Turbinicarpus schmiedickeanus
Turbinicarpus schmiedickeanus in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1937(1): 27. 1937 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 20191
- ≡Echinocactus schmiedickeanus in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3(11): 229–230. 1928 ["1927-1928"] syn. sec. Aquino 20212
- ≡Strombocactus schmiedickeanus, Kakteen: 250. 1929 syn. sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 20191 [is earlier homonym of Strombocactus schmiedickeanus 1930]
- ≡Toumeya schmiedickeana in Cactus (Paris) 4: 5. 1946 syn. sec. Aquino 20212
- ≡Neolloydia schmiedickeana in Bradleya 4: 19. 1986 syn. sec. Aquino 20212
- ≡Pediocactus schmiedickeanus in Acta Mus. Richnov., Sect. Nat., 5(1): 20. 1998 syn. sec. Aquino 20212
- –Strombocactus schmiedickeanus in J. Cact. Succ. Soc. Amer. 2: 298. 1930, nom. inval., syn. sec. Aquino 20212 [non Strombocactus schmiedickeanus 1929]
- Type: Lectotype: [illustration] “Echinocactus Schmiedickeanus Böd. sp. n. (1/1 nat. Grösse)” in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 230. 19283
- 1. Vázquez-Sánchez, Sánchez, D., Terrazas, T., De La Rosa-Tilapa, A. & Arias, S. 2019: Polyphyly of the iconic cactus genus Turbinicarpus (Cactaceae) and its generic circumscription. – Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 190(4): 405-420. http://doi.org/10.1093/botlinnean/boz027, 2. Aquino, D. 2021: Revisions of Epithelantha, Kadenicarpus, Rapicactus, Turbinicarpus – In: Korotkova N. & al., Cactaceae at Caryophyllales.org – a dynamic online species-level taxonomic backbone for the family. – Willdenowia 51: 251-270. http://doi.org/10.3372/wi.51.51208, 3. Anderson, E. F. 1986: A revision of the genus Neolloydia B. & R. (Cactaceae). – Bradleya 4: 1-28: 19
- =Turbinicarpus schmiedickeanus var. alenae in Acta Mus. Richnov., Sect. Nat., 9: 79. 2002 syn. sec. Kew WCVP (2019)4
Content
Notes
According to Hunt (2006), Turbinicarpus schmiedickeanus comprises 13 subspecies whose main characteristic is the presence of curved to twisted, flexible and non-pungent spines (Mosco, 2009). Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2019) included 11 of the 13 subspecies in their phylogenetic analysis but did not find them to form a clade; T. schimiedickeanus subsp. schwarzii was even resolved as the sister to the entire Turbinicarpus clade.
For this reason, we propose the exclusion of five subspecies from T. schimiedickeanus: T. bonatzi, T. dickinsoniae, T. flaviflorus, T. schwarzii and T. rioverdensis (see their respective treatments). The remaining subspecies (T. subsp. andersonii, T. subsp. gracilis, T. subsp. klinkerianus, T. subsp. macrochele, T. subsp. sanchezii-mejoradae and T. subsp. rubriflorus), are retained as subspecies of T. schmiedickeanus. These taxa are either unresolved or are parts of subclades with low support in the trees of Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2019). A
For this reason, we propose the exclusion of five subspecies from T. schimiedickeanus: T. bonatzi, T. dickinsoniae, T. flaviflorus, T. schwarzii and T. rioverdensis (see their respective treatments). The remaining subspecies (T. subsp. andersonii, T. subsp. gracilis, T. subsp. klinkerianus, T. subsp. macrochele, T. subsp. sanchezii-mejoradae and T. subsp. rubriflorus), are retained as subspecies of T. schmiedickeanus. These taxa are either unresolved or are parts of subclades with low support in the trees of Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2019). A
Bibliography
A. Aquino, D. 2021: Revisions of Epithelantha, Kadenicarpus, Rapicactus, Turbinicarpus – In: Korotkova N. & al., Cactaceae at Caryophyllales.org – a dynamic online species-level taxonomic backbone for the family. – Willdenowia 51: 251-270. http://doi.org/10.3372/wi.51.51208