(2754) Proposal to conserve the name Weberbauerocereus ( Cactaceae ) with a conserved type
2020; Wiley; Volume: 69; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/tax.12301
ISSN1996-8175
Autores Tópico(s)Plant and animal studies
Resumo(2754) Weberbauerocereus Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941(2): 31. Jun 1942 [Cact.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: W. weberbaueri (K. Schum. ex Vaupel) Backeb., Descr. Cact. Nov.: 27. 1956 (Cereus weberbaueri K. Schum. ex Vaupel), typ. cons. prop. The genus Weberbauerocereus Backeb. (in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941(2): 31. 1942) comprises ca 8 species of large shrubby to small treelike columnar cacti from Peru (Cajamarca to Moquegua) and Bolivia (La Paz, Madidi). In the most recent comprehensive treatment of Cactaceae (Hunt & al., New Cactus Lexicon, Text vol.: 278–279. 2006; ed. 2, Atlas vol.: xii, 520. 2013) it is accepted as a taxonomically “good” genus, but with the comment that it is nomenclaturally a synonym of Haageocereus Backeb. (in Cactus J. (Croydon) 1: 52. 1933). This comment reflects Backeberg's (l.c.) choice of type for Weberbauerocereus, which he cited as Cereus fascicularis Meyen (in Allg. Gartenzeitung 1(27): 211. 1833; Reise Erde 1: 447. 1834, as Cactus fascicularis), misinterpreting the latter's identity in line with Britton & Rose (Cact. 2: 141. 1920, under Trichocereus) and misapplying it, as “W. fascicularis (Meyen) Backbg. n. comb.”, to a species now known as Weberbauerocereus weberbaueri (K. Schum. ex Vaupel) Backeb. (Cereus weberbaueri K. Schum. ex Vaupel in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 50(Beibl. 111): 22. 1913). Ritter (Kakt. Südamer. 3: 1125. 1980), however, pointed out that the plant Meyen described as Cereus or Cactus fascicularis agrees more closely with a species of Haageocereus Backeb., not with Weberbauerocereus sensu Backeberg. Recently, the first author (Hoxey in Bradleya 38: 104–119. 2020) retraced in the field Meyen's Peruvian itinerary and came to the same conclusion as Ritter, but with the clarification that Meyen's description was a partial mixture, including the erect stems of juvenile Browningia candelaris (Meyen) Britton & Rose, which look remarkably similar to the fasciculate but sprawling stems of the sympatric Haageocereus chilensis F. Ritter ex D.R. Hunt (= H. fascicularis (Meyen) F. Ritter), whose characters make up the majority of the description. Although no original material of Cereus fascicularis Meyen is available for typification, it now seems clear that even through neotypification the name cannot properly be applied to a species of Weberbauerocereus, as that genus is currently understood. Nor has the name been used in that sense since Ritter's (l.c.) clarification of its identity appeared. The name Weberbauerocereus Backeb. in its misapplied sense has been in use fairly consistently in the expansive literature of Cactaceae over the past 70 years and is on the labels and plant record databases of many living and preserved collections of cactus aficionados, botanical gardens and herbaria, as well as in the catalogues of specialist commercial nurseries. If not conserved with a new type as proposed here, it will need to be given a new name, causing unnecessary nomenclatural instability for a group of about eight species, most of which have hitherto been known only as Weberbauerocereus, six out of the eight having no other name, as they were described in and have remained classified in this genus. Cereus weberbaueri K. Schum. ex Vaupel, the conserved type proposed above, is itself securely typified by a holotype conserved in the spirit collection at Berlin: Peru, Arequipa, near Yura, on the Arequipa–Puno railway, 2400 m, 31 August 1902, Weberbauer 1413 (B, photo!). PH, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4568-4568 NT, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8162-0505
Referência(s)