you think so Peter? It is just a name.. The plant is well-known under any name.

[Peterthecactusguy]

well known, under any name? not really. I had never heard of Hamatocactus bicolor until I saw it printed here in this thread. I was gonna do some more research, but it confuses three plants in my mind, instead of just two.

[DaveW]

Just heard back from David Hunt. He says:-

"Hi Dave
Yes, FNA accepts H. bicolor as the correct name for H. setispinus. But everybody else follows B+R, who say it was 'very different'."

Evidently a difference of opinion then as to what the original Cactus bicolor was. Was it the same as setispinus or something different, maybe not even a Hamatocactus? This is often the problem with early names which are not always very well typified. You would need to go back to Berlandier's original description and hopefully some form of illustration there to try and determine what he meant. If it's impossible to decide the original name is often declared a nomen dubium (= dubious name) by the International Congress who police the "code" and then setispinus declared a nomen conservandum (conserved name) in it's place.

What is disturbing though is that later workers seem to be using Britton and Rose as the authority (a later worker) in this confusion rather than referring back to the original publication of Berlandier to resolve matters. However did Johnston himself refer back to the original Berlandier publication? Afraid I don't have access to Berlandiers publication cited.

In any case your plant is not what is usually known as hamatacanthus with it's yellow flower colour, but setispinus with it's red throated bicoloured flower.

[DaveW]

Just been doing a Web trawl and come up with these:-

http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/c ... pinus.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/c ... ecies.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know if anybody has Haseltonia 4, 1996 but evidently there is a discussion on Cactus bicolor in that?:-

http://www.cssainc.org/index.php?option ... Itemid=296" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is an article on it here "New Combinations in Ferocactus" by Nigel Taylor, click on arrow for next page:-

http://www.cactuspro.com/lecture/CSJGB/ ... ge-36.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Presumably if placed in any genus that did not previously contain what we usually know as Thelocactus bicolor, the epithet bicolor for what we know as setispinus would take precedence? Hunt places setispinus in Thelocactus in the New Cactus Lexicon, so as that already contains Thelocactus bicolor two bicolor's in the same genus would not be allowed.

As to why the older name Cactus bicolor for what we usually know as setispinus does not take priority over the later named plant usually known as Thelocactus bicolor, I presume that is the priority at own rank rule. If a plant had first been named Thelocactus bicolor and you then transferred a bicolor from another genus to Thelocactus it would not be the plant first named bicolor that took priority, but the first plant named Thelocactus bicolor. Simple priority does not always apply in botany, but priority at own rank:-

"In no case does a name or an epithet have priority outside its own rank. Article 62."

[greenknight]

Whatever you call it, it's a great cactus. Blooms easily and reliably, easy to grow from seed.

Hamatocactus setispinus is what I've mostly seen them labeled. But, like vlani said, it's just a name.