COPIAPOA STREPTOCAULON (Hooker emend Ritt.) Ritter comb. nov.

By Friedrich Ritter
Translated by E. W. Bentley from K.u.a.S. 12:1:1961

This species was described and figured by Hooker in the year 1851 in Curtis‘s Botanical Magazine 77 as Echinocactus streptocaulon. A copy of this illustration is to be found in Britton & Rose‘s Cactaceae Vol.3. p.86. Later K. Schumann in his Gesamtbeschreibung took this species to be a synonum of Echinocactus marginatus S.D. with the observation: "In my opinion it cannot in the least be doubted that Echinocactus marginatus S. D. corresponds to Echinocactus streptocaulon Hook., even if the latter is more sharply spirally twisted.“ The spiral twisting will be unimportant though; it can come about in individual sterns as a result of some check (as in the picture here attached the head on the left below is twisted) without it being a specific species character. According to rny experience there is no Copiapoa in which twisted ribs are specific. Thus the name "streptocaulon“ chosen by Hooker would be misleading, for it means twisted-stemmed. The original illustration however undoubtedly depicts a Copiapoa. Britton and Rose follow Schumann and also take Echinocactus streptocaulon as synonymous with Echinocactus marginatus S.D., which they recombine as Copiapoa marginata (S.D.) Br. and R.

Copiapoa rnarginata grows near Antofagasta and is the most northerly species of this genus. It is not however possible to get the description and still less the illustration of Echinocactus streptocaulon Hook. to correspond with that of Copiapoa marginata and if Forster-Rumpler‘s hand-book gives both as distinct species there are good grounds for it. As however was rather frequently the case, Schumann was too hasty in his species determination and identification. Forster­Rumpler gives a translation of the original description of E. streptocaulon. It reads:

"Homeland Bolivia, introduced from there by the English Botanist Dr. Thomas Bridges. Body upright, colurnnar-cylindrical, almost like a Cereus, at the base sorne what narrowed, 45 cm. high, the crown blunt and woolly. Ribs 12-14, very sharp, running up in a screw-like spiral, with sharply indented furrows between. Spine clumps very closely placed, bare. Radial spines spread out in a ray, not quite 1 - 2 cm. long. Central spine 1 standing up vertically, 2 to 3 limes longer than the radials. Flowers 3 to 4 developing out of the wool of the crown, yellow, scarcely standing out from the spines, when completely open only 2¾ to 3½ cm. in diameter, with lanceolate-spathulate perianth leaves. Style longer than the stamens with 9-12 rayed stigma.“

Habitat data at that time only rarely agreed with the facts. The Chilean province of Antofagasta belonged to Bolivia when Bridges collected there. There are now no cacti there that agree with this description by Forster-Rumpler, but perhaps other plants found further to the south in the latitude of Caldera would agree with it. The same goes for other species. Thus Echinocactus bridgesii was also despatched as frorn Bolivia, whereas it is now found growing in Chile in the neighbour­hood of that Copiapoa which I associate with the description of the so-called Bolivian Echinocactus streptocaulon Hook. On the other hand, Echinocactus marginatus S.D. was at that time attributed to Valparaiso in Chile, while it grows far away near Antofagasta, at that time in Bolivia.

The ribs of rny Echinocactus streptocaulon, as the figure shows clearly, are sharper and higher than those of Echinocactus marginatus; the continuous ribbon of areoles is very characteristic of the species from Caldera while in Echinocactus marginatus in contrast the areoles are distinct and only sometimes ribbon-like. Above all, however, the spination does not correspond; in Echinocactus marginatus the central spines are not two to three limes longer than the radial spines, the centrals are only slightly stronger and longer than the radials and they do not stand out of the areole ribbons as shown in the picture of my Echinocactus streptocaulon from Caldera. The other data from Forster-Rumpler‘s description also hold true for this species. Since I know of no other species which otherwise could come into consideration, I therefore identify the species from Caldera with Echinocactus streptocaulon Hooker, choose a neotype for it, since Hooker‘s original material is no longer available, and give for it the following emended description.

Echinocactus streptocaulon Hooker emend Ritter.

Viridis, radice brevissirno conoideo-napiforme, valde proliferans, pulvinos laxos, ad 50 cm. altos formans. Caules 7-10 cm. diam., vertice p!ano, griseo-lanuginosos. Costae 10-14, obtusae, vix gibbosae, supra 1 cm. altae, interdum lortae. Areolae approxirnate vel inter se contingentes, rotundatae, 0.5 - 1 cm. diarn., brunneo-tomentosae, canescentes. Aculei atro-brunnei, canescentes; marginales 5-7, paene recti, robusti, 1-1.5 cm. longi, lateraliter radiantes; centrales 1-3, rigidissimi, porrecti, 2.5 - 4cm. longi. Flos 2.5 - 3.5cm. longus; tubus 1-1.5 cm. longus, flavus, paucis squamis magnis instructus; camera nectarifera 3-5 mm. longa, 3-4 mm. lata, semipatens; filamenta flavida, ca. 1 cm. longa, antheris cutrinus; stylus 1.75 - 2 cm longus, flavidus, stigmatibus 10-15, pallide-citrinis. Phylla perigonii ca. 15 mm. longa, 7 mm. lata, apice rotundata, flavida. Fructus plerumque nudus, interdum apice 1-2 squamis rubidis, ca. 5 mm. longis instructus, pallide-viridis. Semen 1 mm. longum, 2/3 mm. latum, nigrurn, nitidulum, minutissime verrucosum, hilo albo, ovali, basali praeditum.

Locus typi: Morro Copiapo, prope Caldera, Chile borealis. Coll Fr. Ritter (FR 511).

Body grass-green, with shorter, tougher, rapidly tapering swollen root-stock with thick neck. Individual heads 7 to 10 cm thick, readily offsetling, large, forming a somewhat open clump, up to 50 cm. high. Fiat crown with grey wool.

Ribs 10 to 14, broad obtuse, neither tubercled nor notched, more than 1 cm. high.

Areoles closely approaching each other or touching one another, rounded 0.5 to 1.0 cm. in diameter, brownish felted when new, later going grey and becoming black.

Spines: Radial spines more or less 5 to 7 practically straight, stout, pointing sidewards, the sideways or downwards pointing ones commonly the longest, dark brown, quickly going grey, about 1 to 1.5 cm. long; additionally 1 to 3 straight, very stout, porrect, 2.5 to 4 cm. long central spines similarly coloured.

Flowers from the crown, with characteristic Copiapoa flower-scent, 2.5 to 3.5 cm. long, opening more or less wide, but frequently prevented from doing so by the spination, without any narrowing above the ovary.

Tube funneliform, pale yellow, 1 to 1.5 cm. long, opening 1 to 1.2 cm. broad, exterior with a few larger, greenish scales becoming red-brown above.

Nectar chamber 3 to 5 mm. long, 3 to 4 mm. broad, half-open.

Filaments pale yellow, the lower ones 1.2cm. long, the upper 0.7 to 0.9 cm. long. Anthers citron yellow. Insertion chiefly above the nectar chamber, fewer inserted in the upper part of the tube as far as the margin.

Style 1.75 to 2 cm. long, 2 mm. thick, pale yellow, the 10 to 15 spreading stigma lobes, pale citron yellow, barely projecting above the highest anthers.

Perianth leaves 1.2 to 1.7 cm. long, 6 to 8 mm. broad, narrower below, rounded off above, pale yellow, the outermost reddish at the tips; expanded.

Fruit usually quite scaleless, occasionally with 1 or 2 reddish scales on the ovary of 3 to 7 mm. in length and 2 to 3 mm. breadth. Fruit pale green, or with a faint red tint, at the upper end greener or more reddish-brown, 1 up to 1.2 cm. long, 0.8 up to 1.2 cm. broad, barrel shaped, the lid-like top cracking open wide when ripe. Fruit hairless.

Seed about 1 mm. long, 2/3 mm. broad, 1/3 mm. thick, black, somewhat shiny, very finely tuberculated; Hilum at the basal end inclined half ventral-wards, oval, white.

Type locality (according to Ritter, not Hooker) Morro Copiapo, south-westerly from Caldera, on the north Chilean coast. Area of distribution: only known from the Type Locality.

The flower data comes from two different plants. 1 reference this rediscovered species under my field number FR51 1. The Neotype and seed samples from the Type locality (sensu Ritter) were sent under this number to the Stadlische Sukklenten Sammlung in Zurich.

The species from Caldera identified by me as Echinocactus streptocaulon Hooker is consistent with the description of the genus Copiapoa Britton and Rose. Accordingly I combine it anew; Copiapoa streptocaulon (Hooker emend Ritter) Ritter. Systematically this species stands between Copiapoa dura sp.n. (still unpublished) which grows further to the south-east and Copiapoa bridgesii (Pfeiffer emend Ritter) Ritter comb. nov. (still unpublished) which grows to the north. The differences from C. bridgesii are as follows: off setting more readily, thicker but relatively shorter off sets, flatter crown with less felt, more ribs, longer nectar chamber, shorter style, scales fewer on the fruit and more elongated, flatter seeds, with C. streptocaulon.

Figure 1 is a shot of Copiapoa streptocaulon from the type locality near Caldera. For comparison in Fig.2, I show a habitat shot of C. marginata (S.D.) Br. and R. from Antofagasta. It is easy to see that, contrary to K. Schumann and also the assumption of Britton and Rose, there are two different species.

Comment
from E. W. Bentley

The translation of the original description of Echinocactus streptocaulon by Forster-Rumpler does not seem to be very exact

from H. Middleditch

It does indeed appear at first sight that there are differences between the original description of Echinocactus streptocaulon by Hooker and that quoted by Ritter as Forster-Rumpler‘s description. However, it seems that the latter description utilizes part of Hooker‘s original Latin text and parts of Hooker‘s English text. After comparing both descriptions, I do not find anything in Forster-Rumpler‘s description which modifies the original description by Hooker, although it does include additions. Ritter then goes on to say that there are no plants "there“ i.e. in the Chilean province of Antofagasta, "which agree with Forster-Rumpler‘s description.“ This might suggest that Ritter is having to rely on the second-hand description by Forster-Rumpler and has never seen the original description and illustration from Hooker‘s Botanical Journal; naturally he would find a German publication easier of reference than an English one. But this would further suggest that he may not appreciate that the illustration in Britton and Rose‘s publication is a fairly good copy of Hooker‘s original. To what extent, therefore, are we to accept that Ritter has been unable to find a plant conforming to Hooker‘s description and illustration of Echinocactus streptocaulon around Antofagasta, if we only know that Ritter has been unable to find there a plant conforming to Forster-Rumpler‘s description?

But if Ritter was not familiar with Hooker‘s original illustration of Echinocactus streptocaulon, on what does he base his comment that "it is not possible to get . . . the illustration of Echinocactus Streptocaulon Hook. to correspond with . . "  This would suggest that Ritter has indeed had sight of Hooker‘s original illustration and hence would know if such a plant was to be found near Antofagasta. Do we accept, therefore, that the original streptocaulon which was collected by Bridges now no longer exists in the region of Antofagasta? Or do we accept that it never did exist there? Do we further accept that it actually came from near Caldera, where Ritter found it on Morro Copiapo? Could Bridges have collected it there when (and if) the ship on which he sailed from Valparaiso in early 1844 called in at Port Copiapo or Caldera, en route to Cobija? Was this a likely calling point for a coastal boat in 1844?

Of all the cactus collectors who have operated in Chile, there is little doubt that Friedrich Ritter has traveled over more of that country, more frequently, and over a longer period, than almost anyone else. Although come collectors may well be more familiar with certain plants from specific localities, it seems probable that Ritter will be unequalled in his appreciation of the cactus flora of Chile as a whole. If Ritter does indeed mean that he cannot find any plants near Antofagasta that resemble Hooker‘s illustration of Echinocactus streptocaulon, then either there are none left there, or alternatively there were never any there and Bridge‘s collected plants did not come from there. Hence it is difficult to avoid the thought that Bridge‘s boat may have put in at the mouth of the Rio Copiapo in 1841 or 1844 - perhaps to unload coal for transit to the smelters at the copper or silver mines inland up the Copiapoa valley; Bridges would perhaps have had time to travel eleven or twelve miles along the coast and so visit the site of Ritter‘s collecting locality for C. streptocaulon, there to collect Echinocactus streptocaulon Hook, Echinocactus marginatus S.D., Echinocactus columnaris Pfeiff and Echinocactus bridgesii Pfeiff. The grass-green body of Ritter‘s streptocaulon would be a fair match for the colour of the plant body in Hooker‘s original illustration, a slide of which was screened at our 1975 Brooksby Gathering. Hooker‘s original streptocaulon was described as being "a foot and a half high“ which is round about half a metre or 50 cms. And Ritter‘s streptocaulon is described as "up to 50 cm. high.“ It seems nearly too good to be true. On one point, however, there appears to be a difference. Hooker‘s description of Echinocactus streptocaulon made no mention of the colour of the wool in the crown, whereas the colour plate which accompanied his description quite clearly displayed creamy-brown wool in the crown. Ritter‘s own description for Copiapoa streptocaulon quotes grey wool in the crown. In comparing this species with C. bridgesii, Ritter states that C. streptocaulon has less felt in the crown. The original illustration of Echinocactus bridgesii which accompanied Pfeiffer‘s description has the crown obscured by the flower but there is no sign of a woolly crown although Pfeiffer‘s description states that there is dense wool in the crown. The flower on the original plate of Echinocactus bridgesii is 55 mm. across. The pale crown on the plate of Echinocactus streptocaulon Hook. (reproduced in this issue) appears on the original colour plate as creamy-brown wool, which is in no way obscured by three flowers, each of which is some 30 mm. across. It seems to be almost impossible to relate the colour and relative amount of wool in the crown of these two species as quoted by Ritter, with that which is evident on the original plates. Is this to be regarded as a matter of any importance, or is it to be disregarded? If it is disregarded, how does one differentiate (if at all) between Copiapoa streptocaulon Hook., C. streptocaulon Ritter, C. marginata, C. lembckei and C. bridgesii?

The plant which Ritter refers to in this article as "Copiapoa marginata from near Antofagasta“ is a clumping or solitary plant with globular to shortly-elongated-globular bodies; it is not the cylindrical or elongated-ellipsoid bodied plant originally collected by Bridges near Caldera, a very great distance to the south of Antofagasta. Ritter‘s "Copiapoa marginata“ is Copiapoa atacamensis sp. nov; see Chileans No. 37.

The flower of C. streptocaulon is described by Ritter as having a characteristic Copiapoa odour. It had not previously been borne upon me that any scent was associated with flowers on Copiapoa.

from K. Wood-Allum

On the question of scented flowers on Copiapoa, I can report that Copiapoa pendicolour has a strong germicidal smell and C. marginata a slight sweet scent. My wife confirms both observations. The scent was only discernable shortly after the flower had opened fully and faded rapidly even though the flowers tthemselves lasted for up to three days.

from Mr. and Mrs. Collins

We have flowered C. hypogea, C. barquitensis and C. coquimbana and all three definitely had a distinct sweetish scent.

from Mr. and Mrs. Swales

The basis of smell is provided by the essential oil in a plant or flower, which is a substance which evaporates readily and strongly affects the sense of smell. Perhaps the most obvious examples are the citrus fruits such as the orange, which contains essential oils in the skin of the fruit and also in the leaves. In flowers, the essential oil is in the petals from which it is extracted for the manufacture of perfume. The essential oil is probably produced by special glands in the petals. Some smells are not detectable by some or all Homo sapiens but still exist and can be detected by insects. Some male moths for example can detect the scent emitted by a female moth in concentrations as low as a few parts per million. When the smell is so faint as to provide no discernable concentration gradient, the male moth will turn and fly into the wind, until it is able to detect a change in the concentration of the smell, when it will change its direction to follow the steepest gradient of increase in the concentration of the smell.

(Further articles concerning the plants collected by Thomas Bridges in the Caldera-Chañaral area will appear in future issues of The Chileans.)