Lepismium Pfeiff. sec. Korotkova & al. 2011

Primary tabs

Lepismium Pfeiff. sec. Korotkova & al. 2011

Lepismium Pfeiff. in Allg. Gartenzeitung 3: 315. 1835 wfo-4000021172
      Type: Lepismium commune Pfeiff.
  • =Rhipsalis sect. Sarmentosae Salm-Dyck, Cact. Hort. Dyck., ed. 1849: 60. 1850 syn. sec. ??? wfo-1000041387
  • =Rhipsalis subg. Ophiorhipsalis K.Schum., Gesamtbeschr. Kakt.: 615. 1897–1899 syn. sec. ??? wfo-1000041385
  • ≡Lepismium subg. Ophiorhipsais (K.Schum.) Barthlott in Bradleya 5: 99. 1987 syn. sec. ??? wfo-1000041386
  • ≡Ophiorhipsalis (K.Schum.) Doweld in Sukkulenty 4(1-2): 39. 2002 ["2001"] syn. sec. Korotkova 20211 wfo-4000026949
      • Type: Ophiorhipsalis lumbricoides (Lem.) Doweld
  • 1. Korotkova, N. 2021: Revisions of Deamia, Disocactus, Epiphyllum, Hatiora, Kimnachia, Lepismium, Leuenbergeria, Lymanbensonia, Pereskia, Pfeiffera, Pseudorhipsalis, Rhipsalidopsis, Rhipsalis, Schlumbergera, Selenicereus, Strophocactus, Weberocereus, and various other names. In: Korotkova N. & al., Cactaceae at Caryophyllales.org – a dynamic online species-level taxonomic backbone for the family. – Willdenowia 51: 250-270. https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.51.51208
  • =Nothorhipsalis Doweld in Sukkulenty 4(1-2): 29. 2002 ["2001"] syn. sec. Korotkova 20212 wfo-4000026294
      • Type: Nothorhipsalis houlletiana (Lem.) Doweld
  • 2. Korotkova, N. 2021: Revisions of Deamia, Disocactus, Epiphyllum, Hatiora, Kimnachia, Lepismium, Leuenbergeria, Lymanbensonia, Pereskia, Pfeiffera, Pseudorhipsalis, Rhipsalidopsis, Rhipsalis, Schlumbergera, Selenicereus, Strophocactus, Weberocereus, and various other names. In: Korotkova N. & al., Cactaceae at Caryophyllales.org – a dynamic online species-level taxonomic backbone for the family. – Willdenowia 51: 250-270. https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.51.51208

Content

Notes

Several considerably different generic concepts have been suggested for Lepismium. It was either recognized as monotypic for L. cruciforme (Vell.) Miq., e.g. by Britton & Rose (1923) or included into Rhipsalis (Schumann 1899; Vaupel 1925-1926). Barthlott (1987) and Barthlott & Taylor (1995) redefined Lepismium based on the mesotonic branching as main diagnostic character, but this circumscription was found to be polyphyletic by Nyffeler (2002) and Korotkova & al. (2010). Consequently, some of its species were transferred to Lymanbensonia and Pfeiffera by Korotkova & al. (2010).A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H

Taxon standing

Category B. The genus is monophyletic based on phylogenetic studies that support the clade based on a sufficiently dense or even complete sampling, or support a monotypic genus as a distinct lineage, but do not provide a new taxonomic treatment at the species level. In many cases, older classical taxonomic synopses or a monographic treatment exist for these genera providing a reliable assessment of the species included.

Acknowledgments

Compiled by Nadja Korotkova

Descriptions (aggregated)

Old stem segment duration: persistent [7]; stem width: 0–7 cm; stem shape: angled [4], flattened [3], terete [2] entire plant habitat: epiphytic [6], epilithic [2], epiphyte [1]; entire plant orientation: pendent [6], creeping [2]; entire plant branching: mesotonic [6]; entire plant pubescence: glabrous [3], woolly [1] flower quantity per areol contemporaneously: 1; flower coloration: whitish [5], yellowish [1], yellow [1], white [1], red [1], pinkish [1], cream [1]; flower architecture: actinomorphic [6]; flower position: subapical [7], lateral [7]; flower size qualitativ: small [6]; flower size quantitativ: 15–26 mm areole prominence: superficial [4], immersed [2] fruit coloration: red [5], pink [1], magenta [1], deepening [1], dark pink [1]; fruit shape: globose [5], subglobose [1], ovoid [1] bud orientation: oblique [6]
A single or the first number in square brackets denotes sample size

Bibliography

A. Barthlott, W. & Taylor, N. P. 1995: Notes towards a monograph of Rhipsalideae (Cactaceae). – Bradleya 13: 43-79. https://doi.org/10.25223/brad.n13.1995.a7
B. Barthlott, W. 1987: New names in Rhipsalidinae (Cactaceae). – Bradleya 5: 97-100. https://doi.org/10.25223/brad.n5.1987.a7
C. Britton, N. L. & Rose, J.N. 1923: Subtribe 8. Rhipsalidanae. – In: The Cactaceae. Descriptions and illustrations of plants of the cactus family 4. – Washington: Carnegie Institute
D. 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. https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.45.45301
E. Korotkova, N., Zabel, L., Quandt, D. & Barthlott, W. 2010: A phylogenetic analysis of Pfeiffera and the reinstatement of Lymanbensonia as an independently evolved lineage of epiphytic Cactaceae within a new tribe Lymanbensonieae. – Willdenowia 40: 151-172. https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.40.40201
F. Nyffeler, R. 2002: Phylogenetic relationships in the cactus family (Cactaceae) based on evidence from trnK/matK and trnL-trnF sequences. – American Journal of Botany 89(2): 312-326
G. Schumann, K.M. 1897–1899: Gesamtbeschreibung der Kakteen (Monographia cactacearum). – Neudamm: Neumann. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.10394
H. Vaupel, F.K.J. 1925–1926: Die Kakteen. Monographie der Cactaceae. – Berlin: Selbstverlag des Verfassers