scapharostrus, scaphirostris or scaphirostrus?

[DaveW]

It was recently brought to my attention that David Hunt's correction of Ariocarpus scapharostrus to Ariocarpus scaphirostris was probably invalid. Therefore the correct version is seemingly somewhere between the two - Ariocarpus scaphirostrus?

https://www.cactusnames.org/ariocarpus-scaphirostrus/

"Etymology
Greek skaphe or Latin scapha ‘light boat, skiff’ + Latin –rostrus ‘-beaked’. For the underside of the tubercles, which Bödeker compared to a bow (German Bootschnabel, literally ‘boat beak’).

The original spelling scapharostrus was corrected to scaphirostris by David Hunt (in Bradleya 9: 83. 1991):

Depending whether the first part of the epithet (giving the root scaph-) is treated as a Latin noun or its Greek equivalent (skaphe), the correct connecting vowel will be ‘i‘ or ‘o‘ respectively. There is no word corresponding to ‘rostrum‘ in Greek, so (in order not to commit the barbarism of combining Greek and Latin elements!) classicists would probably prefer to use the Latin form, hence scaphi-. So far so good, but what about ‘rostrus‘? The available adjectival forms of rostrum are rostratus, or, in compounds, the suffix –rostris. This gives us scaphirostratus or scaphirostris. I prefer the latter spelling as it is nearer to the original, and will use it in future.

However, Hunt overlooked the fact that the adjectival form rostrus does in fact exist (e.g. rĕpandĭrostrus ‘with a turned-up snout’). The correct spelling is therefore scaphirostrus."

[Tom in Tucson]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Nino_G]

Thank you DaveW, really interesting argumentation, and probably correct. Hovewer I believe that (at least in scientific circles) last published name is considered to be valid/accepted name of the species, even if it is wrong language-wise (or name-wise if it refers to e.g. geographical location).
Good example would be Lobivia famatimensis (ex. Reichecactus pseudoreicheanus or, recently, Echinopsis famatimensis) which is named after a town Famatina in La Rioja province in Argentina - therefore correct name of the species would be Echinopsis/Lobivia famatinensis, but it has never been published, hence "wrong" name remains to be accurate one.

[Arjen]

@nino_g actually that should be Reicheocactus famatinensis now, since Schlumpberger recombined it

[C And D]

IMG_1476.JPG (112.17 KiB) Viewed 18555 times

[Tom in Tucson]

My 2nd favorite species from this great genus.

🖒

[Arjen]

IMG_1476.JPG

Absolutely stunnning!

[DaveW]

Hi Nino,

As Arjen says the name change to "famantinensis" was published in David Hunt's "Cactaceae Systematic Initiatives" by Schlumpberger. This was the publication Hunt was using to update his "New Cactus Lexicon", which now will never happen after his death, with DNA Sequencing also proving much of his "lumping" wrong, therefore it would need a complete rewrite.

Reicheocactus famatinensis (Speg.) Schlumpb., Cactaceae Syst. Init. 28: 30. 2012.

Altering plant names is a tricky subject since under the "Rules" spelling mistakes can be corrected, but a name is considered just a handle in botany therefore the describer can compile any they like, only having certain constraints in Latin. The problem is after the original authors death did they intentionally misspell it that way to compile a new name whilst knowing the "correct" spelling, or was it a genuine spelling mistake that can be corrected under the "Rules"? There have been a few arguments about this in the past.

Yes the Lobivia famatimensis story was largely a mix-up by Curt Backeberg who misidentified the original black and white photo of Spegazzini as a different Lobivia species (= L. densispina?). Considering the true "famatimensis" of Spegazzini to be an Argentinian border crossing from Thelocephala (= Chilean Eriosyce) rather than a Lobivia. Whether you put it into its own genus Reicheocactus or Lobivia it is still a Lobivioide not an Eriosyce (= Chileorebutia-Thelocephala).

https://www.giromagicactusandsucculents ... atimensis/

The name Reicheocactus itself was named due to the visual similarity to the Chilean "Thelocephala-Chileorebutia" = Echinocactus reichei.

[Nino_G]

Thank you Dave for a comprehensive explanation of the famatimensis/famatinensis case. I was pretty confused with Arjen's post since I didn't know Schlumpberger published the new name.
In any case, it is much better name for such a unique species in my opinion, than clumping it in Echinopsis mega-genus.

[C And D]

IMG_0992.JPG (147.65 KiB) Viewed 18491 times

[DaveW]

Hi Nino,

Phil_SK did a comprehensive explanation of David Hunt's Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives here:-

https://www.forum.bcss.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=166280

https://caryophyllales.org/cactaceae/cd ... 94c396fbc1

Ritter used to do the same by publishing the then required Latin diagnoses in a publication called Taxon before fully publishing them in the Dutch Journal Succulenta since Buining who was the editor was his friend I believe.

Graham Charles was hoping to get permission to publish all the Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives online before David Hunt died since he had stepped producing new ones. However he only got permission to publish Hunt's Huitzopochtlia for Mammillaria.

https://www.cactusexplorers.org.uk/

As to Reicheocactus it has now gained a few more species or varieties though still often listed as Lobivia's and "famatimensis".

https://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CAC ... achalensis

https://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CAC ... njuanensis

Reicheocactus (Lobivia) bonniae grows a far more elongated than the others, but it does in habitat so this is normal growth.

https://llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACTI/F ... r._bonniae

Looking at the plant bodies you can see why Backeberg thought they were related to the Chilean Thelocephala's (Chileorebutia's) like lembckei

[MrXeric]

Thanks, Dave. I did not know the meaning of the species name. Now I cannot see this plant without imagining it as a bunch of boats sinking with their bows up in the air!