Cleistocactus
Cleistocactus in Ill. Hort. 8: Misc. 35. 1861 sec. Hunt 20161
- Type: Cleistocactus baumannii
- =Cleistocereus in Succulenta (Netherlands) 18: 120. 1936 syn. sec. Kew WCVP (2019)2
- =Bolivicereus in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 23: 91. 1951 syn. sec. Hunt 20163
- =Cephalocleistocactus in Succulenta (Netherlands): 108. 1959 syn. sec. Hunt 20164
- =Winteria in Kakteen And. Sukk. 13: 4. 1962, nom. illeg., syn. sec. Kew WCVP (2019)5
- =Seticleistocactus, Descr. Cact. Nov. 3: 13. 1963 syn. sec. Hunt 20166
- =Winterocereus, Kakteenlex.: 455. 1966 syn. sec. Hunt 20167
- –Hildewintera in Kakteen And. Sukk. 17: 11. 1966, nom. inval., syn. sec. Hunt 20168
- Type: Hildewintera aureispina
Content
Notes
The broad circumscription of Cleistocactus as employed by Anderson (2001, 2005), and Hunt (2006) goes back to the Cactaceae consensus classification reported by Hunt & Taylor (1986), where the predominantly ornithophilous floral syndrome was used as diagnostic character. Schlumpberger & Renner (2012) found that Cleistocactus s.l. is polyphyletic - the monotypic Cephalocleistocactus was placed as sister to Yungasocereus, while Cleistocactus s.str. is sister to Vatricania next to Weberbauerocereus, and two terminals representing the former Borzicactus and Loxanthocereus are placed in the Oreocereus clade, the former next to Matucana, and the latter next to Haageocereus.
Deciding whether Cleistocactus s.l. should be retained or split up is difficult, since sampling of the group and its possible sister taxa is still inadequate. The affiliation of Loxanthocereus with Haageocereus was seen earlier and Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) listed it as synonym of Haageocereus.A,B,C,D,E,F,G
Deciding whether Cleistocactus s.l. should be retained or split up is difficult, since sampling of the group and its possible sister taxa is still inadequate. The affiliation of Loxanthocereus with Haageocereus was seen earlier and Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) listed it as synonym of Haageocereus.A,B,C,D,E,F,G
Taxon standing
Category E. No assessment of monophyly has yet been possible, because only a few species were sampled or no phylogenetic study has been conducted so far.
Bibliography
C. Hernández-Ledesma, P., Berendsohn, W. G., Borsch, T., von Mering, S., Akhani, H., Arias, S., Castañeda-Noa, I., Eggli, U., Eriksson, R., Flores-Olvera, H., Fuentes-Bazán, S., Kadereit, G., Klak, C., Korotkova, N., Nyffeler, R., Ocampo, G. & Ochoterena, H. 2015: A taxonomic backbone for the global synthesis of species diversity in the angiosperm order Caryophyllales. – Willdenowia 45(3): 281-383. http://doi.org/10.3372/wi.45.45301
D. Hunt, D.R. & Taylor, N. P. 1986: The genera of the Cactaceae: towards an new consensus. – Bradleya 4: 65-78