Hylocereus schomburgkii
Placement status: name of verified uncertain application
Hylocereus schomburgkii, Cactaceae 2: 816. 1959, nom. nud., sec. Bauer 20031
- –Cereus schomburgkii, Handb. Cacteenk.: 422. 1846, nom. nud., syn. sec. Bauer 20031
Content
Notes
The first publication of this name in 1846 by Förster cannot be regarded as valid. As the author himself states – it is merely a notation due to lack of material. Schumann (1898: 158) mentions the name again. Following Schumann's abstruse usage of "dieser" and "jener" (even for a German-speaker difficult to interpret!) this could be a juvenile form of some Hylocereus, because he notes only bristles and no strong spines. Since he gives Guyana as distribution area and since he mentions no wax on the stems it could well be H. extensus or a non-waxy form of H. monacanthus (including H. scandens, H. lemairei, H. trinitatensis etc.). But it cannot be said with certainty that he really had the plant that Förster was talking about more than fifty years before.
In 1846 Cereus schomburgkii was just mentioned as a name. A description that could be accepted as validating the name was never given. Even Schumann's remark is clearly not a description as Backeberg in 1959 would have us believe, adding further speculation. Schumann is just citing the first use of that name, giving some additional data. This is not a description sensu Schumann. Even if Schumann's notation in 1898 is considered to be a valid description, the name cannot have priority over the epithets monacanthus (dating from 1845) and also extensus (dating from 1828). It should be abandoned as unidentifiable.A
In 1846 Cereus schomburgkii was just mentioned as a name. A description that could be accepted as validating the name was never given. Even Schumann's remark is clearly not a description as Backeberg in 1959 would have us believe, adding further speculation. Schumann is just citing the first use of that name, giving some additional data. This is not a description sensu Schumann. Even if Schumann's notation in 1898 is considered to be a valid description, the name cannot have priority over the epithets monacanthus (dating from 1845) and also extensus (dating from 1828). It should be abandoned as unidentifiable.A