The type of Ancistrocactus (Cactaceae)

Abstract

Salm-Dyck (1850: 28) published the Echinocactus sect. Uncinati for 15 species of Echinocactus. One of the included specific names was E. uncinatus Pfeiffer & Otto (often incorrectly attributed to Galeotti), and under Art. 22.4 of the Code (Greuter & al., 1988) the type of the sectional is the same as the type of the specific name. The type of E. uncinatus is t. 18 Pfeiffer & Otto's Abbildungen, vol. 2, as it is either the holotype under Art. 7.3 Note 1, or the obligate lectotype (only extant portion of the original material) accordance with Art. 7.4-5. The neotypification by Ferguson (1991) is thus superseded (Art. 8.1(a)). Schumann (1897-1898: 292) raised Salm-Dyck's section to the rank of subgenus and published the new Echinocactus subg. Ancistrocactus. As circumscribed by Schumann the subgenus contained 20 species, including E. uncinatus. Schumann directly cited Salm-Dyck's epithet as a replaced synonym and therefore published his new as an avowed substitute. In accordance with Art. 7.11, Echinocactus subg. Ancistrocactus is typified by the type of Echinocactus sect. Uncinati. (Schumann was not obliged to retain Salm-Dyck's epithet upon the change of rank and chose not to do SO.) Britton & Rose (1923: 4) raised Schumann's subgenus to generic rank, but excluded all of Salm-Dyck's original species except Echinocactus scheeri Salm-Dyck. They designated E. megarhizus Rose as type, but under Art. 7.12 Ancistrocactus (Schumann) Britton & Rose is typified by the type of its basionym, namely E. uncinatus, which Britton & Rose referred to Ferocactus. Britton & Rose's actions do not fall within the scope of Art. 48.1. That addresses When an author adopts an existing name (the generic Ancistrocactus did not exist until Rose published it) and A new formed from a previously published legitimate (stat. nov., comb. nov.) is covered by Art. 7.12. Britton & Rose's exclusion of the type does not prevent Art. 7.12 from applying, because that paragraph, as currently worded, applies in all circumstances, apparently regardless of whether the type was excluded or not. Backeberg (1938: [22]) published Glandulicactus with Echinocactus uncinatus Pfeiffer & Otto as type (though credited to Galeotti). Hence, Glandulicactus is an illegitimate synonym of Ancistrocactus. Buxbaum (in Krainz, 1963) published the combination Hamatocactus subg. Glandulicactus, which is illegitimate because the epithet of Echinocactus subg. Ancistrocactus Schumann should have been adopted.