Over the past several months, we have debated the taxonomy of Copiapoa in an attempt to reconcile the significant differences of opinion held by various students of the genus and so to derive a workable treatment of the genus for the new Cactus Lexicon. lt will be clear from contributions to previous issues of this bulletin (CSI 11: 23—29. 2001; CSI 12: 4—8, 15—18) that the taxonomy of the genus remains extremely fluid, hut it is now necessary to commit ourselves to a list of accepted or at least provisionally accepted taxa which are to be illustrated in the new Lexicon. The following changes of status have were initially discussed at the Screening Meeting on 12 November 2001 and subsequently reviewed and approved at the February 2002 meeting. The affected names, preceded by their record numbers in the Lexicon database, are listed in the order they appear in CITES Cactaceae Checklist ed. 2, 174—175. The necessary nomenclatural changes are here proposed by DH on behalf of the group, and names for two hitherto undescribed species validated by NPT and GC.

08545 C. alticostata Ritt 1963/Taxon 12: 29.

• Now provisionally accepted pending further study. The evidence of Ritter‘s description and plants such as RMF 275 (Charles 1998: fig. 48) suggest that this could be part of a hybrid swarm (C. coquimbana x C. echinoides).

08800 C. bridgesii (PD Bkbg 1959/CH 3: 1909. Basionym: Echinocactus bridgesii Pfeiffer, Abbild. Beschr.Cact. 2(3): t. 14 (1847).

Lectotype (designated here): the plate cited. Now referred to synonymy under C. echinoides.

• The plate accompanying the protologue of Echinocactus bridgesii Pfeiffer is regarded as depicting C. echinoides, described two years earlier, and is here designated as lectotype. Ritter‘s proposed neotypification of C. bridgesii, citing his own collection FR 245 from north of the airstrip at Chañaral, is identifiable as C. marginata and is supersedable, being in serious and evident conflict with the protologue (ICBN St Louis edition Art. 9.17). In view of the confusion caused by Ritter‘s misapplication, the Lexicon will list C. bridgesii sensu Ritter as a separate entry:

14003 C. calderana ssp. atacamensis (Middleditch) D. Hunt comb. et stat. nov.

Basionym: [00239]Copiapoa atacamensis Middleditch, Chileans 11(37): 21 (1980).

• C. atacamensis was listed as a synonym of C. calderana ssp. calderana in CCC2 but it occurs disjunctly with minor differences some 200 km further north and may appropriately be treated as a subspecies. lt was accepted as a species by Hoffmann with C. calderana as a variety (though the name C. calderana has priority) and as a separate species by Charles.

13087 C. calderana ssp. longistaminea (Ritt) Tayl —-> C. longistaminea, q.v.

08548 C. carrizalensis Ritt —> C. dealbata, q.v.

00243 C. chanaralensis Ritt —> C. humilis

• This taxon was provisionally accepted in CCC2 but is now regarded as merely a form of C. humilis. Ritter‘s latinization of Chanaral (chaniaralensis) is not permitted by ICBN.

12290 C. cinerea ssp. columna-alba (Ritter) D. Hunt comb. et. stat. nov.

Basionym: [08549] C. columna-alba Ritter, Cactus (Paris) 14(65): 199-200 (1959).

• Subspecific status seems appropriate for this highly distinctive columnar form of C. cinerea which occurs allopatrically to the south of C. cinerea ssp. cinerea. The transfer was previously published invalidly by Meregalli, Piante Grasse 11(4): 20 (1992).

12839 C. cinerea ssp. dealbata (Ritt) Slaba —> C. dealbata, q.v.

12841 C. cinerea ssp. krainziana (Ritt) Slaba —> C. krainziana, q.v.

12163 C. copiapensis: (Pf) Mrgl [nom. inval.] To be de-listed along with its basionym.

• The specific application of the basionym is uncertain and Meregalli‘s invalid transfer of the taxon to Copiapoa was evidently unintentional.

08553 C. dealbata Ritt 1959/CP 14(63): 137—139. Reinstated as accepted name.

• In view of its priority and supposed type locality, C. malletiana was taken up in CCC2 as the correct name for C. dealbata (syn. C. carrizalensis) but the poor description and doubts as to where Bridges actually collected it leave its original application uncertain or at least ambiguous. It may have applied to one of the C. cinerea group, perhaps C. dealbata, or one of the C. marginata group. In view of this ambiguity, and the fact that C. malletiana has priority over C. cinerea and would displace it if the two taxa were regarded as conspecific, neotypification of the name C. malletiana in the sense of C. dealbata is not to be recommended and use (and if necessary conservation) of the name C. dealbata is to be preferred.

00247 C. desertorum: Ritt —> C. rupestris ssp., q.v.

08555 C. echinata:Ritt —> C. megarhiza

• Listed as a synonym of C. fiedleriana in CCC2, but was said by Ritter to be sympatric in part with C. megarhiza and was treated by Hoffmann and by Charles as a variety of that species.

08557 C. esmeraldana:Ritt --> C. grandiflora

• Formerly regarded as close to, or a variety of, C. humilis. Kattermann‘s observations and flower sections based on material from Las Lomitas throw doubt on this, the broadly campanulate flower-shape being more characteristic of the C. cinerascens group. Ritter‘s own description and illustration seem to offer nothing to contradict the suggestion that it is rnerely a form of C. grandiflora.

• Schumann‘s type is not extant and the original concept uncertain. Hoffmann treated it as a variety of C. coquimbana and by all accounts it is intermediate between C. coquimbana and C. megarhiza The key difference between these two appears to be the clumping habit of C. coquimbana, whereas C. megarhiza remains simple or few-branched. [KZ 21(Agua Verde) illustrates this concept; see Charles 1998: 40, fig. 52]. The proposed neotype is from the type locality and matches the original description (a caespitose plant with depressed-globose sterns, the ribs tuberculate and conspicuously chinned below the areoles.

08560 C. grandiflora Ritt 1963/Taxon 12: 30. Accepted.

• In CCC2 this was treated as a subspecies of C. montana, as proposed by Taylor. Hoffmann and Charles treated it as a variety of C. cinerascens. Kattermann claims that it is distinguishable from C. cinerascens by the much larger flower, exerted stigma with appressed lobes and thinner spines.

08562 C. hornilloensis Ritt —> C. rupestris

14005 C. humilis ssp. tocopillana (Ritter) D. Hunt eomb. et stat. nov.
       Basionym: C. tocopillana Ritter, Kakt. Südamer. 3: 1072 (1980).

14006 C. humilis ssp. varispinata (Ritter) D. Hunt comb. et stat. nov.
       Basionym: C. varispinata Ritter, Kakt. Südamer. 3: 1070 (1980).

14068 C. hypogaea ssp. tenuissima Ritter ex D. Hunt sp. nov. Holotype: Chile, El Cobre, Ritter 540 (U 117651 B). C. tenuissima Ritter, Taxon 12:31 (1963), nom. inval. (Art. 37.1). 

• Ritter based C. tenuissima on two syntype numbers, Ritter 539 and 540, thus rendering the name invalid. Material of Ritter 540 at Utrecht (U 117651B) was labelled "Holotypus“ by Ritter (Eggli et al., Englera 16: 311. 1996) and is here so designated in order to validate the name. The general view of the discussion group is that the taxon is best regarded as a subspecies of C. hypogaea.

00251 C. krainziana. Ritt 1963/Taxon 12: 30. Reinstated as a species.

• It is not yet proven that this highly distinctive plant is simply a fine-spined altitudinal form of C. cinerea. The variation observed at lower elevations seems more likely to be the result of hybridization between the two taxa. C. krainziana is the most easily recognized Copiapoa and it seems appropriate, pending further study, to recognize it as a species.

00253 C. longistaminea Ritt 1963/Taxon 12: 31. Reinstated as a species.

• This has variously been regarded as allied to C. cinerea or C. calderana, but reportedly occurs sympatrically with C. cinerea ssp. columna-alba and without evidence of hybridization. Like C. calderana, it is mucilaginous, but it does not have tuberous roots.

12164 C. macracantha (S-D) Mrgl. To be delisted along with its basionym.

• The specific application of the basionym is uncertain and Meregalli‘s invalid transfer of the taxon to Copiapoa was evidently unintentional.

00238 C. malletiana:(S-D) Bkbg [nomen dubium] —> C. dealbata, q.v.

08565 C. melanohystrix: Ritt —> C. cinerea ssp. columna-alba

• In view of its provenance this is evidently a form of C. cinerea ssp. columna-alba rather than of ssp. haseltoniana.

08544 C. pepiniana (S-D) Bkbg. To be delimited, along with its basionym and homotypic synonyms.