Rhipsalidopsis

Primary tabs

Rhipsalidopsis

Rhipsalidopsis Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 209. 1923 sec. Korotkova & al. 20111
  • 1. Korotkova, N., Borsch, T., Quandt, D., Taylor, N. P., Müller, K. & Barthlott, W. 2011: What does it take to resolve relationships and to identify species with molecular markers? An example from the epiphytic Rhipsalideae (Cactaceae). – American Journal of Botany 98(9): 1549-1572. http://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000502
  • =Epiphyllopsis A.Berger, Kakteen: 341. 1929 syn. sec. Korotkova 20212
  • Epiphyllopsis Backeb. & F.M.Knuth, Kaktus-ABC: 158. 1936 ["1935"], nom. inval., syn. sec. The Plant List v. 1.1 20135,3,4
  • 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. http://doi.org/10.3372/wi.51.51208, 3. later cit., 4. Berendsohn, W. G. 2020: Revisions, 5. TPL
  • =×Rhipsaphyllopsis Werderm. in Kakteenkunde 3: 11. 1939 syn. sec. Barthlott & Taylor 19956

Notes

As explained under Hatiora, the inclusion of Rhipsalidopsis in Hatiora is not supported by recent molecular phylogenies. Calvente & al. (2011) found the two traditional Rhipsalidopsis species (R. gaertneri and R. rosea) as sister to Schlumbergera, but with moderate support. Korotkova & al. (2011), however, found Schlumbergera, Hatiora s.str. and Rhipsalidopsis to form a grade, and even though support for this topology is also moderate, support for the monophyly of the three genera is maximal, therefore Rhipsalidopsis (Easter cacti) is best kept separate from Schlumbergera (Christmas cacti).A

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: deciduous [1]; stem width: 2.5 cm [1]; stem shape: flattened [1] entire plant habitat: epiphytic [1]; entire plant orientation: semierect [1], pendent [1]; entire plant branching: acrotonic [1]; entire plant pubescence: bristly [1] flower quantity per areol contemporaneously: 12; flower coloration: red [1], bright rose pink [1]; flower architecture: actinomorphic [1]; flower position: apical [1]; flower size qualitativ: large [1] areole prominence: superficial [1] fruit coloration: red [1] bud orientation: oblique [1]
A single or the first number in square brackets denotes sample size

Bibliography

A. 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-Bazan, 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