Rhipsalis Gaertn., nom. cons., sec. Korotkova 2021

Primary tabs

Rhipsalis Gaertn., nom. cons., sec. Korotkova 2021

Rhipsalis Gaertn., nom. cons., sec. Korotkova 2021, Fruct. Sem. Pl. 1: 137. 1788
  • =Cassytha Mill., Gard. Dict., ed. 8: s.p. 1768, nom. illeg., syn. sec. ???
  • 1. Hunt, D.R. 2006: The New Cactus Lexicon. – Milborne Port: dh books
  • 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
  • =Hariota Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 243, 520. 1763, nom. rej., syn. sec. Farr, E. R. & Zijlstra G., eds. 1996+: 8 sept 20204,3 [is earlier homonym of Hariota DC. 1834]
  • 3. Farr, E. R. & Zijlstra G., eds. 1996+: Index Nominum Genericorum (ING): 8 sept 2020, 4. Farr, E. R. & Zijlstra G., eds. 1996+: Index Nominum Genericorum (ING): 8 sept 2020

Notes

The circumscription of Rhipsalis - one of the oldest genera of the family - has changed repeatedly over time, and often Hatiora, Pseudorhipsalis and Lepismium, all now accepted at generic rank, were variously subsumed under Rhipsalis. The morphology-based circumscription of Rhipsalis by Barthlott & Taylor (1995) has been entirely confirmed as monophyletic with maximal support in the molecular phylogenetic study of Korotkova & al. (2011); the same result was shown by Calvente & al. (2011), though with a less comprehensive sampling.
Rhipsalis is notable since R. baccifera (Sol.) Stearn is the only species of the family that naturally occurs outside the New World.A,B,C,D

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 [33]; stem width: 0.312 cm; stem shape: terete [18], flattened [12], angled [12], angle [1]; stem architecture: seam [1] entire plant habitat: epiphytic [31], epilithic [11], lithophytic [3], terrestrial [2], epiphyte [2]; entire plant orientation: pendent [33], semierect [4], erect [3]; entire plant branching: acrotonic [32], subacrotonic [2], mesotonic [1]; entire plant pubescence: sparse pubescent [14], glabrous [13], woolly [6], pubescent [1] flower quantity per areol contemporaneously: 113; flower coloration: white [27], whitish [18], yellowish [6], greenish [5], yellow [2], pale pink [2], red [1], orange [1], magenta [1], golden [1], cream [1], brownish [1]; flower architecture: actinomorphic [34]; flower position: lateral [36], subapical [33], apical [3], subterminal [2]; flower size qualitativ: small [34], minute [9], medium [3]; flower size quantitativ: 0.545 mm areole prominence: superficial [41], sunken [6], hidden [1] fruit coloration: white [17], whitish [10], pink [9], red [5], greenish [3], yellow [2], purplish [2], pale pink [2], magenta [2], reddish pink [1], reddish [1], pinkish [1], orange [1], green [1], greeen [1], gray [1], golden [1]; fruit shape: globose [20], subglobose [11], turbinate [4], ovoid [3], depressed globose [3], elongate [2], oblong [1] bud orientation: perpendicular [23], oblique [9], pendulous [2]
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. http://doi.org/10.25223/brad.n13.1995.a7
B. Calvente, A., Zappi, D. C., Forest, F. & Lohmann, L. G. 2011: Molecular phylogeny, evolution, and biogeography of South American epiphytic cacti. – International Journal of Plant Sciences 172(7): 902-914. http://doi.org/10.1086/660881
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. 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