Turbinicarpus (Gymnocactus), Echinopsis (Lobivia), and Parodia (Notocactus) classification questions

[Aloinopsis]

If my English sometimes fails me, my Latin is worse!

1. I know that Turbinicarpus now includes Gymnocactus. But why were Gymnocactus originally excluded? What traits made a plant "Gymnocactus" as opposed to "Turbinicarpus?" Does this question make sense?

2. Also for Echinopsis and Lobivia.

3. Also for Parodia and Notocactus.

I'm trying to understand things better because I know these are synonyms but I don't understand exactly by which traits why they were excluded in the first place.

Can anyone help?

[DaveW]

Gymnocactus were originally the larger G. beguinii types. David Donati in his book "Turbinicarpus and Rapicactus" uses Rapicactus as a subgenus for most of these beguinii types = beguinii, boolianus, subterraneus, zaragosae plus subgenus Lodia for mandragora and pailanus, all originally in Gymnocactus. These plants are much larger growing, almost like Mammillaria's or Thelocactus rather than the dwarf typical Turbinicarpus. Evidently it was considered in spite of size differences Gymnocactus and Turbinicarpus were closely related therefore sunk into a single genus.

Echinopsis were originally the long tubed mainly white or pale pink flowered night blooming plants, whereas Lobivia's were usually smaller tubed many flower coloured day flowering plants.

Notocactus are the lower altitude relatives of the higher altitude Parodia's As with many genera which seem distinct at first, later collectors find intermediate plants that link previously thought distinct genera together.

Weingartia and Sulcorebutia are another case where intermorphs between the two have now been found therefore all sunk into the oldest generic name available = Weingartia.

However classifications are not compulsory even for botanists, being merely a matter of opinion and there are often more than one classification in use around the world at any time. At the moment David Hunt's versus Joel Lode's for instance and Lode's is the newest. You are therefore quite entitled to choose which one you prefer, or even parts of one and parts of another. You are certainly not required to adopt the latest classification as there will obviously be another supposedly "definitive" one along in a while as has been the case throughout history.

[Aloinopsis]

Thank you.

This is very helpful!

I am not particularly interested in adopting the latest names as much as interested in understanding how the plants actually differ and why they were previously separated.

I have several Turbinicarpus that have soft, curly, paper-like spines and white fuzz (Turbinicarpus lophophoroides, Turbinicarpus dickisoniae, Turbinicarpus jauernigii, Turbinicarpus klinkerianus). None are bigger than a large golf ball. I gather none of these were ever in Gymnocactus, correct?

[DaveW]

Yes that's true.

For Gymnocactus descriptions see-

http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACT ... knuthianus

http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACT ... horripilus

http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACT ... s_beguinii

Or just Google Gymnocactus to see the others.

As said before they are generally larger plants than the small Turbinicarpus you list. Often looking a bit more like Thelocactus.

[Aloinopsis]

Thank you very much. This is very helpful. It seems I have had the right idea, it's just difficult to keep everything straight with so many names in use all at once.

[anttisepp]

It was very strange and doubtful opinion to mix Parodia wth Notocactus, every old cactus collector agree. They have very different seeds, flowers, spines, shape of the stems, habitat...
To tell more, many cactus growers in Europe still use names of smaller genera as Brasilicactus, Eriocactus, Wigginsia.

[MikeInOz]

I go by the following rule...If you're over 50, forget name changes and write whatever the hell you want on the label.

[DaveW]

Don't worry if you use the latest published classification since David Hunt by Joel Lode' most of the old names are reinstated just as though Hunt never happened.

However like the New Cactus Lexicon (NCL) it's an expensive two volume set,

https://exoticplantbooks.com/detail/?product_id=1036

But wait, Joel' is working on another couple of volumes to add to it!

http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy/Td ... ctENG.html

From what I gather talking to Graham Charles who cooperated on the NCL now David Hunt is dead the revisions and further volume mooted for the New Cactus Lexicon of Hunt are unlikely to ever be published. I think DNA Sequencing showed a lot of Hunt's lumping was wrong and it would have needed a radical revision to alter his ultra lumping morphological classification.

Also the CITES classification for border controls was based on Hunts morphological classification since officials could stop anything that looked similar to these pictures rather than based on their chemistry indicating they were different species, one endangered and another not.

[DaveW]

Re Turbinicarpus Aioinopsis asked about. I note Joel's remark in my last link above:-

"In August 2019, a new molecular study (Vázquez-Sánchez et al.) confirmed that Turbinicarpus should be split into three genera: Turbinicarpus sensu stricto, Rapicactus and Kadenicarpus, already suggested in Taxonomy of the Cactaceae second volume as the “clade B1”.

Rapicactus and Kadenicarpus contain the beguinii types that were once called Gymnocactus and Turbinicarpus sensu stricto the familiar low growing klinkerianus types.

[anttisepp]

"...round and round it goes,
    ever returning on its course..."

[Aloinopsis]

Re Turbinicarpus Aioinopsis asked about. I note Joel's remark in my last link above:-

"In August 2019, a new molecular study (Vázquez-Sánchez et al.) confirmed that Turbinicarpus should be split into three genera: Turbinicarpus sensu stricto, Rapicactus and Kadenicarpus, already suggested in Taxonomy of the Cactaceae second volume as the “clade B1”.

Rapicactus and Kadenicarpus contain the beguinii types that were once called Gymnocactus and Turbinicarpus sensu stricto the familiar low growing klinkerianus types.

Thank you very much. This makes sense to me, but I have no qualifications to doubt DNA science, regardless! Hah!

[phil_SK]

Re Turbinicarpus Aioinopsis asked about. I note Joel's remark in my last link above:-

"In August 2019, a new molecular study (Vázquez-Sánchez et al.) confirmed that Turbinicarpus should be split into three genera: Turbinicarpus sensu stricto, Rapicactus and Kadenicarpus, already suggested in Taxonomy of the Cactaceae second volume as the “clade B1”.

Rapicactus and Kadenicarpus contain the beguinii types that were once called Gymnocactus and Turbinicarpus sensu stricto the familiar low growing klinkerianus types.

A molecular study cannot confirm, prove or suggest that a genus should be split into smaller genera (or be merged with another genus, for that matter). If it indicates that a genus, as currently treated, isn't monophyletic then there are always at least two ways in which it can be made monophyletic and which approach to take is a choice.
Taking Turbinicarpus as an example, the article quoted does indeed indicate that Turbinicarpus isn't monophyletic.

turb snip.JPG (69.76 KiB) Viewed 2780 times

Splitting it into three (the cyan, green and purple branches) would fix this but so would enlarging the genus to include Ariocarpus, Strombocactus, Epithelantha, Neolloydia, Ortegocactus, Pelecyphora, Cumarina, Acharagma, Obregonia, Lophophora plus a few others (under whatever the oldest name is). None of these is a very large genus (quite a few are monotypic) and the resultant genus would be a reasonable size. Another less unpalatable option might be to do some partial merging around some of the main branches. Then again, maybe you should split it into 4 genera: T. mandragora is basal to the rest of Rapicactus by some way - maybe it should get its own monotypic genus. My point is that there are always several options! Having said that, recognition of Rapicactus, Kadenicarpus and Turbinicarpus does seem the least disruptive option.
It's a similar story with both Parodia and Echinopsis, only this time there are classifications that have gone with the very big and very small genus options. The enlarged Parodia (Taylor's 1987 classification) is monophyletic but so is the recognition of Parodia, Notocactus, Eriocephala, Acanthocephala, Brasiliparodia, Wigginsia, Ritterocactus and Bolivicactus (Doweld's 2000 classification). The traditional 2-genus (Parodia and Notocactus option) isn't monophyletic. For Echinopsis, you can make monophyletic genera as Schlumpberger did in 2012 by recognising Acanthocalycium, Chamaecereus, Echinopsis, Lobivia, Soehrensia, Reicheocactus, Setiechinopsis, Trichocereus and Leucostele (and shuffling some species between the genera) or you can enlarge Echinopsis as Anceschi & Magli proposed (and partially did) in 2013 by including Cleistocactus, Oreocereus, Borzicactus, Vatricania, Weberbauerocereus, Matucana, Denmoza, Harrisia, Samaipaticereus, Yungasocereus, Espostoa, Haageocereus, Mila, Oroya, Pygmaeocereus and Rauhocereus. Both work.

[DaveW]

Agreed Phil, molecular study cannot state what should be in a monophyletic genus, just what should not be in it, as with Rebutia and Aylostera whose looks are merely convergence. If you created a single genus for all the Cactaceae it would obviously be monophyletic. It is only when you split it into smaller genera that the question of morphological versus molecular DNA Sequenced classifications rears it's ugly head.

Also unlike animals there is no fossil record for the Cactaceae, therefore what went before and when it actually occurred is a matter of conjecture not fact. Again with all these classifications the question of specific identity of the material examined is sometimes called into question, even if voucher specimens are saved.

[Aloinopsis]

Re Turbinicarpus Aioinopsis asked about. I note Joel's remark in my last link above:-

"In August 2019, a new molecular study (Vázquez-Sánchez et al.) confirmed that Turbinicarpus should be split into three genera: Turbinicarpus sensu stricto, Rapicactus and Kadenicarpus, already suggested in Taxonomy of the Cactaceae second volume as the “clade B1”.

Rapicactus and Kadenicarpus contain the beguinii types that were once called Gymnocactus and Turbinicarpus sensu stricto the familiar low growing klinkerianus types.

A molecular study cannot confirm, prove or suggest that a genus should be split into smaller genera (or be merged with another genus, for that matter). If it indicates that a genus, as currently treated, isn't monophyletic then there are always at least two ways in which it can be made monophyletic and which approach to take is a choice.
Taking Turbinicarpus as an example, the article quoted does indeed indicate that Turbinicarpus isn't monophyletic.
turb snip.JPG
Splitting it into three (the cyan, green and purple branches) would fix this but so would enlarging the genus to include Ariocarpus, Strombocactus, Epithelantha, Neolloydia, Ortegocactus, Pelecyphora, Cumarina, Acharagma, Obregonia, Lophophora plus a few others (under whatever the oldest name is). None of these is a very large genus (quite a few are monotypic) and the resultant genus would be a reasonable size. Another less unpalatable option might be to do some partial merging around some of the main branches. Then again, maybe you should split it into 4 genera: T. mandragora is basal to the rest of Rapicactus by some way - maybe it should get its own monotypic genus. My point is that there are always several options! Having said that, recognition of Rapicactus, Kadenicarpus and Turbinicarpus does seem the least disruptive option.
It's a similar story with both Parodia and Echinopsis, only this time there are classifications that have gone with the very big and very small genus options. The enlarged Parodia (Taylor's 1987 classification) is monophyletic but so is the recognition of Parodia, Notocactus, Eriocephala, Acanthocephala, Brasiliparodia, Wigginsia, Ritterocactus and Bolivicactus (Doweld's 2000 classification). The traditional 2-genus (Parodia and Notocactus option) isn't monophyletic. For Echinopsis, you can make monophyletic genera as Schlumpberger did in 2012 by recognising Acanthocalycium, Chamaecereus, Echinopsis, Lobivia, Soehrensia, Reicheocactus, Setiechinopsis, Trichocereus and Leucostele (and shuffling some species between the genera) or you can enlarge Echinopsis as Anceschi & Magli proposed (and partially did) in 2013 by including Cleistocactus, Oreocereus, Borzicactus, Vatricania, Weberbauerocereus, Matucana, Denmoza, Harrisia, Samaipaticereus, Yungasocereus, Espostoa, Haageocereus, Mila, Oroya, Pygmaeocereus and Rauhocereus. Both work.

Thank you very much. This graphic is very helpful to me in understanding the relationships of Turbinicarpus. I'm going to look at it frequently in the next few days.

Can you (or someone) explain what happened with Rebutia and Aylostera? I don't grow those, so I wasn't aware that they had been split and grouped together also.