Eggli & Walter • (2294) Reject Cereus panoploeatus TAXON 63 (3) • June 2014: 683–685 (2294) Proposal to reject the name Cereus panoploeatus (Cactaceae) Urs Eggli1 & Helmut Walter2 1 Sukkulenten-Sammlung Zürich, Mythenquai 88, 8002 Zürich, Switzerland 2 Casilla 175, Buin, Chile Author for correspondence: Urs Eggli, urs.eggli@zuerich.ch DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.12705/633.25 (2294) Cereus panoploeatus Monv. in Hort. Universel 1: 220. 1839. [Angiosp.: Cact.], nom. utique rej. prop. Typus: deest The name Cereus panoploeatus was published by Monville (l.c.) simultaneously with that of C. heteromorphus (proposed for rejection by Eggli & Walter in Taxon 63: 188–189. 2014) in a short paper consisting of a total of 8 new taxa (see Eggli & Walter, l.c. 2014 for full details), and both are stated to come from the “rochers de Huasco”, Chile. The name C. panoploeatus, like that of C. heteromorphus, almost immediately fell into disuse, but because the date of publication (1839) predates those of any of the currently used names for columnar Version of Record (identical to print version). 683 Eggli & Walter • (2294) Reject Cereus panoploeatus cacti in Chile except Echinopsis chiloensis (Colla) H. Friedrich & G.D. Rowley (based on Cactus chiloensis Colla 1826), a clarification of its status is crucial in view of the priority issues that are threatening nomenclatural stability. [Two other prioritable names for Chilean columnar cacti exist, but both have already been proposed for rejection: Cactus coquimbanus Molina 1782 (cf. Eggli & Walter in Taxon 61: 686–687. 2012) and Cereus spinibarbis Otto ex Pfeiff. 1837 (cf. Eggli & Walter in Taxon 62: 405–406. 2013).] As in the case of C. heteromorphus, the protologue presents us with a fairly complete description of the vegetative parts. There is no mention that more than one individual was available for observation, and the description embraces limited variability: Stems straight, stiff, robust, 6.3–7.6 cm diameter, with 11 rounded ribs ca. 1.3 cm high, with a slight furrow below each areole, and a slightly sinuous groove between the ribs, areoles large (1.7 cm long, 1.25 cm wide), closely arranged, with short greyish tomentum, with 15–20 straight, very pointed, rough, often somewhat spiralling whitish spines of very irregular length (0.5–12.7 cm), some thin like a fine needle, others much thicker, the lowermost directed downwards, the upper and central one upwards, the smaller ones radiating and sometimes mixed with some coarse, whitish, curving hairs (“quelques crins de couleur blanchâtre”). In a note following the description, special mention is made that the spination is very dense and impenetrable, and the specific epithet refers to this (literally “full of armour” – see discussion below). A second note after the description remarks that several driedup flower buds or flowers were found attached to the upper ends of the areoles in the middle part of the stem, each enveloped with brown silk (“revêtues de soies brunes”). It is notable in this context that Monville also used the same term “soie” to describe the very fine radial spines of the concurrently published Cactus villosus – the tomentum of these flower buds or dried flowers was therefore finely hairy. As in the case of C. heteromorphus, later authors do not appear to have had first-hand experience with material of C. panoploeatus. Salm-Dyck (Cact. Horti Dyck: 44. 1850) treated it as a synonym of his Cereus pycnacanthus Salm-Dyck 1845, which violates the priority rules of the ICN (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012). Labouret (Monogr. Fam. Cact.: 331. 1853) did not use Monville’s name, but used the protologue description of C. panoploeatus for his entry for C. pycnacanthus. Förster & Rümpler (Handb. Cacteenkunde: 696. 1885 (‘panoplaeatus’)) followed Salm-Dyck (l.c.), while Schumann (Gesamtbeschr. Kakt.: 61–62. 1897) included C. panoploeatus (as ‘panoplaeatus’) under C. chiloensis and treated it at the rank of variety (as var. panhoplites K. Schum., see below). Britton & Rose (Cact. 2: 82, 137–138. 1920) were undecided and listed the name both as synonym of Eulychnia spinibarbis (Otto ex Pfeiff.) Britton & Rose (l.c.: 82; = Eulychnia breviflora Phil., see Eggli & Walter l.c. 2013) as well as of Trichocereus chiloensis (Colla) Britton & Rose (as ‘chilensis’) (l.c.: 137–138), although they argue that the description does not fit that latter taxon, but they do not refer to the protologue and are of the erroneous opinion that C. panoploeatus is based on material from Bolivia. Backeberg & Knuth (Kaktus-ABC: 177. 1936) treat it as synonym of E. spinibarbis, while Backeberg (Cact. 2: 1136. 1959) treats the name as synonym of Trichocereus chiloensis (as ‘chilensis’). Schumann (l.c.) included both C. panoploeatus (as ‘panoplaeatus’) and C. heteromorphus as synonyms of C. chiloensis but recognized both at the rank of variety, adopting the existing epithet ‘heteromorphus’ for the latter, but publishing C. chiloensis var. panhoplites with the footnote: “Der Name panoplaeata, oder mißverständlich planopleata, ist schlecht gebildet; panhoplites heißt vollbewaffnet.” (The name panoplaeata, or the misleading planopleata, is 684 TAXON 63 (3) • June 2014: 683–685 badly formed; panhoplites means fully armed.). Schumann’s opinion is confirmed by W. Greuter (pers. comm. to J. McNeill, May 2014), as ‘oploeatus’ is a mal-formed Greek-Latin mixed adjective (meaning ‘armed’), while ‘hoplites’ is a correctly formed Greek noun (meaning ‘soldier’). Because of the change of epithet, which cannot be treated as correction of the original spelling, C. chilensis (as ‘chiloensis’) var. panhoplites K. Schum. cannot be treated as combination based on C. panoploeatus Monv. (ICN Art. 6.10), but has to be interpreted either as replacement name (ICN Art. 6.11), or as the name of an independent new taxon (ICN Art. 6.9). Both interpretations are permissible, and if there is an “established custom” (Preamble 13 of the ICN), this should be followed. Since Borg (Cacti: 137. 1937), as basionym for Trichocereus chiloensis (‘chilensis’) var. panhoplites, Ritter (Kakteen Südamerika 3: 1109. 1980), and Albesiano (in Haseltonia 18: 126. 2012), as basionym for T. chiloensis subsp. panhoplites, all treated C. chiloensis var. panhoplites K. Schum. as an independent new name, this is accepted here. Accordingly, it and the combinations based on it, do not have to be further considered here, as they are not homotypic with C. panoploeatus. Albesiano (l.c.) designated a neotype for Schumann’s varietal name, selecting an element within the E. chiloensis alliance from near Ovalle, far from Huasco, the source of C. panoploeatus. Despite having a fair description of fertile parts (flower buds or dried flowers), being provided with fine brown hairs, positive identification with any of the 3 taxa occurring in the region of Huasco is unattainable – we have no indication either of the length of this “brown silk”, nor of its density, and we can thus not be certain whether the description refers to the dark brown to blackish rather shortish tomentum of flower buds or dried flowers of Echinopsis nigripilis (Phil.) H. Friedrich & G.D. Rowley, or to the much longer and somewhat coarser brown to yellow brown hairs of Eulychnia breviflora. Eulychnia chorosensis P. Klaassen is a less likely candidate because of the predominantly greyish-pale tomentum of its flowers. It should also be considered that advanced flower buds and/or dried flowers of Eulychnia are quite large, esp. in comparison with those of Echinopsis, and such a size would almost certainly have been reason for a specific comment. The description of the vegetative parts of C. panoploeatus remains ambiguous, too. The areoles are described as oval and large, and this together with the description of the spination would point to Echinopsis nigripilis, while the erect growth form and the tall ribs would point to Eulychnia breviflora. As in the case of C. heteromorphus (Eggli & Walter, l.c. 2014) we conclude that available evidence is insufficient to allow firm positive identification of C. panoploeatus with any of the three taxa of columnar cacti known to occur in the region from where the material on which it is based derives. It would of course be possible to designate a neotype to fix the application of Monville’s name. As shown above, there is however no conclusive evidence to equate C. panoploeatus with either a taxon of Eulychnia or Echinopsis from the Huasco region. Moreover, irrespective of the decision taken, a priority problem would be created since C. panoploeatus dates from 1839 and thus has priority over both Eulychnia breviflora or Cereus nigripilis Phil., both dating from 1860. In addition, Cereus panoploeatus has never been used in the past more than 150 years. Its adoption for the widely known and used name E. breviflora would cause instability, and would make a conservation proposal for that name necessary. A typification with an element assignable to Echinopsis nigripilis would also necessitate Version of Record (identical to print version). Calvo & al. • (2295) Conserve Senecio doria TAXON 63 (3) • June 2014: 685–686 a conservation proposal to conserve this established name. Taking all these arguments together, a proposal to reject C. panoploeatus under the ICN Art. 56.1 appears to be the most sensible and straightforward procedure. Acknowledgments We are grateful to John McNeill and Werner Greuter, who have greatly assisted with the correct nomenclatural interpretation of the names involved with this proposal. - Version of Record (identical to print version). 685