Backeberg - Copiapoa cinerea (Phil.) Br. & R.

Translated by E.W. Bentley from “Die Cactaceae” Vol. VI

Copiapoa cinerea v. columna-alba (Ritt) Backbg comb. nov.
Synonym: Copiapoa columna-alba Ritter “Cactus” (Paris) 14.65:1959

Ritter’s habitat picture of a large stand of C. columna-alba Ritt. resembles quite remarkably Hutchison’s Fig. 48 in the U.S. C. & S. XXV.3:1953, of C. cinerea from the locality between Taltal and Breas. The latter picture shows both solitary and offsetting plants. Ritter’s statements about offsetting or not offsetting are contradictory - C. cinerea (Phil) Br. & R. being distinguished as ”single, rarely offsetting” (Cactus 14.63:1959), later as “offsetting, rather short” (Cactus 14.65:1959), and specifically, up to 75cm high. This contradicts the older literature. I refer to Britton & Rose with their Fig. 98 (The Cactaceae Ill) from Schumann’s Fig 15 (Gesamtbeschreibung den Kakteen, Nachtrag 1903) who declare that these plants agree with the herbarium material of “Echinocactus cinereus” of Phillipi which they studied. Schumann adds, moreover, “in its native place, reaches 1.10 m in height”.

Hutchison’s illustrations also show partly sunken areoles (see under C. dealbata Ritt), the spination resembling less that of a C. cinerea of my Fig 1825 (Die Cactaceae Vol III) than Ritter’s C. columna-alba. With Fig 54 (U.S.C. & S.J. XXV.3:1953) Hutchison reproduces a sturdy clump of equal-sized heads of the spiny form which, together with his general description of this species-complex, allows one to equally appreciate with what care this difficult group has been studied, and also that Ritter’s division into species is not tenable. Nothing in this is altered by the comparative tabulation in “Cactus”.

Shortly before Ritter’s diagnoses were published, my Vol III (Die Cactaceae) appeared; in it I had to take a position on the plants known to me. Since I had not seen the above descriptions in the French Journal, I held that it was not possible to split off Copiapoa dealbata Ritt., in view of Hutchison’s Fig. 54 quoted above. I had, however, seen chalky-white plants with yellow spines and this did not agree with the original description (by Philippi). In his description, Ritter said for the first time that black spines also occurred. Because of this I proposed the name C. cinerea var. flavescens nom. prov. as a diverging variety in my Vol. III p. 1901, by means of which the main type variations at least could be distinguished, at least amongst the chalky-white plants.

The latin diagnosis of C. cinerea by Philippi reads:

“E. ominino cinereus diametri 4-pollicaris; costis numerosis; verrucis vix 2 lin. inter se distantibus, diametri 2½ lin., vetustioribus immersis, planis; aculeis 5-6 nigris, teretibus, supremis duobus parvis, ca. 6-8 lin. longis, centrali 9-10 lin. longo; apice lana alba densissima, 9 lin. longa tecto flores plures vix e lana emergentes, 9 lin. longos, flavos emittente. In litorali a valle Taltal a 25^o 15’ lat m. frequens, inter majores recensendus, valde ramosus, massas interdum diametri 1½ ped. formans.”

A type plant was not designated amongst the herbarium material; Rose chose the form that Schumann figured (from material collected by Soehrens). I also saw that form near Taltal and northwards in the direction of Paposo and reproduced it in my Vol III p. 1901, Fig. 1825. Hutchison now says that the lectotype selected by Rose from the herbarium material which was in some disorder at that time, was not a typical one for C. cinerea at the type locality. Hutchison has correctly recognised that plants growing at higher levels are spinier and that where considerable dryness obtains, they are then more low-growing. I cannot agree with him however when he asserts that “the population on the coast in general have more brownish and yellowish than black on grey spines .

Excluding the dull olive-greenish C. haseltoniana with brownish crowns, yellowish-brown spines, and lateral offsets (and also possible natural hybrids), in addition there still remains on the coast an abundant distribution of blackspined plants and clearly also some with smaller and finer spination as illustrated by the examples collected there by Soehrens and myself. That is to say: even if particular forms have been designated - like C. columna-alba by Ritter - Philippi has not encompassed the full range of variation in his description and it is therefore tiresome to argue whether a particular form collected by Philippi or the one chosen by Rose as the lectotype, should be given priority. In any case, Rose has supplemented Philippi’s description and there is therefore no reason to change it, On the other hand, now that the Rose lectotype has been chosen, one could highlight as varieties the markedly differing forms e.g. with pure yellowish spination (about which Philippi says nothing) likewise those plants exhibiting conspicuous clumping.

Although in C. dealbata Ritt. the crown wool is as grey as in C. cinerea, no less in the few-spined coastal forms, (brownish however in C. haseltoniana which is never black-spined), it is orange coloured in C. columna-alba Ritt., according to Ritter. This by itself, however, is not a decisive character since seedling plants have white wool.

I have seen seedlings that were already whitish-coated when young and had black spines (Vol III, plate 144, above left, Die Cactaceae). The seedling plants of my fig. 1829 differ from these insofar as they were brown with white spines. If some possible arrangement should or could be undertaken at least it should take account of the principal characteristics which in my opinion should be firstly according to the body colour and secondly on the basis of important divergence of spine colour from the original description. Therefore I proposed the name C. albispina nom. prop. for the brown, white-spined plants. Ritter called these plants C. cinerea v. albispina Ritt. According to my contention he thereby rejected the most important differentiating characteristic. (I leave the name in accordance with Ritter’s designation since I do not have at my disposal the necessary living material in the form of larger plants required to reach a definitive judgement).

I include C. dealbata Ritt. below as a variety of C. cinerea because the plants are also chalky-white, but markedly clump-forming. In this connection certainly, Hutchison’s figs. 51 and 54 would not be irrelevant. For this reason one cannot then regard Ritter’s description of C. dealbata Ritt. in “Cactus” 14.63:1959 as sufficient by itself. If one now compares Hutchison’s stock pictures fig. 48 and fig. 49 with the majority of single growing plants, it then seems prudent to at least classify the clump-building form as a variety. To me, the separation of a species (e.g. C. haseltoniana Bckbg.) seems possible only on the basis of quite differing body and spine colour, as well as the manner of offsetting (for example, laterally: as in C. haseltoniana). On the other hand it also seems a necessary separation if one wishes in some measure to obtain a clear view of the whole species complex. The crown colour is less decisive.

It so happens that Hutchison as well as Ritter did not figure plants with single and thinner black spines. This permits only the conclusion that they did not collect further north from Taltal, as did Soehrens and myself. The distribution data must therefore read: from Paposo through to Taltal to Breas; to some extent also inland.

Consideration of everything that has been said then establishes that Rose (with his quite brief description, but a good one as far as the data went on the more or less readily offsetting, partly black spined species) has given an adequate diagnosis of the species. Also it is my opinion that there is no case for opposing the lectotype chosen by him, because - from the aspect of the full data on the spine coating - this gives just as incomplete a picture as any other. In any case only one can be finally selected. It would be otherwise if the species were to be further sub-divided.

I hope however, that the above discussion adequately establishes why I have included with the above and following varieties the corresponding particular species of Ritter.

Copiapoa cinerea v. dealbata (Ritt) Backbg comb. nov.
Synonym: Copiapoa dealbata Ritt. “Cactus” (Paris) 14.63:1959

Ritter states that he found the plants only relatively far to the south. Yet it so happens that this clumping form with usually only one spine, resembles in this the northern form of my Fig. 1825 (likewise emanating from the coastal area) only that the former is clump-forming. Such clumping has however been established by Hutchison for the stronger and more numerously-spined plants, as well as a bigger range of variation, including many-headed plants. The foregoing variety then only comprehends a part of the more robust clump-building plants, is not whiter than those collected by me north of Taltal, and so is equally only a part-description, as is that of Philippi, for the species.

At A.M. Wouters, I saw plants grown from FR 509 seeds (C. dealbata Ritt.) with very pale brownish-white crown wool, very long spines and almost completely green body. Either we have here a mix-up in the seeds or seedling forms differing here markedly. These plants in any case do not resemble overall my coloured picture in Plate 144 (Vol III Die Cactaceae) below, right.

Copiapoa cinerea v. albispina Ritt. nom. nud. (FR 207 a) is a brownish plant with white spines (my Fig. 1839, middle and bottom, Vol III). In my opinion this is a more markedly diverging plant, for which I therefore proposed in 1959 the name C. albispina. Since these plants have not yet been described I leave it for the present under Ritter’s catalogue designation. Presumably the plant in my Fig. 3462 is a natural hybrid between C. cinerea and C. haseltoniana Backbg.

Comments

from E.W. Bentley

I have seen a slide from H. Middleditch which was taken in the collection of Locuty at Thun, Switzerland, of a plant grown from seed of FR 207a Copiapoa cinerea v. albispina from Winter. This also has an almost completely green body, very long outstanding central spines, well separated areoles and plenty of wool in the crown. I cannot imagine that this has any connection with Copiapoa cinerea.

from H. Middleditch

There is an article (published in Chile) by Reiche which clearly indicates that the persistence and thickness of the mist on the coast of Chile is greater between Taltal and Paposo than it is further south.

This mist will condense as dew during the night; it will condense not only on the ground but also on parts of a plant and it would seem to be quite probable that it will condense on the spines of any cacti, since the spines can be expected to cool down fairly sharply overnight. Now the Copiapoa cinerea which grow between Paposo and Taltal would appear to possess very few spines, just one or two short spines in each areole. The plant shown on the front cover seems to me to be a little spinier than those in the accompanying photographs. In the autumn of 1976 Knize offered in his latest catalogue a “Copiapoa cinerea v. uhligiana” from near Chanaral, which is further south than any previous recorded finding, so I sent for a specimen. It quite definitely has more spines than those plants would appear to possess which grow in the more mist-rich area to the north.

On the other hand I can quite imagine that local changes in the depth of rock cover on the ground, the orientation of a slope or quebrada which in turn affects exposure to the sun, together with the distance from the sea, would combine to bring about a local microclimate different from that typical of the valley floor. This could well lead to patches of ground supporting plants which differed in some aspect or other of their appearance from the general run of Copiapoa cinerea. Is this the origin of C. haseltoniana, gigantea, cinerea albispina, columna-alba, and so on? If these plants are grown from seed in a European greenhouse climate it is perhaps not too surprising that they present an appearance differing from that produced by the local habitat climate.

from G.J. Swales

It is interesting to compare the original latin diagnosis for Copiapoa cinera by Phillipi, with that quoted by Backeberg. It is remarkable that there is a mistake in the quoted version. Whereas Phillipi states, for spines, “aculeis 5-6, nigris, teretibus, supremis duobus parvis, circa 2 lin. longis, inferioribus ca. 6-8 lin. longis, centrali 9-10 longo”, Backeberg omits the words “circa 2 lin. longis, inferioribus”. In addition, Backeberg quotes Hutchison as saying that “the populations on the coast in general have more brownish and yellowish than black or grey spines” whereas the words Hutchison actually used were “shoreline populations of C. cinerea have generally ' . .. spines which are brownish or yellowish . . .' rather than black on grey as is typical of the inland population”.

Backeberg goes on to consider the degree of variation in spination and degree of offsetting and then suggests that “one could highlight as varieties the markedly differing forms, e.g. with pun yellowish spination (about which Phillipi says nothing), likewise those plants exhibiting conspicuous clumping”; I do not understand this particular observation.

from H. Middleditch

It would appear that Backeberg does not have much regard for Hutchison’s careful assessment of the difference between the specimen with five or six radial spines which was chosen by Phillipi as the Type, and the specimen with only one or two spines which was taken by Rose as the Type. He appears to accept that this degree of variation does fall within the compass of “Copiapoa cinerea”; his following observation (which puzzles Geoff Swales) seems to be suggesting that both those plants which clump conspicuously and also the plants which bear only yellow spines, can be given another designation, possibly as varieties of C. cinerea. For quite some time I have regarded only those Copiapoa seedlings which had one or two black spines as C. cinerea, and I had wondered whether those with purplish-tinged bodies, and others with rather different spination, were the result of some dabbling with a paintbrush in a nursery or collection somewhere. However, it would now appear to be quite likely that they could well be just the juvenile form of the degree of variation found in plants in the wild.