The Chileans Volume 14, # 48:108

COPIAPOA ATACAMENSIS by Harry Middleditch

Up until the last few years it bad always been assumed that it was Thomas Bridges who collected the very first example of Copiapoa marginata when he visited Cobija, then the port of entry on the Pacific coast which was the start of the trail to the highlands of Bolivia. However, no plants which would meet the original description of C. marginata have yet been found at Cobija, whilst plants which do conform to that description abound along the hilly coast from south of Caldera to as far north as Chañaral. In the 1960‘s and 1970‘s imported plants of elongated forms of Copiapoas became readily available under names such as streptocaulon or marginata. These were discussed in The Chileans (No.37 p.18), where it was suggested that those plants which had been collected from the neighbourhood of Antofagasta over the course of the last fifty years and brought into cultivation under the name of C. marginata, required a new name. Following on from that discussion there is now ample evidence available that Thomas Bridges did visit the locality near Caldera where columnar-growing Copiapoa are found, which were then sent from Chile to Europe, where they were distributed as Echinocactus marginatus, and under other names. Ritter himself in his Kakteen in Sudamerika acknowledges that Copiapoa marginata emanates from near Caldera and not from Antofagasta as he had first believed.

It may be argued that Bridges could possibly have found his Echinocactus marginatus on his visit to Cobija, but any such contention must explain the contradictory evidence. Firstly, no collector has yet reported finding any Copiapoa in the vicinity of Cobija. It might even be suggested that Bridges could have travelled some distance up or down the coast whilst he was at Cobija and so discovered the plant at an isolated spot where it was not subsequently rediscovered. However, the slides taken by R.Ferryman on his trip to the Grand North in the course of his first visit to Chile, showed clearly that the coastal hills drop steeply down to the shore along a considerable length of that part of the coast on which Cobija lies. At the Chileans‘ Autumn Weekend we also heard the graphic account from R.Ferryman of his trek along the face of this slope from an accessible point overlooking the sea, to take a closer look at some Eulychnias which were to be seen perhaps a km or so away. Eventually they were reached after a couple of hours struggling along the slope. across steep-sided quebradas and over patches of loose sand.

In 1841 no European would consider such a hike - the peons walked, the Europeans rode; travel up and down the coast from Cobija was virtually impossible in the saddle. Today it is perhaps difficult to appreciate the pioneering nature of travel outside the established trade routes of the day. Practicalities of travel such as the absence of maps, the few places where provisions were available, must be related to 1841 and not to today‘s situation. It may be argued that Bridges may have seen plant life on shore whilst passing Mejillones; that be calculated the distance from there to Cobija was roughly similar to the cross-desert trek he had previously made from Copiapó to Totorillo; that he organised transport and provisions in Cobija for a visit to Mejillones; that he took a practical route away from the immediate coast; and so collected some Copiapoa there. However, there is and was no fresh water at or near Mejillones and the logistics would seem to be against survival on such a trek. For practical purposes it appears that all Bridges‘ elongated Copiapoas were collected in the area around port Copiapó and Caldera.

It may be considered that that Copiapoa atacamensis could have been collected somewhere near Antofagasta in the area where Dr. Rose collected it in 1914, or even south of Antofagasta in the Bolivia of that time. In his original description of Echinocactus boliviensis, Pfeiffer gave Bolivia as the country of origin. The traditional boundary between Chile and Upper Peru (later Bolivia) lay at Hueso Pardo, just to the north of Taltal (Chileans 40, p.30). If the plant which Pfeiffer described really bad come from Bolivia, it could have come from anywhere between that boundary and Antofagasta. However Bolleart specifically notes the problems of trying to disembark anywhere along this stretch of then quite uninhabited coast (Chileans 40, p.30). Along this coast no means of life support were available to a traveller at that time. It is indeed surprising that Philippi, on his pioneering trip through the Atacama desert, did venture further north than Paposo, as far as El Cobre. Philippi also managed to land at Mejillones from a boat; it should be borne in mind that Philippi was travelling as a representative of the Chilean government and with a government ship at his disposal. However there is no record of any traveller or collector visiting any part of this coast between Bridges‘ 1844 visit to Cobija and Philippi‘s 1854 visit to that coast.

When Dr. Rose collected on the hilly slopes above Antofagasta in 1914 he came across same globular- to ellipsoid-­bodied plants which he took to be Copiapoa marginata. In selecting this name he greatly confused subsequent discussion of the location and habit of this plant. It is quite clear that for same time Ritter accepted the name marginata for the Copiapoa found near Antofagasta (Copiapoa streptocaulon, Chileans 38) which he illustrates in K.u.a.S 12.1.1961. The comments made on this subject by Backeberg in his Die Cactaceae merely added further to the confusion. Plants found near Antofagasta by Knize during his earliest collecting trips to Chile were identified as Kz 90; in the 1968 Dodonaeus. Knize published photographs both of single headed specimens and of plants with up to about half a dozen heads, all globular or perhaps slightly elongated-globular. The comment by Britton and Rose that their “Copiapoa marginata“ from Antofagasta was globular, later elongated, was always a puzzle to me, since neither the photographs or comments from either Ritter or Knize alluded in any way to elongated growth. So I decided to purchase a couple of plants of Kz 90 from Knize, both of which arrived as nice globular specimens with bodies about 60mm across; they looked quite similar to the photograph of Kz9O in the 1968 Dodonaeus and equally similar to plants photographed by R. Ferryman near Blanco Encalada. One of these two plants was kept in my own collection and the other was passed on to E.W. Bentley. My own plant remained globular, or, as some may put it, did not grow much. Imagine my astonishment a year or two later to find the other plant well cultivated by E.W. Bentley and grown to the shape shown on the cover! Had Brittan and Rose seen the same sort of thing happen to their own plant in cultivation, hence their description of “later elongated“? So I thought! Had I consulted Ritter‘s Kakteen in Sudamerika Vol.3 after its publication I would have found his “Copiapoa boliviana“ was globular “later 200-500mm long, occasionally up to 1m long, procumbent“. It was the slides shown to The Chileans‘ Weekend by R. Ferryman which were taken in the course of his first trip to Chile which showed clearly to me for the first time that this plant did indeed grow “later elongated“.

from I.M.Johnston, “Flora of northern Chile“.

Much of the early collecting in this region was done at Cobija which is situated between Antofagasta and Tocopilla and is now practically deserted. During most of the first half of the last century it was one of the principal ports-of-call between Coquimbo and Arica. It was under the Bolivian flag and from it started one of the main routes to the Bolivian plateau. Hugh Cuming visited and collected at Cobija in September 1828. Unfortunately his plants were distributed under a general printed label reading “Cobija, Iquique, et Arica“ and consequently the precise source of the specimens is unknown. The elder Hooker has made further confusion by labeling them in his herbarium as from Peru and even from Lima!

D‘Orbigny collected about Cobija in April 1830. A large collection was made there by M.Gaudichaud who was in the port July 1-3 1836. Thomas Bridges did a little collecting at Cobija in September 1844. His plants were distributed with those he collected on the plateau and in the Amazon forests, and like them merely labeled as from Bolivia. About Antofagasta little collecting has been done. Herzog collected there in September 1911, and Rose in October 1914. The only collections I know of from Tocopilla were by Vidal in September 1889 and Gulland in 1918. Collections from Iquique were made by Salinas in December 1913 and at Quebrada de Huantaca near Iquique by Martens in September 1904. Recently Werdermann collected in the Quebrada Huantajaya near Iquique; Rose also collected at Iquique in 1914. There is very little literature bearing directly upon the Flora of the nitrate coast.

from R.Ferryman

There is little doubt in my mind that the plant illustrated by Pfeiffer as Echinocactus marginatus is of a plant that originates from the Copiapó-Caldera area. Copiapoa abound in the coastal flats and hills throughout the area from Morro Copiapó to Caldera and beyond. Several forms exist amongst which are more columnar types, presumably Echinocactus columnaris sensu Pfeiffer but doubtless only a form. The plants from Antofagasta are quite different and as H. Middleditch proposed in these pages some time ago they deserve a different name. Confirmation can be found by comparing the description by Britton and Rose with their illustration. The plants of Copiapoa which I found in the Antofagasta area correspond with the description by Britton and Rose rather than with the illustration. The question is simply what to call the plant now that C. marginatus has been tied to Caldera.

The description of Echinocactus bolivianus by Pfeiffer is quite clearly of a Copiapoa. Although it is far from a comprehensive description it contains enough clues. The mention of 'epidermis decidua‘ (deciduous epidermis) is a phrase that I can well liken to the plants I found. It is not strictly true of course but I can understand the impression given. Similarly the plants are not green with white clothing but more a dirty grey with the white infusion typical of Copiapoa. They are in my opinion the scruffiest looking of all Copiapoa and when covered in dense fog look as though they need a good wash!

The plants I found (RMF 39) were particularly abundant in the coastal hills around Morro Moreno through the Bay of Chimba continuing south to the sparse representation at Blanco Encalada. I found no sign of Copiapoa around Cobija. The Bay of Chimba would have represented a safe harbour for Bridges‘ vessel on route to Cobija: upon landing he would have found little difficulty in finding the Copiapoa for there are no high mountains running right to the edge of the sea at that spot. My collection list shows the field data as sea level to 200 metres altitude. Confirmation of the ease of landing here at Chimba can be seen by the fact that Antofagasta now represents a large fishing part and dock. Antofagasta is of course situated in the Bay of Chimba.

The plants themselves grew in areas overlooking the sea in a habitat that I can only describe as resembling a builders‘ yard. Rubble of all shapes and sizes strewn about with the plants preferring the base of rocks or, where possible, genuine ground. A few grew from cracks and crevices between rocks but most preferred a more open aspect. Soil was fairly soft uniform earth into which the plants put down a fairly substantial tap root. The area was obviously damp for lengthy periods as lichen grew quite abundantly on the Copiapoa and on the Eulychnia. During our two day stay in that locality the mist never cleared far any length of time. Little other vegetation could be found - the odd dead or dying shrub was all that could be seen. Cerro Moreno was reached from an inland road linking Antofagasta with Cobija/Tocopilla. The road travels along the coast for most of its length as far as the Mejillones peninsula, from where the road continues straight on but the coast becomes distant. On regaining the coast at the northern end of the Mejillones peninsula it is possible to turn west and follow the coastline back to Cerro Moreno, but it is a very arduous journey. From Cobija to Mejillones I saw no Copiapoa, either at the coast or in the hills. As to how far the Copiapoa may be distributed along the peninsula north from Cerro Moreno would be pure speculation on my part; Ritter makes no mention of their appearance any further north than La Chimba. The southernmost occurrence is at Blanco Encalada where it grows amongst rocks in the ravines. Here the appearance of the plants is much nicer. Further south the larger Copiapoas take over and although one would need a lifetime to explore the coast from Blanco Encalada to Taltal it seems to me unlikely that it would appear here, this view being based upon the field work which I have managed to carry out around Paposo and Taltal.

The plants at Caldera which Ritter calls Copiapoa calderana = Copiapoa lembckei Backbg. bear an uncanny resemblance to the C. boliviana / atacamensis, part of which may be attributable to the extent of their variation. It may be recollected that Pfeiffer also described Echinocactus (Copiapoa) bridgesii as coming from Bolivia whereas Ritter puts it amongst the collection of Copiapoa in the surroundings of Caldera. The illustration entitled C. bridgesii on the front cover of Chileans No.37. is of a plant that I would consider to be Copiapoa boliviana.

further from H. Middleditch

It is most interesting to hear that Copiapoa atacamensis is to be found within striking distance of the shore line around what is now Antofagasta. As R. Ferryman has stopped in that locality he will have seen for himself the apparent convenience with which a collector could make a landing at that spot; he also suggests that Bridges may have landed there. However, it may be as well to bear in mind that Bridges would travel out to Cobija an a commercial boat that would earn its keep by anchoring at recognised ports of call and dropping off or collecting freight or passengers. There would be no question of a "request“ stop for one passenger who was a working foreman an an Estate in central Chile; even less likely would be a "request“ stop an the stretch of coast between Blanco Encalada and Mejillones where there was no trade to be had and no-one to trade with. In 1835-1842 there was no port at Antofagasta, nor yet any habitation. In addition we find Isaiah Bowman (Desert Trails of Atacama, 1924) writing of his visit to Antofagasta that “it has a very poor natural harbour; vessels must anchor in the open roadstead and discharge by lighter to the small moles. Exposure to the southwest gales can entail further delay“.

It was Cuming who sailed up the coast of Chile in his own yacht, stopping at his pleasure, so he could have landed and collected this Copiapoa. But his interest was collecting shells. He sailed home to Europe westwards across the Pacific, collecting again on the shores of the East Indies. It seems unlikely that he would involve himself with plants on such an extended return journey to Europe, particularly since his interest in plants arose only from acting as selling agent for Bridges. Even if Bridges had succeeded in making the return trip from Cobija to waterless Mejillones, no Copiapoa were seen by R. Ferryman in the vicinity of Mejillones.

Thus it would seem to me, an the basis of sheer practicalities of travel at that time, that we are still left without any definite evidence that the plants described by Pfeiffer as Echinocactus boliviensis could have come from the vicinity of what is now Antofagasta; there appears to me to be every probability that they could have come from a part of Chile visited at that time by utilising the facilities then available. At the time of Pfeiffer‘s description, there were occasions when cacti from one country were incorrectly attributed to another, whilst cacti from South America were even attributed to Mexico. Hence the possibility cannot be ruled out altogether that that the plant an which Pfeiffer based his description had been collected much further to the south, perhaps as far south as Caldera again.

At the time when this plant was originally collected, there was a great deal of interest in Europe in acquiring previously unknown plants from overseas. This was fuelled by the spread of wealth to manufacturers and merchants arising out of the exploding industrial revolution in Western Europe, whilst the retention of collected plants was made possible by the novel Victorian conservatories. In turn, this required merchants to acquire and distribute plants, but - most importantly - it required travellers and collectors to venture abroad where plants could be found, dug up, and shipped back to Europe. There would certainly be same plants which could well have been collected by whim, but the great majority of collections were made by travellers who had been promised cash in return for their efforts - quite possibly with money up front to cover same of their initial expenses. Any merchant or collector who put up either money or promise of cash might approach either someone who was going abroad for the first time, or else a person who had already been abroad; if the latter, it might even be a traveller who already knew where plants were to be dug up, who knew what transport problems had to be faced. Put yourself in the position of a plant merchant or rich collector who is proposing to put up front money together with a promise of cash for plants, in 1842. Would you pick on Bridges, who can tell you that he has been to the Rio Copiapo where there are these unknown cacti by the boatload, growing not far off the coast, where there is a port which is visited by a regular and reliable sailing ship service? Where they can be transported to the coast as complete large plants, not just the crown like the Copiapoa echinoides he had collected on his previous trip, at Totoral? Or would you pay out your money and promises to someone who is off to the wilds of Africa or Amazonia in the hope of finding something? Before you handed over your money, would you extract a promise from Bridges that after he left Valparaiso in 1844, he would stop off at the Rio Copiapó and collect several cases of plants which he could have forwarded - as was common practice - in his absence either to Valparaiso or even to Europe. If you had been in Bridges shoes, knowing the frequency of the sailing service up the coast of Chile and the relative ease of breaking his journey at Rio Copiapó, would you have accepted the money and executed the commission?

If this explanation is accepted, then Echinocactus bolivianus Pfeiff, syn. Copiapoa bolivianus Ritt., does not refer to the plants in question growing between Antofagasta and Blanco Encalada. It was one of the load of plants collected by Bridges not too far from Caldera in 1844, many of which were listed in Schelhause‘ catalogue of 1846. At that time both Echinocactus marginatus and E. columnaris were stated to be from Valparaiso, whereas they were from the area between Morro Copiapo and Caldera; Echinocactus bolivianus and Echinocactus bridgesii were both stated to be from Bolivia (Abbildung und Beschreibung Bluhender Kakteen Vol.2 Part 3 Plate 14, 1846, Pfeiffer & Otto) and it is highly probable that they, too, were from the area round the mouth of the Rio Copiapó.

The realities of trade and business of the 1840‘s would therefore appear to suggest that the plant collected near Antofagasta and named Copiapoa marginata by Britton & Rose, was indeed a previously uncollected sort and if this is accepted then the name Copiapoa atacamensis is justified. Even leaving aside the questionable basionym for Ritter‘s name of Copiapoa bolivianus for this plant, Ritter‘s name was published in 1980 in his Vol 3 of Kakteen in Sudamerika; Copiapoa atacamensis was published in 1979 in Chileans 37.

An article written by Knize which appeared in the 1968 Dodonaeus journal described a trip to the north of Chile and illustrated those plants which had for so long been called Copiapoa marginata, giving a location at El Cobre. The route from Blanca Encalada to Antofagasta was travelled by Ritter both an his own and in company with Buining; in Vol 3 of his Kakteen in Sudamerika he gives a distribution for C. boliviana from Chimba (north of Antofagasta) to Blanco Encalada. However, the slides which R. Ferryman took an his trip to this area and which were shown to the Chileans Weekend gave a clearer and far more comprehensive picture of the consistent appearance of this plant over its distribution range and the nature of its surroundings. They were a most valuable contribution to gaining a clear understanding of the identification of this plant and its ecology.

further from R. Ferryman

There are indeed Eulychnia growing near Antofagasta in isolated fashion on the hillsides as depicted in Knize‘s photograph, but in places they also form quite dense forests. By this I mean forests in the cactus sense with plants ten or twenty meters or more apart, not forests in the tree sense. From Tocopilla down to Antofagasta there are quebradas cut into the hills with spurs like that an the photograph, but only with a good distance between; similarly an the Cerro Coloso just south of Antofagasta these entries are well spaced out. However an Cerro Morreno and at La Chimba, which is almost behind Antofagasta, the lowermost slopes being part of the town, the number of entries increase to the extent that one can just about walk from one to another. The picture is typical of the northern end of this stretch of coast, down to Antofagasta, where the plants arc doing battle to survive. When we visited Tocopilla this year the entire population of some 30 to 50 Eulychnia were dead.

Copiapoa boliviana has a wide distribution around Antofagasta and to the south. On Cerro Moreno it can be found quite low down on the slopes, similarly at La Chimba. It occurs somewhat higher up on the Cerro Coloso and again fairly low down in the Quebradas that lead to the ocean between Antofagasta and Blanco Encalada. The base of these slopes varies in its distance from the sea but this Copiapoa is usually the first trace of vegetation to be seen. At Morro Moreno they start at around 200ft altitude; this probably represents a km or two from the sea and no more than 15 minutes hike from the base of the Cerro. La Chimba however has a low flat bottom to the mountains that now accommodates the town of Antofagasta - I suppose this represents three to four kms from the sea, but again the plants are found quite low down in the mountains. The Eulychnias only grow up on the mountainside as depicted in the photograph, together with an occasional Copiapoa. At the base of the hills where there are Copiapoa, there are no Eulychnias. The Copiapoa also grow an the flatter areas at the foot of the mountains at odd places between Blanco Encalada and Papaso.

from F. Vandenbroeck

On the northernmost coast of Chile plant growth only resumes to the south of the important harbour of Antofagasta. There is a road from Antofagasta going via El Cobre and Blanco Encalada to Paposo. Along this road one can find both Copiapoa solaris (syn. C. ferox) and Copiapoa boliviana, growing together. The two species are very distinctive and I do not remember seeing any hybrids. In this same area, I also found a small Pyrrhocactus. From this area P. glaucescens is reported but the plants do not correspond with Ritter‘s picture of this species. Many plants of C.solaris and Pyrrhocactus were either dying or dead, due probably to the excessive drought. Copiapoa boliviana seemed better adapted to the harsh climate.

In regard to Copiapoa solaris, Ritter gives same add considerations regarding this species. According to him, this plant grows best above the boundary of the actual mist zone i.e. in a zone which is mainly sunny and where the mist only occasionally reaches. The species name, ‘solaris‘, which he gave to this plant refers to its sun-loving nature. These views are opposed by some. From my own observations, these plants grow near Blanco Encalada at sea level and in small groups which appeared fresh and healthy. More to the east, further from the coast and at a greater altitude the plant mounds were larger, but very clearly the plants here had to endure the intense sunlight. In all clumps the north side (facing the sun) was considerably dilapidated. At higher altitudes the clearly imposing clumps were always withered. It is evident that the Optimum zone for growth of C. solaris lies at a moderate altitude of about 700m, as indicated by the size of the plant clumps. It is unlikely that this plant originally grew above the mist zone; Ritter‘s suggestion (Kakteen in Sudamerika Vol.III pp.1051-1052) that scanty rain falls at long intervals on the heights is unlikely, bearing in mind the almost total absence of any accompanying vegetation.

Climatologically it has been established that the pronounced desert character of the northern Atacama district is becoming more extreme. The increasing aridity of the climate in this region and the consequent decrease in mist formation restricts the plants to a zone where at least a little water penetrates. The species currently occurring here should be considered to be no more than a relict of a much richer botanical diversity in farmer times.

from J.Harding, Journal Royal Geographical Society, 1877

That part of the desert of Atacama in which I was engaged was the southern part of the coast province of Bolivia. I was chiefly occupied as engineer in the construction of a railway from the part of Antofagasta to Las Salinas. On the coast the temperature is very equitable, varying in Antofagasta from a maximum in summer of 82°F in the shade, to a minimum of 52° in the winter. There are usually two or three slight showers of rain fall during the winter, but seldom enough to wet the surface of the ground. The wind is almost invariably a gentle sea breeze by day and a land breeze by night. Passing the coast range, the climate changes wonderfully. In the Salar de Carmen, although only 6 miles in a straight line from the sea and 1700 feet high, the cold in winter is very severe and the wind blows a gale almost every day. At La Salinas I have registered a minimum shade temperature at 7 a.m. in the winter of 7°F and at 11 o‘clock the same day 98° in the shade. In summer the shade temperature ranges between about 40° at night and 130° in the day. The air is so dry that a piece of thick notepaper if folded and pressed with a paper knife will break in two when opened out.