cactusinhabitat - logo
Echinopsis acanthura
(Vaupel) Molinari 2015
Photograph Echinopsis acanthura in habitat

2014, Peru, Lima

 

Surveys

2014, Peru, Lima, north east of Coayllo, A&M 1209 Show on map

Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
01-1010473
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
02-1010476
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
03-1010478
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
04-1010480
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
05-1010465
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
06-1010468
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
07-1010459
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
08-1010469
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
09-1010485
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
10-1010497
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
11-1010503
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
12-1010492
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
13-1010508
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
14-1010514
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
15-1010519
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
16-1010523
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
17-1010522
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
18-1010525
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
19-1010521
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
20-1010532
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
21-1010547
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
22-1010587
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
23-1010589

 

2014, Peru, Lima, north east of Omas, A&M 1214 Show on map

Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
24-1010799
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
25-1010803
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
26-1010809
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
27-1010808

 

2014, Peru, Lima, south west of Omas, A&M 1216 Show on map

Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
28-1010837
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
29-1010857
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
30-1010838
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
31-1010839
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
32-1010842
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
33-1010844
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
34-1010849
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
35-1010851
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
36-1010854
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
37-1010856
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
38-1010830
Preview photo Echinopsis acanthura
39-1010831

 

back to top

Synonyms

Binghamia acanthura, Borzicactus acanthurus, Cereus acanthurus*, Cleistocactus acanthurus, Loxanthocereus acanthurus, Borzicactus acanthurus ssp. acanthurus, Cleistocactus acanthurus ssp. acanthurus, Loxanthocereus bicolor, Loxanthocereus canetensis, Echinopsis acanthura ssp. canetensis, Haageocereus convergens, Loxanthocereus convergens, Loxanthocereus cullmannianus, Cleistocactus erectispinus, Loxanthocereus eremiticus, Loxanthocereus erigens, Binghamia eriotricha, Borzicactus eriotrichus, Cereus eriotrichus, Loxanthocereus eriotrichus, Loxanthocereus eulalianus, Echinopsis acanthura ssp. faustiana, Borzicactus faustianus, Haageocereus faustianus, Loxanthocereus faustianus, Borzicactus acanthurus ssp. faustianus, Cleistocactus acanthurus ssp. faustianus, Loxanthocereus gracilispinus, Haageocereus imperialensis, Borzicactus keller-badensis, Loxanthocereus keller-badensis, Loxanthocereus multifloccosus, Loxanthocereus neglectus, Haageocereus pacaranensis, Loxanthocereus pacaranensis, Haageocereus paradoxus, Echinopsis acanthura ssp. pullata, Loxanthocereus pullatus, Borzicactus acanthurus ssp. pullatus, Cleistocactus acanthurus ssp. pullatus
* Basionym

Distribution

Peru (Lima)

Conservation status

(1)   Near Threatened, NT

Comments

Note: For a number of years, molecular analysis has revealed the close relationship between Echinopsis s.l. and the other genera within the tribe Trichocereeae, or subtribe Trichocereinae (Nyffeler 2002, 317- 319; Schlumpberger 2009; Lendel et al. 2006, unpubl. data in Nyffeler & Eggli 2010). Even the more recent molecular analysis of Echinopsis (Schlumpberger & Renner 2012) has clearly demonstrated that a cladistically correct interpretation of the molecular data, in the direction of a monophyletic genus Echinopsis, leads to the assimilation in Echinopsis s.l., as currently conceived (Anderson 2001; Hunt et al. 2006; Anderson & Eggli 2011), of Cleistocactus Lemaire, Denmoza Britton & Rose, Haageocereus Backeberg, Harrisia Britton, Oreocereus (A. Berger) Riccobono, Weberbauerocereus Backeberg and 10 other genera of the Trichocereeae/Trichocereinae. We've dealt extensively with the subject, in the part devoted to the taxonomy in our penultimate booklet (Anceschi & Magli 2013b, 22-29). Our position is summarized in “The new monophyletic macro-genus Echinopsis. No risk of paraphyly, and the most convincing hypothesis in phylogenetic terms” appeared on Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives N° 31, pages 24-27 (August 2013).
The PDF of the Postprint is available here (PDF 168KB).
July 2021

Hunt et al. (2006, text: 44; atlas: 208-209), divided Cleistocactus acanthurus (Vaupel) D. R. Hunt into 3 ssp. namely acanthurus, faustianus and pullatus. The three taxa are then transferred by Hunt to Borzicactus Riccobono (2013, atlas: xii, xix, 208-209; 2016, 23, 161), following Charles' adaptation (2012, 26:14), of the molecular outcomes (Schlumpberger & Renner 2012 (99), 1342). In this regard, we underline that the genus Borzicactus as proposed by Charles is polyphyletic, i.e. according to Nelson's redefinition (1971: 472) of the concepts of paraphyly and polyphyly sensu Hennig, and 8 groups are missing in order for it to be considered monophyletic, while 7 are missing in the less restrictive concept of Wiley & Liebermann (2011, 82). To be truly monophyletic, as indicated by the aforementioned analysis “the Oreocereus clade (99% bootstrap) or, given the results of the analysis, Borzicactus (according to Kimmach), should include: Borzicactus (or Oreocereus), Espostoa, Haageocereus, Matucana, Mila, Oroya, Pygmaeocereus and Rauhocereus” (ibidem; Anceschi & Magli 2013a, 25), and not only Borzicactus as proposed by Charles. Returning to the ssp. of C. acanthurus, the same is also recognized by Anderson (2001, 153-154) and Anderson & Eggli (2011, 115-116). In our opinion, the differences shown to somehow distinguish the taxa in question are irrelevant in the context of a biological species. The same comment by Hunt at the conclusion of the entries relating to the 2 ssp. on NCL (2006, text: 44), leaves some doubt about their actual existence: "Of numerous named variants from dept. Lima, the above may perhaps merit recognition as subspecies." We also point out that the photos that should distinguish the three taxa in the same Lexicon, show individuals that could be part of the same natural population (ibidem, atlas: 208, photos 208.3, 208.4, 209, photo 209.1). Finally, E. A. Molinari-Novoa in his updated list of the Cactaceae of the Lima basin (2015, 13: 18-21), follows the phylogenetic option chosen by us of a monophyletic macrogenus Echinopsis based on  molecular outcomes (Anceschi & Magli 2013a, 22-29; 2013b, 31: 24-27), and has erected Echinopsis acanthura (Vaupel) Molinari, and has made the new combinations of ssp. canetensis and ssp. pullata. Referring to the above for  ssp. pullata, according to Hunt et al. (2006, text: 285) and with Anderson & Eggli (2011, 116), we consider Loxanthocereus canetensis Rauh & Backeberg to be synonymous with C. acanthurus ssp. acanthurus = E. acanthura. Together with  ssp. canetensis, we also assimilate into the synonymy of E. acanthura,  ssp. faustiana, subsequently added by Mayta, L. & Molinari-Novoa, E. A. (2015, 14:19). (Quoted from Anceschi & Magli 2021, 49-50)

In August 2013, following publication of our 2011/2013 booklet (June 2013), we published an article relating to the discussed monophyly of Echinopsis Zuccarini s.l. in Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives (2013b, 31: 24-27). That article summarized and underlined the position we have taken in the booklet in relation to the phylogenetic hypothesis to be adopted regarding the classification of the genera related to Echinopsis s. l., within the tribe Trichocereeae, or subtribe Trichocereinae (Nyffeler 2002, 317, 319; Lendel et al. 2006, unpubl. data in Nyffeler & Eggli 2010), between the two shown by the results from the molecular analysis carried out by Schlumpberger & Renner (2012: 1335 -1349). According to them, to avoid the polyphyly of Echinopsis s.l. as conceived at the time (Anderson 2001, 2005, 2011; Hunt et al., 2006; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010), there were two possible solutions: 
I) A new division of Echinopsis s. l. in at least 7 old genera (Acanthocalycium, Chamaecereus, Leucostele, Lobivia, Reicheocactus, Soehrensia and Setiechinopsis). This is the option adopted by Schlumpberger, which led to the 48 new combinations presented by him in CSI (28: 29-31). This was a solution devoid of internal coherence, as it did not naturally resolve the internal relationships of the clades Cleistocactus sens. str. and Oreocereus (Schlumpberger & Renner 2012: 1342; Anceschi & Magli 2013b, 31: 25). 
II) The other solution was constituted by the inclusion of 15 genera hitherto never incorporated before in Echinopsis s.l., as indicated by the analysis (Schlumpberger & Renner 2012: 1336, 1341), to make the genus monophyletic in Hennig’s sense. The latter, as we know, is the hypothesis we supported (Anceschi & Magli 2013a, 22-29; 2013b, 31: 24-27). Referring to the aforementioned booklet and to the article in CSI for all the insights related to the matter treated at that time, we now update what is known, with the following notes:

I) Of the 15 genera often cited to be assimilated in Echinopsis s.l., for the constitution of a monophyletic macrogenus Echinopsis, actually just 6 of these are monotypic genera (i.e. composed of only one species): Denmoza, Mila, Rauhocereus, Samaipaticereus, Vatricania, Yungasocereus; and according to Hunt (2003, 15: 3) "The monotypic genus is a contradiction in terms. Logically (or at least etymologically) the term genus implies a class or group of things of a lower order (in botany, species etc.), i.e. a collection of things with common attributes. ". Not to mention that 2 of the genera in question (Oroya and Pygmaeocereus), are composed of only two species. It is therefore evident that the aforementioned transfer to Echinopsis involves in reality far fewer natural taxa than those which would seem to be initially implicated.

II) it is striking that of the 17 naturally-occurring intergeneric hybrids reported by Hunt et al. (2006, text: 321) and taken from Hunt (2015, 33: 16) for the family Cactaceae, as many as 11 concern the alleged genera within the tribe Trichocereeae, or subtribe Trichocereinae, i.e. 1) xCleistocana (Cleistocactus x Matucana), 2) xEchinomoza (Echinopsis x Denmoza), 3) xEspocana (Espostoa x Matucana), 4) xEspostingia (Espostoa x Rahuocereus), 5) xEspostocactus (Espostoa x Cleistocactus), 6) xHaagespostoa (Haageocereus x Espostoa), 7) xMaturoya (Matucana x Oroya), 8) xOreocana (Oreocereus x Matucana), 9) xOreonopsis (Oreocereus x Echinopsis),10) xWeberbostoa (Weberbauerocereus x Espostoa), 11) xYungastocactus (Yungasocereus x Cleistocactus). We would like to remember, assuming that the term genus still has some meaning in biology and classification, that two genera that are such, that by definition cannot cross with each other, and if not, they are not two distinct genera.

III) Regarding the 'judgment' repeatedly expressed by Hunt (2013, xiii; 2018, 39: 5, 11), "This radical option has been espoused by Anceschi & Magli (2013) but seems unlikely to gain many supporters", related to our taxonomic approach to the solution of the Echinopsis classification problem, a judgment which has already been denied by Molinari-Novoa (2015, 13: 18-21) and by Mayta & Molinari-Novoa (2015, 14: 13-20), we wonder: since when being "radical" would compromise the use of a solution in science, if this is the one that best represents the correct interpretation of the theory in use?

IV) As already stated in our synopsis of the genus Parodia Spegazzini s.l. (Anceschi & Magli 2018, 36: 75), recent molecular analysis (Barcenas et al. 2011, 27: 470-489), have clearly highlighted that most of the genera of the Cactaceae as currently understood are not monophyletic in  Hennig's sense (i.e. not sufficiently extended and not supported by a sufficient number of synapomorphies (see Anceschi & Magli 2018, 36: 74-75), or as in the authors’ words “... our least inclusive groupings are significantly larger than currently accepted genera ... However, although many genera are not monophyletic, many of these follow a pattern of a monophyletic core, with one or two outliers suggesting relatively robust groups with 'fuzzy edges' so that in several cases small adjustments to classifications (i.e. moving outside of the genus) may produce monophyletic groups without significant nomenclatural changes. " (ibidem, 488). Regarding this way of operating, we think that the science of classification has reached a crossroads: 
a) correctly apply the available theories to the evidence that science shows us through the techniques and tools currently in use (in this case the principle of monophyly in Hennig's sense (1966), having regard to the opposition that is made of the mentioned principle with the concepts of polyphyly and paraphyly, being the second a new concept proposed by this author (see Anceschi & Magli 2018, 36: 74-75).
b) continue to use the paradigms of collecting to distinguish taxa or, if  preferred, with the contemporary tools at hand, the use of the 'cynical' species concept, which is, summarized in Kitcher's words as follows: "Species [and genera] are those groups of organisms which are recognized as species [or genera] by competent taxonomists. Competent taxonomists, of course, are those who can recognize the true species [or genera]. " (1984 (51) 2: 308). We think that Hunt's solution (2013, xiii), to solve the problem in Echinopsis, to dust off, in his words, the "old favorites" (and now paraphyletics) Echinopsis, Lobivia and Trichocereus, together with the above mentioned genera of Schlumpberger, in addition to adding confusion to confusion, fall under the second hypothesis. (Quoted from Anceschi & Magli 2021, 47-49)

Genus

Echinopsis

Other species

acanthura
acrantha
albispinosa
ancistrophora
angelesiae
aurea
balansae
baumannii
bertramiana
bridgesii
bruchii
buchtienii
bylesiana
calochlora
camarguensis
candelilla
candicans
caulescens
celsiana
cephalomacrostibas
chalaensis
chrysantha
chrysochete
cinnabarina
decumbens
ferox
formosa
guentheri
haematantha
haynei
hempeliana
hennigiana
horstii
huascha
hystrix
kieslingii
korethroides
laniceps
lateritia
leucantha
leucotricha
mamillosa
marsoneri
martinii
maytana
melanostele
micropetala
mirabilis
nothochilensis
nothohyalacantha
obrepanda
oxygona
pachanoi
pamparuizii
parviflora
pasacana
platinospina
pomanensis
pseudomelanostele
pugionacantha
quadratiumbonata
randallii
rauhii
rhodacantha
rojasii
rondoniana
rowleyi
samaipatana
santacruzensis
schickendantzii
sextoniana
smaragdiflora
spiniflora
stilowiana
strausii
strigosa
tacaquirensis
tarijensis
terscheckii
tetracantha
thelegona
thionantha
tominensis
trollii
urbis-regum
volliana
weberbaueri
werdermanniana