cactusinhabitat - logo
Gymnocalycium uruguayense
(Arechavaleta) Britton & Rose 1922
Photograph Gymnocalycium uruguayense in habitat

2008, Uruguay, Tacuarembó

 

Surveys

2008, Uruguay, Rio Negro, Young, A&M 278 Show on map

Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
01-a0700
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
02-a0694
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
03-a0695
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
04-a0710
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
05-a0713
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
06-a0717
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
07-a0714
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
08-a0720
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
09-a0718

 

2008, Uruguay, Tacuarembó, Valle Edén, A&M 287 Show on map

Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
10-a1014
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
11-a1012
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
12-a1003
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
13-a1018
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
14--a1031
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
15-a1033
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
16-a1039
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
17-a1057

 

2011, Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul, Santana do Livramento, A&M 815 Show on map

Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
18-1180108
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
19-1180109
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
20-1180106
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
21-1180101
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
22-1180102
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
23-1180103
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
24-1180082
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
25-1180083
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
26-1180099
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
27-1180105
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
28-1180093
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
29-1180114
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
30-1180130
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
31-1180118
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
32-1180118
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
33-1180124
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
34-1180122
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
35-1180131
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
36-1180132
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
37-1180134
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
38-1180257
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
39-1180263
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
40-1180263
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
41-1180260

 

2014, Uruguay, Rio Negro, Nuevo Berlín, A&M 970 Show on map

Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
42-1250115
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
43-1250117
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
44-1250118
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
45-1250119
Preview photo Gymnocalycium uruguayense
46-1250085

 

back to top

Synonyms

Echinocactus uruguayensis*, Gymnocalycium artigas, Gymnocalycium guerkeanum, Echinocactus guerkeanus, Echinocactus melanocarpum, Gymnocalycium melanocarpum, Gymnocalycium rauschii
* Basionym

Distribution

Argentina (Entre Rios), Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Uruguay

Conservation status

(3)   Least Concern, LC

Comments

Note: In the cactusinhabitat edition 2010, the Gymnocalycium population of Young, now identified with Gymnocalycium uruguayense, was incorrectly attributed to Gymnocalycium schroederianum Osten. (December 2012)

To understand which name to assign to the populations of the dominant species in the genus Gymnocalycium Pfeiffer ex Mittler, spread over almost the whole territory of the Republic of Uruguay, and partially in neighbouring territories (Argentina: Corrientes and Entre Ríos, Brazil: Rio Grande do Sul), a short chronicle of the interpretation in the recent literature of the taxa involved is useful. In Anderson (2001, 354, 357, 363) Gymnocalycium hyptiacanthum (Lemaire) Britton & Rose, Gymnocalycium netrelianum (Monville) Britton & Rose and Gymnocalycium uruguayense (Arechavaleta) Britton & Rose, are considered distinct species. In Hunt et al. (2006, text: 129, 131, 135, 323) it is only G. uruguayense that remains, to identify the populations in question. G. hyptiacanthum was abandoned to be of controversial application, and the neo-typification of Kiesling (1999, 2: 444) rejected as contrary to ICBN Art 57.1. In turn G. netrelianum has been abandoned as being of uncertain application. In Cactaceae Systematic Initiatives (2008, 24: 21-25) about the taxa in question, Charles and Meregalli give a different opinion from the NCL. In summary, among the populations that occupy more or less discrete areas within the range of the species, there is a degree of recognisability, related to the differences in the characteristics of the spination. The neo-typification of G. hyptiacanthum made by Kiesling is considered correct, and the taxon has been reclassified into three subspecies: hyptiacanthum, netrelianum and uruguayense. The same approach is then reconfirmed by Charles (2009, 45-51). Here the Key to the subspecies of G. hyptiacanthum (Meregalli) as published on CSI 24: 22. On page 24, Meregalli informs us about the variation and distribution of the ssp. of G. hyptiacanthum: “The population of G. hyptiacanthum from the eastern part of Uruguay are here assigned to ssp. netrelianum. The plants differ from those of the typical subspecies mainly for the completely yellow-grey spines, lacking a red base. It is a relatively variable taxon, which in the southern part of its range merges progressively into ssp. hyptiacanthum, whereas towards north it is more similar to ssp. uruguayense. The attribution of the specimens from the central and northen part of the range to this subspecies is questionable: There is in fact a rather continuous clinal change between the plant with the typical traits of ssp. netrelianum and those of the subspecies ssp. uruguayense.” And more: “At the border with Brasil, near Acegua, a very interesting form was found. It is here referred to ssp. netrelianum, mainly for yellow spines, although there are some differences, namely the sub-campanulate yellow flower. This subspecies intergrades with ssp. hyptiacanthum in the southernmost part of the range, and with ssp. uruguayense in the central-western part of the range...”. From the words of the author, it would be plausible to taxonomically distinguish, populations that gradually merge into each other, and that are indistinguishable in many areas. Given that two subspecies probably to exist should benefit from a minimum of territorial autonomy, we think that in an idea of biological species, considered as a process and not as a static unit, composed of populations, themselves composed of individuals, variables and not by types, it is evident that populations which merge into one another are to be considered as belonging a single taxon or clade. It is difficult for us to think that there are populations distinguishable within a natural species, on the main evidence that the spines are more or less red at the base. In this regard, the photo illustrating G. hyptiacanthum ssp. netrelianum (Monville ex Labouret) Meregalli on CSI (2008, 24: 23), taxon that should be recognized to have the spines completely yellow, shows a plant with reddish base of the spines. In any case, in the era of molecular analysis, we think that certain distinctions could involve more the collectors' world than that of the biology. Given that we are talking about a single taxon, what name should we identify it by? The right publication should be given to Echinocactus hyptiacantus, described in 1839 by Lemaire, but in an incomplete manner and without a precise geographical indication. The neo-typification by Kiesling (1999) has tried to fix the application of the name, at least in the interpretation made by some collectors and South American botanists (Meregalli 2010, 1: 4-5, 11, 17). But apart from Kiesling‘s interpretation, there is also another by Papsch of 2011, which is deemed correct even by Charles (2009, 46). Papsch considers the Kiesling‘s neotype invalid, and suggests that E. hyptiacanthum can be referred to the species described as Gymnocalycium schroederianum Osten, registering a new neotype, and proposing G. hyptiacanthum = G. schroederianum. The latest interpretation of the name is by Till & Amerhauser (2010), who in turn reject the neo-typification of Kiesling, bringing back the idea that G. hyptiacanthum is linked to the species now known as G. schroederianum. As in the case of Gymnocalycium quehlianum (F. Haage ex Quehl) Vaupel ex Hosseus / Gymnocalycium stellatum Spegazzini, we think that the different interpretations are equally plausible, but this, and what it implies, creates confusion. Therefore, in agreement with Hunt et al. (2006, text: 129, 131, 135, 323), we prefer the use of the less controversial G. uruguayense to identify the populations in question, and we consider the names G. hyptiacanthum and G. netrelianum, and the homotypic related synonyms, controversial in their application. (Quoted from: Anceschi & Magli 2013b, 67-70)

Genus

Gymnocalycium

Other species

alboareolatum
andreae
anisitsii
baldianum
bayrianum
bodenbenderianum
borthii
bruchii
buenekeri
calochlorum
capillaense
cardenasianum
castellanosii
chiquitanum
denudatum
eurypleurum
ferrarii
fischeri
glaucum
horridispinum
horstii
hossei
kieslingii
marsoneri
megatae
mesopotamicum
mihanovichii
monvillei
mostii
nigriareolatum
oenanthemum
paediophilum
paraguayense
pflanzii
reductum
ritterianum
robustum
saglionis
schickendantzii
schroederianum
spegazzinii
stellatum
stenopleurum
uebelmannianum
uruguayense