(2816) Proposal to conserve the name Echinocactus williamsii Lem. ex Salm‐Dyck (Lophophora williamsii) against E. williamsianus Lem. (Cactaceae)

Abstract

(2816) Echinocactus williamsii Lem. ex Salm-Dyck in Allg. Gartenzeitung 13: 385. 6 Dec 1845 [Angiosp.: Cact.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: Mexico, San Luis Potosí, near El Huizache, 2 Jul 1958, Anderson 1079 (POM No. 298103 [RSA barcode RSA0008867]). (≡) Echinocactus williamsianus Lem. in Herb. Gén. Amateur., ser. 2, 3: 43. 1843, nom. rej. prop. Neotypus (designated here): Mexico, San Luis Potosí, near El Huizache, 2 Jul 1958, Anderson 1079 (POM No. 298103 [RSA barcode RSA0008867]). Prince Joseph Salm-Reifferscheidt-Dyck, in his description of Echinocactus williamsii (Salm-Dyck in Allg. Gartenzeitung 13: 385. 1845), added after the name “Lem. Cat. Cels 1845 sine descriptione”. Salm-Dyck had very good relations with cactus growers in France, and one can conclude that he acquired his plant from the company Frères Cels. Echinocactus williamsii had been offered for sale by them several times: Cels, Cat. Cultures 1843: 19., Cat. Cact. 1844: 5., and Extr. Cat. Cultures 1845: 28. In each case only the name appeared without any description but, in the two latter, it was ascribed to “Lem.” In the absence of any description of the species by the Celses, Salm-Dyck (l.c.) validly published E. williamsii with a Latin description and a rather fuller description in German. No original material is known to exist. In consequence, Anderson (in Brittonia 21: 304–305. 1969) designated as neotype the specimen cited above as “Typus”. In 1894, John M. Coulter (in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 3: 131. 1894) erected the genus Lophophora, with Echinocactus williamsii Lem. ex Salm-Dyck as its orginal type. The genus Lophophora J.M. Coult. today includes 3(–7) species. The name is accepted worldwide by scientists and amateurs: Hunt & al., New Cactus Lexicon, Text: 145. 2006; Anderson, Große Kakteen-Lexikon: 358–359. 2005; Hernández & Gómez-Hinostrosa, Mapping Cacti Mexico 2. Mammillaria. 2015; The Plant List, http://www.theplantlist.org/ and Plants of the World online, http://powo.science.kew.org/ (accessed 26 Mar 2021). Because the plants of this genus contain alkaloids, the name is included in most drug laws around the world. Echinocactus williamsianus Lem. was published two years before E. williamsii Salm-Dyck. The source of the plants is not known, but it is very likely that they were also from the Cels nursery. The name has never been in use. Lemaire, himself, later used the epithet of Salm-Dyck (Lemaire, Cactées: 49. 1868). It appears in only two publications: Monville, Cat. Pl. Exot.: 22. 1846 and Weber in Bois, Dict. Hort.: 90. 1893 but in the latter only as a synonym of Anhalonium williamsii. Like eight other cactus names published by Lemaire and by Monville in Herbier général de l'amateur, it has been ignored or overlooked by scientists and amateurs for over 170 years, not being listed in Index Kewensis and only appearing on 11 February 2021 in IPNI (http://www.ipni.org/). Here I propose that Echinocactus williamsii Lem. ex Salm-Dyck be conserved against E. williamsianus Lem. in accordance with Art. 14.2 of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). The non-acceptance of the proposal would have the consequence that a hitherto unknown name should be used for a very popular and well-known plant, resulting in the drug legislation of many countries around the world having to adopt the new name. AH, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5455-5093 I thank Prof. John McNeill for his guidance in drafting this proposal.