In our first two booklets (Anceschi & Magli 2010, 18, 31-33; 2013a, 84-85), we have amply highlighted the inconsistency of the genus Cipocereus F. Ritter, distinct from Pilosocereus Byles & G. D. Rowley, on the sole basis of "indehiscent fruits with colourless, watery pulp”, a character that according to Taylor (Taylor in Hunt & Taylor 1990, 8: 98-99), would distinguish the first taxon from the second. However, in recent years, preliminary molecular evidence has led to the inclusion of Cipocereus and Praecereus Buxbaum in Cereus Miller (Machado et al., 2006; Hunt 2013, xì-xìì; Taylor in Hunt 2017, 37: 21). Pending confirmation of this at the molecular level, we had attested to the provisional inclusion of Cipocereus in Pilosocereus (Anceschi & Magli 2013a, 85), and had already considered Praecereus as part of Cereus (Anceschi & Magli 2013a, 44). The awaited molecular analysis on Cereus and closely allied genera (i.e. Cipocereus and Praecereus), obtained from the plastid trnS-trnG intergenic spacer, have been published in a biogeographical study by Franco et al. (2017, 199-210). The analysis confirms that Cipocereus and Praecereus are embedded among the species of Cereus, in a single well-supported monophyletic clade, i.e. posterior probabilities 0.93 (>0.85) (ibidem, 203). However, the result is summarized as follows in the authors’s words: “The main results of our phylogenetic analyses are as follows. First, it is likely that Cereus is not monophyletic, as Cipocereus (clade D1) and Praecereus (clade D2) were placed among Cereus spp." (Ibidem, 202). Now, it is clear to us that to make Cereus monophyletic, the simplest and most realistic phylogenetic solution to adopt, as well as being consistent with Hennig's theory (Hennig 1966; Anceschi & Magli 2018, 36: 74-75), would be to include in Cereus the two groups that the analysis clearly indicates as part of the monophyletic group thus constituted. However, in order to maintain the monophyly of Cipocereus and Praecereus as advocated by the authors, the first taxon should include the subgenus Mirabella (Cereus albicaulis and Cereus mirabella) and the second should include part of the subgenus Ebneria (in the analysis Cereus saddianus and Cereus kroenleinii). This will leave the rest of the genus Cereus composed of the current subgenus Cereus, Oblongicarpi and part of Ebneria (in the analysis Cereus aethiops and Cereus spegazzini), sustained from a lower support (posterior probabilities 0.82) compared to that of the phylogenetic hypothesis adopted by us (posterior probabilities 0.93) (ibidem 203). Therefore, based on the evidence of the molecular data and in aiming for a monophyletic genus Cereus s.l. (Hennig 1966; Anceschi & Magli 2018, 36: 74-75), we propose to transfer to Cereus the species of Cipocereus previously attributed to Pilosocereus in cactusinhabitat.org (i.e. Pilosocereus crassisepalus, Pilosocereus laniflorus, Pilosocerus minensis), together with Cipocereus bradei (Backeberg & Voll) Zappi & N. P. Taylor, a taxon that is the subject of our latest research and not yet present in the 2013 publication. The two new combinations needed in Cereus s.l., are published on page 41 of this booklet (i.e. Cereus bradei (Backeberg & Voll) Anceschi & Magli, Cereus laniflorus (N. P. Taylor & Zappi) Anceschi & Magli). (Quoted from Anceschi & Magli 2021, 43-44)

Note: in cactusinhabitat.org 2010 and 2013, the A&M 309, A&M 311 and A&M 313, now identified with C. crassisepalus, were attributed to Pilosocereus crassisepalus (Buining & Brederoo) Anceschi & Magli.  

July 2021

Update to the previous comment.

A subsequent phylogeny published by the same authors (Bombonato et al. 2020), substantially reconfirms Cipocereus F. Ritter as part of Cereus Miller. Also in this case, as for the previous article, the interpretation of the analysis advocated by the authors still moves in support of a monophyletic genus Cipocereus, but this interpretation is denied by the same results of the analysis. In extreme synthesis:

- In the main diagram, i.e. Maximum Likelihood tree (Bombonato et al. 2020, 7, Fig. 3), the inclusion of Cipocereus in Cereus is well supported by a 100/97/77 branch support (> 80 (SH-aLRT), 95 (UFBOOT), 70 (RBS), while its exclusion is not supported (see the node immediately above - / - / - /).

- The same authors are aware of it, in fact there are contradictions in their statements about the alleged monophyly of Cipocereus: "The genus Cereus appears as monophyletic, with Praecereus and Cipocereus appearing autside the ingroup. It is worth noting that the autgroup position of Cipocereus was controversial and with poor support in most ML trees ... " [sic!] (ibidem 6).

- Then, to substantiate their position against the evidence of the data, they let themselves wondering to purely speculative hypotheses "The controversial placement of Cipocereus observed in some of our analyses (Fig. 3; Fig. S4) suggests that Cipocereus and Cereus are sister but diverged during a rapid radiation, as revealed by the short internal edge related to the "anomaly zone" in the tree, imposing challenges to recontruction (Fig. 3). " (ibidem 7)

- This just to want to continue to substantiate a non-existent monophyletic group (i.e. Cipocereus) on the basis of the only autopomorphy highlighted by Taylor & Zappi (1989, 13-40; 2004, 282-290), i.e. indehiscent fruits with colorless, watery pulp, a character as already reported several times, also found in some Pilosocereus spp. (Braun in Hunt & Taylor 1990, 8: 99, Anceschi & Magli 2013b, 84-85).

- As we have already pointed out in Bradleya (Anceschi & Magli 2018, 36: 75) "Obviously we do not agree with this way of doing science."

January 2022