|
Original
Publication
The name Echinocactus echinoides
was first mentioned in a catalogue of J. Cels, who built up a famous cactus
nursery in Paris, France,
where it was studied by both Pfeiffer and Lemaire
Echinocactus echinoides Lemaire
ex Salm-Dyck, in Otto & Dietr.
Allg. Gartenz. 13:386 - 1845
is the full reference for the original description
Original Description
to be added
Distribution
(Map)
References in Literature
|
|
|
|
Pfeiffer,
(1846-1850) Abbild. Beschr. Cact. pl. 29 |
|
Pfeiffer described the plants
as well but hesitated too long, so that when he published Abbild. Beschr.
Cact. 2, he retracts his hitherto unpublished description |
|
|
|
|
Britton & Rose, The Cactaceae
(3) :86
Synonyms
Echinocactus echinoides Lemaire
in Salm-Dyck, Allg. Gartenz. 13: 386. 1845.
Echinocactus bridgesii Pfeiffer
Abbild. Beschr. Cact. 2: p1. 14. 1847.
Echinocactus bolivianus Pfeiffer
Abbild. Beschr. Cact. 2: under p1. 14. 1847.
?Echinocactus salm-dyckianus Pfeiffer
Abbild. Beschr. Cact. 2: under p1. 14. 1847.
|
|
Simple, globose, very woolly at apex; ribs 8 to
13, straight, rounded, green; radial spines 5 to 7, stout, straight or
somewhat curved; central spine solitary, porrect, 3 cm. long; flowers pale
yellow; outer perianth-segments narrowly ovate, acute, reddish; inner
perianth-segments broadly oblong, obtuse; scales of ovary and flower-tube
described by Schumann as woolly in their axils, but undoubtedly he is wrong.
Type locality.- Not cited.
Distribution: Reported from Bolivia, but perhaps
from that part of Bolivia now belonging to Chile.
This name occurs first in Cels’s Catalogue of
1845, but without description. We know the plant only from descriptions and
illustrations; it may not belong to this genus.
Echinocactus macracanthus Salm-Dyck (Cact.
Hort. Dyck. 1849. 143. 1850) may belong here.
The varieties Echinocactus macracanthus
cinerascens Salm-Dyck and E. pepinianus affinis Monville were
both referred by Labouret (Monogr. Cact. 177. 1853) as synonyms of
Echinocactus macracanthus Salm-Dyck.
Illustrations: Pfeiffer, Abbild. Beschr. Cact. 2:
pl. 29, (see above) as Echinocactus echinoides; Pfeiffer, Abbild.
Beschr. Cact. 2: p1. 14, as Echinocactus bridgesii.
Figure 100 is copied from the first illustration
above cited. |
|
|
|
|
Backeberg C. 1959,
Die Cactaceae vol. 3:1909
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ritter F. 1980, Kakteen in
Südamerika (3):1105
|
|
Ritter places this taxon in a section dedicated to
'uncertain and not acceptable names'. |
|
|
|
|
Taylor N.P. (1981)
A
commentary on Copiapoa, The Cactus and Succulent Journal of Great
Britain, 43(1/3):
43-49
The
typification of old Copiapoa epithets
|
|
'C.
echinoides; Echinocactus echinoides Salm-Dyck (1845).
Ritter (1980) has rejected this name, and Britton & Rose (1922) remark ‘we
know the plant only from descriptions and illustrations’. However, the
fine illustration in Pfeiffer (1850) and our knowledge of Bridges’s
activities leads me to suggest an identity for E. echinoides. One
of the localities visited by Bridges was Totoral, and Ritter has described
C. dura from east of this tiny settlement, which matches the
descriptions of Salm-Dyck and Pfeiffer, and the latter’s illustration,
fairly well. Backeberg (1959), who was followed by Lembcke, has applied
C. echinoides to a plant growing a little to the south of the town of
Antofagasta, but, as already discussed, we have no evidence to suggest
that Bridges visited this area.'
|
|
Taylor n. P. 1981,
A
commentary on Copiapoa , The Cactus and Succulent Journal of Great
Britain, 43(2/3): 49-60
Checklist |
|
Taylor accepts the name as a
valid species and notes that C. cuprea and C. dura should be
considered here
The above are closely allied
to, and perhaps not specifically distinct from, C. marginata. C.
rupestris is also related, and may be referable here, but it comes from
much farther north. |
|
|
|
|
Butcher D.
1982, The Genus Copiapoa,
Calandrinia II |
|
Summary of the above plus a
photograph of a plant in cultivation. |
|
|
|
|
Ferryman R.
M. 1987, The
Chileans 13(45):129 |
|
Roger Ferryman describes his visit
to the Huasco Valley and believes to have found plants similar to the C. echinoides from the original description |
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann A.
E. 1989, Cactaceas en la flora silvestre de Chile: 116 |
|
Adriana Hoffmann recognises
this as a good species that includes var. cuprea. |
|
|
|
|
Schulz r. &
Kapitany A., 1996, Copiapoa in their Environment |
|
The species grows outside the
range covered. |
|
|
|
|
Charles G. J. , 1998, Copiapoa |
|
Recognised as a good species, with
C. cuprea and C. dura as synonyms. |
|
|
|
|
Hunt D. (Ed.), 2001, Cactaceae
Systematics Initiatives 12: 15-17 |
|
Members of the Marginata group, as the name
has priority of C. cuprea and C. dura. |
|
|
|
PK Comments
We saw this taxon in a number of
locations, growing alongside other Copiapoa (C echinata and C.
dealbata) between Carrizal Bajo and Huasco, without seeing clear
intermediates. We were struck how some plants resembled 'squashed' marginata
and commented that marginata seemed to be nothing more than a 'stretched echinoides'.
Further north, between Carrizal
Bajo and Totoral, and further inland, on the track from Totoral to Ruta 5, we
came across more plants and were particularly impressed with the magnificent
spination of the plants growing inland.
S300: The formidable armature and characteristic fruits of Copiapoa
echinoides to the east of Totoral.
|
