When forming a collection, when the status of a particular plant is established, and during everyday work with cacti, you have to deal with hundreds of names, numerous data on the culture of cacti and information on the history of each particular species. It is impossible to keep the entire amount of information in your head, therefore, creating and maintaining a collection of file cabinets requires a lot of attention. The fact that, say, the issue of different types of file cabinets has been repeatedly discussed in manuals on growing cacti in foreign periodicals, testifies to how important this is.
In our opinion, it is preferable to draw up a “maxi-card index”, as this is a good way to get a “higher cactus education”. Such a card index combines a wealth of information from various publications, personal and collective experience in collecting these plants and is a real encyclopedia, an arrangement for itself of taxonomy, history, geography, botany, issues related to the culture of representatives of the family of interest to the amateur.
In the “maxi-card index” several cards may contain significant information: two or three photographs of a typical plant, historical and botanical biography, information about the conditions of the historical place of growth (daylight hours, amount of rainfall, their frequency, temperature fluctuations, number of clear days, air humidity, altitude), an outline of the main care methods, data on the collection item (when, where and at what age I got into the collection, features of care in specific conditions), information about the rhythm of each year, and others. If possible, it is useful to attach a transparent bag with a few seeds of this cactus. Cards turn on existing and desired plants.
A card file is a guarantee of the formation of a valuable collection and its subsequent successful maintenance. In those cases where it is not possible to acquire a fundamental file cabinet, it is necessary to make at least the minimum, including only the most necessary information. It will help mainly maintain the collection correctly, although it will not play a special role in improving the education of an amateur. In this case, the card file should “remember” the name, include the collection number of the plant, the number of the mixture for planting and the necessary amendments, information about watering and the place of keeping (in the greenhouse or open), notes when, from where, and at what age the plant got into a collection.
On the cards of both types of file cabinets, the first word, of course, should be the name of the cactus - as is customary, Latin. In botanical literature, the Latin names of plants and their various groups are accompanied by the abbreviated surname of the author who described the species, genus or other dachshund *. Already from these and other passport data you can extract information about the history of the plant.
The botanical names of cacti are read and declined according to the rules of Latin. The exception is the Greek words as well. also derived from local geographical names, first names or surnames. In some cases, preference is given to the prevailing, traditional reading. Russian names of cacti are always full or partial translations of Latin names.
The surname of the author who described the plant is put to the right of the botanical name and is written in full (if the author is little known) or abbreviated. The author's last name, enclosed in brackets, indicates nomenclature changes in the name. In this case, the name of the author who made the changes is indicated on the right.
The names of the co-authors in the old manuals were connected by the Latin “et”, and in the manuals of Bakeberg and other modern ones, by the “&” sign.
The mark “emend.” (Emendate) before the second surname means “fixed”, “clarified”. Such a mark accompanies the name if amendments and clarifications by another author have not led to nomenclature changes.
The abbreviations “var.”, “V.” (Varietas) denote varieties of cactus. The mark “f.” (Forma) indicates that some plants have one species, which, however, is not enough to distinguish these cacti into a variety.
The expression “species novum” or “genus novum” - “new species” and “new genus” abbreviate “nov. spec. ”,“ nov. gen. ”or“ n. sp. ”,“ n. gen. ”and is used to refer to a new, recently described plant.
For various changes in the names of known plants (transfer of a species to another genus and the like combinations), they mark “nov. comb. ”.
The abbreviation “nom. prov. ”(nomen provisorum) -“ preliminary name ”- accompany the name of a plant that has not yet been described. The expression “nomen nudum” (“nom. Nud.”, “N. N.”) After the surname is used to indicate another or already invalid name, and the expression “n. sub-nud. ”- not yet accepted.
The abbreviation “hort.” Denotes the name of a plant form, variety or species known in the culture, the final name of which requires a botanical description.
Of the other Latin terms in the names, the following are sometimes found: “ex” - “from”, “non” - “not”, “pop sensu” - “not in the sense” (not as understood), “sensu” - “ in terms of".
The mark “sp.” After the name of the genus indicates that the cactus belongs to it: “some kind of it”. The abbreviation “spp.” Means that we are talking about any member of the genus.
Often in publications, instead of the usual ones, there are such names of cacti in which the generic name is accompanied by initials or a surname and various numbers. Often in collections, new plants are named in this way. As a rule, these are field (expeditionary) numbers of collected cacti, but there are also collection ones, as well as numbers of new products from catalogs of various companies - the distribution of seeds usually outstrips the publication of a botanical description. Among these names, the names with the initials U (Uliga firm from Stuttgart), HU (Yübelmann firm from Switzerland), FR (fees of F. Ritter), KK (fees of K. Book from Lima), and NK are well known. (collection of H. Künzler, 'New Mexico), with the surname Lau (A. Lau, Mexico) and several others.
From the history of cactus taxonomy
The first written reports of cacti known to us belong to the Spanish botanist F. Hernandez. In the book “The History of Plants of the New Spain”, published in 1535, he described many plants of the New World and gave a picture of prickly pear. The image of another cactus - a branching cereus - is given in the herbalist Tabernemontatus dated 1588, but the name “Cereus” itself was known even earlier. In the mentioned herbalist there is also an image of melocactus.
From the Belgian Matius Lobel, who worked as the director of the botanical garden in England, we get the first information about an amateur hobby: in 1570, he mentions the London pharmacist Morgan, who contained a collection of cacti for his pleasure. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, a widespread enthusiasm led to the emergence in Europe of commercial enterprises for the export of these plants. Cacti came to Europe in increasing numbers, but were classified superficially - only by conspicuous signs, therefore, one can only guess about the species diversity of exported plants. An amateur from Berlin A. Herman describes in 1698 pillar-shaped, and possibly spherical, wax-coated cacti as Cereus (from Latin cera - wax, candle). S. Plumier, a monk from Marseille, who studied the cacti of the West Indies, gives the name Peireskia (in honor of the natural scientist N. Peiresk) in 1703 to tree and shrub cacti with leaves. In 1716, Opuntia was described as cacti with stems from individual segments, and the Type name used for the same cacti in 1732 by J. Dillenius, a professor of botany from Oxford, did not take root.
The great Swedish botanist Karl Linney, the founder of the binary plant classification system, did not agree with the existing allocation of the cactus genera and brought them together into one - Cactus (the Latinized Greek word for the Spanish (prickly) artichoke). In 1737, he distinguishes 24 species in the genus Cactus.
The London botanist F. Miller in the eighth edition of his Garden Dictionary (published in 1768), following the general Linnean nomenclature, nevertheless restores the old names of the cactus genera. Based on a detailed study of these plants in Chelsea, he gives excellent botanical descriptions of 27 species.
The end of the 18th and the first half of the 19th century is the time for a special passion for cacti. Among the authors who developed their classification at this time, the Germans should be especially noted - a doctor from Kassel L. Pfeiffer, who was in Cuba, and Prince I. Salm-Dick, an excellent connoisseur and collector of plants, especially succulents.
Many large and small collections, bright personalities among amateurs, collectors and researchers, rich literature, thriving cactus breeding companies - all this did not portend a tragic decline in the enthusiasm for these plants in the second half of the 19th century throughout Europe. Talking about this period, A. Urban cites the influx of a large number of diverse exotic plants from Africa, Asia, New Zealand and the moist forests of South America as the reason for the decline (Prickly Miracle, 1981), which cannot be agreed, since it is difficult to connect the arrival of new plants with death in the collections of many cacti. Meanwhile, it was their mass destruction that threatened, in principle, to push the cactus plant half a century back. The fact is that the classification of cacti could not be fixed only by laconic botanical descriptions, almost devoid of drawings - living plants from large collections of specialists and commercial enterprises served as their illustration.
The crisis lasted almost until the end of the century. The collections were lost, cactus firms were closed, precious herbarium materials were thrown out by the heirs of Salm-Dick. Nevertheless, thanks to the dedicated work of several specialists and amateurs, a number of basic collections in Germany managed to survive, and they played a role in resuming work on the taxonomy of cacti.
Interest in these plants never faded away completely: in the second half of the 19th century, contrary to the general decline, several new collections were created and old, large ones replenished. In Germany, the meeting of the wealthy businessman from Magdeburg G. Gruzon becomes especially famous. The collection of the Prague lover F. Sajtets, as indicated in his catalog, published in 1870, totaled 900 species of cacti. These plants were seriously interested in Russia: in the collection of the St. Petersburg Botanical Garden in the 70s there were several hundred species of cacti. At that time, E. Regel, the author of the famous two-volume work on indoor plants, supervised the garden and botanical museum. It is interesting to note that for some time in this collection lophophore was cultivated and bloomed - an Indian cactus god, one of the most interesting species of the family. As Echlnocactus rapa, he appears in a rare edition of 1869 dedicated to flowering plants of the St. Petersburg Botanical Garden.
At the end of the century, interest in cacti reappears. The flow of new products and extensive information about cacti necessitate their botanical processing. This problem was solved by the German botanist C. Schumann, known as the author of a major work devoted to the description and classification of 1000 species of cacti. Schumann established many new plant species, developed a classification of the genus Mammillaria, but nevertheless he adhered to the views of Salm-Dick on the division of the family, establishing the relationship of cacti according to their external characteristics.
In 1904, American botanists N. Britton and N.J. Rose began to study cacti together in the Carnegie Botanical Garden. They were familiar not only with large collections, but also undertook several expeditions. Field studies not available to “cabinet” European botanists made it possible to obtain extremely valuable information. The result of many years of work by these scientists was a richly illustrated four-volume study “The Cactaceae” (1919-1923). In it, the authors described many new species of cacti and significantly supplemented the information about the old ones. The Britton and Rose system was significantly different from the Schumann system and covered 1235 species of cacti (124 genera). The flow of new products and discoveries in the field of cactus systematics indicated, however, that this system would be supplemented and changed.
In 1925, a book was published about the cacti of the German botanist A. Berger, containing many ideas important for the systematics of cacti. Nevertheless, it did not replace the four-volume edition of the Americans.
Further research into the classification of cacti led to the development of new systems. Currently, they use two such systems. One of them was prepared by the Austrian botanist F. Buchsbaum and published in 1958. The other was developed by K. Bakeberg, widely known for his contribution to the study of these plants and the development of the amateur movement, and dates back to the same time. It is difficult to overestimate the importance that the cacti-based journals founded by him, and especially books, that have been reprinted more than once, have had and retain to this day. Starting as an importer of cacti, Bakeberg, based on his and other collections in the Mediterranean countries, was seriously engaged in taxonomy. Already in 1942, he made the first attempt to classify the family. The result of painstaking work was the six-volume Die Cactaceae (1958-1962), in which a complex system comprised 230 genera (about 2700 species) of cacti. Based on this work, Bakeberg prepared “Das Kakteenlexikon” (1966). The dictionary has been reprinted several times and is currently the handbook of many cacti in the world.
In the 40s, in addition to Bakeberg, other scientists engaged in the taxonomy of cacti. The book of W. T. Marshall and T. M, Bock, was published in America, continuing the research of Britton and Rose.
In 1953, the beginning of the study of F. Buxbaum on the morphology of cacti was published. In the late 1950s, Buchsbaum published the famous book “Kakteen-Pflege biologisch richfig”, which sets out the biologically correct principles for growing cacti. A number of publications of this time provide a preliminary phylogenetic system developed by Buxbaum on the basis of a thorough morphological study of cacti. It differs significantly from that proposed by Baker-berg and includes 160 genera. However, the well-founded Bucksbaum system has not yet become widespread in our country, as amateurs use the more accessible books of Bakeberg.
In 1967, D.R. Hunt, an English botanist from Kew, attempted to reduce the number of births in the system to 84. His system, however, also did not become universally recognized.
In recent years, in all “cactus” countries, including ours, interest in cacti has not waned, and the number of books and magazines for amateurs has been increasing. The flow of information over the past years undoubtedly requires the further development of existing phylogenetic classification systems for cacti. Using the Bakeberg system adopted by us, it should be borne in mind that a number of proposals by this scientist are currently disputed, and his books do not contain numerous descriptions of recently discovered plants. (It should be noted that the imperfection of the systematics of cacti to some extent “exalts” the amateur, puts him on a par with the researcher, since determining the type of plant and clarifying its family ties brings the collector closer to scientific research).
The quality of the development of old and modern systems was greatly affected by the difficulties in the classification of cacti associated with the great natural variability of these plants, the existence of different descriptions and names of polymorphic species of cacti, the complexity of herbarization, and a number of other reasons. At the same time, various systems have defects of a different order.The uncertainty of the volume of such units of systems as genus, species, etc., has led to the fact that many forms of cacti were unreasonably described as varieties, varieties as independent species, and species as separate genera. G. Frank, an Austrian botanist and collector, for example, drew attention to the fact that if the criteria used to distinguish between the genera Neoporteria, Norridocactus and Neochilenia were applied to lobivia, then new independent genera would be distinguished.
An audit of the Bakeberg system would certainly lead to a significant reduction in the number of species and genera, while now the list of existing names of species and varieties exceeds ten thousand, annually replenishing with dozens of new names.
Developing the problem of the genesis of cacti, Bakeberg came to the conclusion about the independent formation at different times of plants of the subfamily Cereus in the northern and southern regions. More ancient and primitive forms (cacti of the subfamilies of Opuntia and Peireus) came, in his opinion, from the peripheral dry zone of Central America. Subsequently, as the climate changed, they spread in two directions: to South America and to Mexico, from which they moved further north. In 1944, the American Journal of Botany published a report by the paleobotanist R. Cheney about the discovery of a fossil Eocene cactus in Utah. The find was called Eopuntia douglasii and, to a certain extent, confirmed Bakeberg's theory, since it was discovered on the path of the ancient settlement of these plants supposed by him.
As for the main thing in the Bakeberg system - the thesis of the independent development of spherical cacti of the north and south, it was not unanimously accepted by all experts. Buxbaum, for example, on the basis of the similarity of seeds and flowers of astrophytum and frily, referred astrophytum to the group of South American plants. A Hungarian researcher J. Debreci, having studied literature and field studies, came to the conclusion that some of the North American cacti were formed in the south (Debrechy Zs., 1976).
The hypotheses of theorists preceding Bakeberg are in many respects interesting. For example, A. Fritsch, the famous Czech as a tusist, and E. Schelle, inspector of the botanical garden in Tübingen (Germany), developed an original theory of the development of cacti, contrasting it with the theory of A. Berger, according to which the buds changed in the development of cacti from the circumscribed type to the pubescent and as a result, the higher forms formed completely bare .butons and ovaries. They proceeded from the assumption that three branches emerged from the general basis of cacti, which later developed in parallel. As a result, the representatives of one branch are ringed, the representatives of the other are pubescent, and the representatives of the third are the bare ovary and peduncle.
The theory of Fritsch and Schelle, according to some researchers, better explains the genesis of certain genera of cacti than the Berger, Bakeberg or Bucksbaum systems. At the same time, it is completely clear that the problems of systematics cannot be solved if based on single characteristics of plants, but require an integrated approach. From this point of view, although the Bakeberg system is somewhat outdated, it is quite suitable for use.
We should also mention the book published in 1979 by W. Bartlot, a botanist from Heidelberg, “Cacti”, which presents a family classification system that summarizes the work of K. Bakeberg, F. Buxbaum, D. R. Hunt.
This classification system is referred, in particular, to V. Pay (University of Heidelberg), a major specialist in succulent tapes, the author of several books, among which stands out the richly illustrated monograph “Kakteen an ihren Stan-dorten” (1979). The Bartlot cactus pivot table in the Pay book is slightly modified. This is because the location of some genera remains unclear for these authors. The genus Morangaya established by G. Rowley in 1974 for one plant from the west of Mexico, previously known as Echinocereus pensilis, is included. The interesting genus Vebelmannia occupies a special position; its place has not been determined definitively. The system distinguishes 121 genera. It is possible that this classification, thanks to the application of new methods of plant research, will be able to be finalized in such a way that most experts will accept it.
The obvious tendency to reduce the genera and species in the system can be illustrated by the example of the proposals of N. P. Taylor (“The Cactus and Succulent Journal of Great Britain”, 1978, v. 41). The author examined the genus Echinofossulo-cactus, in which © dozens of species are usually found. The confusion with these plants is well known and is due to the fact that they know about a part of cacti only from meager descriptions, their natural variability is very great, and in cultural conditions there are many hybrids. Taylor showed the identity of many “species”, according to which he identified in the genus only such as E. coptonogonus, E. crispatus, E. multicostatus, E. phyllacanthus, E. sulphureus, E. vaupelianus.
- Stenocereus alamosensis - Octopus cactus, Cina
- Stenocereus aragonii
- Stenocereus beneckei
- Stenocereus eruca - creeping devil caterpillar cactus
- Stenocereus pseaiz - dagger cactus, Yosu (Wayuunaiki)
- Stenocereus gummosus - Sour pitaya, pitaya lichen, ziix is ccapxl (Cmiique iitom)
- Stenocereus hollianus
- Stenocereus montan
- Stenocereus pruinosus
- Stenocereus queretaroensis
- Stenocereus stellatus - Baja organpipe cactus
- Stenocereus thurberi - Organpipe cactus
Cactus organpipe closeup ( S. thurberi ) spines
A brief overview of the classification of cacti according to Bakeberg
Bakeberg, in accordance with traditions dating back to Schumann, divides the Cactaceae family into three subfamilies.
The first subfamily - Peireskioideae - includes cacti with well-developed or reduced leaves, tree-like, shrubby or forming low groups of fusion stems. Daytime flowers can be collected in brushes, the seeds are large, smooth. The subfamily is divided into two tribes and consists of three genera: Pelreskia (1), Rhodocactus (2) and Maihuenia (3). Cacti of this subfamily form four habitats mainly in Central and South America. To the south of all, crossing the 45th parallel, the genus Maihuenia is widespread.
The second subfamily - Opuntioideae - includes cacti with articulated stems, heavily reduced leaves and with glochidia in areoles. Numerous members of the family are found from Canada to Patagonia. The most frost-resistant Opuntia fragilis is widespread, the southernmost are plants of the genus Pterocactus.
The subfamily is divided into several tribes, subtribes, groups and subgroups and includes the following genera: Quiabentia (4), Peireskiopsis (5), Austrocylindropuntia (6), Pterocactus (7), Cylindropuntia (8), Grusonia (9), Marenopuntia (10) , Tephrocactus (11), Maihueniopsis (12), Corynopuntia (13), Micropuntia (14), Brasillopuntia (15), Consolea (16), Opuntia (17), Nopalea (18), Tacinga (19). When dividing this subfamily, Bakeberg already uses a geographical feature, dividing the first two subtribes into northern and southern groups. Some subfamily plants are of interest to collections, and some of them are usually used as stocks. As a rule, these cacti easily propagate vegetatively (especially jointed), due to which some species are widely distributed in indoor plant growing.
* Hereinafter, the number in parentheses indicates the sequence number of the genus in the system. In the book of A. Urban, it was erroneously indicated that cacti of the genus Tacinga do not have glochidia. In fact, these plants have easily decaying glochidia.
The third subfamily - Cereoideae, or Cactoldeae - established by Schumann, unites all other cacti without leaves and without glochidia. Representatives of this subfamily in distribution areas are similar to opuntia, but significantly exceed them in number and variety. Bakeberg divided the subfamily into two tribes - Hylocereeae and Segeeae. The first includes laciform and rod-shaped drooping and creeping epiphytic cacti with round, oval and faceted shoots and aerial roots on the stem and consists of several subtribes.
The first subtribe, Rhipsalldinae, is divided into groups and subgroups and includes the genera: Rhipsalis (20), Lepismium (21), Acanthorhipsalis (22), Pseudorhipsalis (23), Hatiora (24), Erythrorhipsalis (25), Rhipsalidopsis (26an, Eplhyhy (27), Pseudozygocactus (28), Epiphyllopsis (29), Schlumbergera (30), Zygocactus (31).
The second subtribe - Phyllocaetinae - consists of one group and two subgroups, includes the genera: Cryptocereus (32), Marniera (33), Lobeira (34), Epiphyllum (35), Eccremocacius (36), Pseudonopalxochia (37), Nopalxochia (38) Chiapasia (39), Disocactus (40), Wittia (41).
The third subtribe - Hylocereinae - is also divided into several groups and subgroups and consists of the following genera: Strophocactus (42), Deamia (43), Werckleocereus (44), Selenicereus (45), Mediocactus (46), Weberocereus (47), Wilmattea ( 48), Hylocereus (49), Aporocactus (50).
Some cacti of this tribe are widely used as stocks. In addition, in ordinary indoor floriculture, hybrid epiphyllums and zigo cacti are extremely widespread. Representatives of the tribe, such as hylocereuses and selenicereuses, bloom with beautiful, largest flowers in cacti.
The second tribe of the subfamily includes spherical and pillar-shaped plants and consists of two half-tribes - southern and northern. These half-tribes are divided into subtribes depending on the shape of the cactus stem.
The first subtribe - Austrocereinae - consists of six groups.
The first group includes small epiphytic plants with diurnal flowers and consists of the genus Pfeiffera (51). The second was established by Bakerberg for low bushy plants from Central Peru and consists of the genus Mila (52). The third includes columnar cacti of various sizes with day and night flowers, which have ringed flower tubes and ovaries. A subgroup of plants blooming during the day: Corryocactus (53), Erdisia (54), Neoraimondia (55), Neocar-denasia (56), Yungasocereus (57) and Lasiocereus (58). Subgroup of Noctiformes: Armafocereus (59), Callymmanthium (60), Brachycereus (61). The fourth group - nocturnal ceres - differs from the nocturnal subgroup of the previous group by the absence of spines on the peduncle and ovary, consists of the genera: Jasminocereus (62), Stetsonia (63), Browningia (64), Gymnocereus (65), Azureocereus (66). The fifth group combines cereus with diurnal asymmetrical flowers and is divided into two subgroups depending on the shape at a young age (columnar or spherical). The first subgroup includes: Cllstanthocereus (67), Loxanthocereus (68), Winterocereus (69), Bolivicereus (70), Borzicacius (71), Seticereus (72), Akersia (73), Seticlelstocactus (74), Cleisiocactus (75), Cephalocleist (76), Oreocereus (77), Morawetzia (78). The second subgroup consists of Den.rn.oza (79), Arequipa (80), Submatucana (81), Matucana (82). Some cacti in this group are valuable collection plants. In the sixth group, spherical and columnar cacti are still united by Berger on the basis of a typical funnel-shaped flower-covered flower tube. The subgroup of noctifolia includes the genera: Samaipaticereus (83), Philippicereus (84), Setiechinopsis (85), Trichocereus (86), Roseocereus (87), Eulychnia (88), Rauhocereus (89), Haageocereus (90), Pygmaeocereus (91) Weberbauerocereus (92), Echinopsis (93). Blooming in the afternoon: Leucostele (94), Helianthocereus (95), Chamaecereiis (96), Pseudolobivia (97).
The second subtribe - Austrocactinae - southern cacti, consists of two large groups.
The Lobiviae group is divided into three subgroups and includes many cacti widely known in the collections. The first subgroup consists of the genera Acantholobivia (98), Acanthocalycium (99), Lobivia (100). The second was established by Bakerberg for small alpine plants, mainly from Bolivia, and includes the genera Mediolobivia (101) and Aylostera (102). The third subgroup includes plants that have flowers with bare tubes and an ovary; these are the genera Rebutia (103) and Sulcorebutia (104). The Austroechinocacti group is established for plants, which, unlike the cacti of the previous group, form flowers mainly on the top of the stem. Most of these plants are of interest to collectors and often form the basis of collections. Eastern branch of the group: Austrocactus (105), Pyrrhocactus (106), Brasilicactus (107), Parodia (108), Wig-ginsia (109), Eriocactus (110), Notocactus (111), Frallea (112), Blossfeldia (113) , Soehrensia (114), Oroya (115), Gymnocalyciuin (116), Brachycalycium (117), Weingartia (118), Neowerdermannia (119). Pacific branch: Rodentlophlla (120), Neochilenia (121), Horridocactus (122), Delaetia (123), Reicheo-cactus (124), Neoporteria (125), Eriosyce (126), Islaya (127), Pilocoplapoa (128), Copiapoa (129).
The taxonomy proposed by Bakerberg of the group of southern echinocactus, especially the western branch, still requires considerable development to determine the place and status of several genera.
The second half-tribe - Boreocereeae - is divided by Bakeberg into the subtribes Boreocereinae and Boreocacilnae. The first subtribe consists of 10 groups of various columnar cacti.
The first group was established by Berger for plants with large flowers, the tube of which is covered with hairs or thorns, the fruit is also prickly. It includes the genera: Acanthocereus (130), Peniocereus (131), Dendrocereus (132), Neoabbottia (133), Leptocereus (134) (the last genus is with daylight flowers). The second group includes the genera Leocereus (135) and Zehntnerella (136) - cacti with small flowers. The third group - small plants with beautiful flowers, in which the tube and ovary are covered with thorns, and the stigma of the pestle is green. It consists of two genera: Echinocereus (137) and Wilcoxia (138). The fourth group combines night-flowering plants with thin shoots and includes, like the other groups of this subtribe, North and South American cacti. It consists of the following genera: Nyctocereus (139), Eriocereus (140), Harrlsia (141), Arthrocereus (142), Machaerocereus (143). The fifth group combines several genera of cacti with day flowers: Heliocereus (144), Bergerocactus (145), Rathbunia (146). The sixth group, complex in composition, first proposed by Berger, combines plants with day and night flowers. Some of the members of the group form cephaly. The list of genera of the group includes: Polaskia (147), Lemaireocereus (148), Pachycereus (149), Heliabravoa (150), Marshallocereus (151), Rooksbya (152), Ritterocereus (153), Carnegiea (154), Neobuxbaumia (15) , Pterocereus (156), Marglnatocereus (157), Stenocereus (158), Isolatocereus (159), Anisocereus (160), Escontria (161), Hertrlchocereus (162), Mitrocereus (163), Neodawsonia (164), Cephalo , Backebergia (166), Haseltonia (167). The seventh group was established for columnar branching ceres with small flowers and consists of the genera Myrtillocactus (168) and Lophocereus (169). The eighth group of northern Cereus includes only the South American genera: Brasilicereus (170), Monvlllea (171), Cereus (172). The ninth group is formed by cacti with true or false cephaly. Genera: Castellanosia (173), Subpilocereus (174), Pilosocereus (175), Micranthocereus (176), Facheiroa (177), Trixanthocereus (178), Pseudoespostoa (179), Vatricania (180), Austrocephalocereus (181, 181 ), Espostoa (183), Coleocephalocereus (184), Stephanocereus (185), Arrojadoa (186). In the tenth group, Bakerberg brings together spherical or short-cylindrical cacti, forming cephaly and numerous small day flowers (genus Melocactus (187)), as well as plants with a flat stem, relatively small cephalus and fragrant, relatively large night flowers (genus Discocactus (188) ) The difference between the cacti of these genera is still too great to agree with their unification in one group. Both melocactus and discocactus are highly appreciated by amateurs, but the introduction to the collection of homogeneous representatives of these genera is unreasonable.
The second subtribe consists of two large groups, cacti belonging to them differ in the place of flower formation. In plants of the Boreoechinocacti group, flowers are formed from areoles, and Mammillariae groups are formed from axillas or from grooves of separated areoles.
The first group is divided into two subgroups - Euboreoechinocacti and Mediocoryphanthae - and includes the following genera of cacti: Echinocactus (189), Homalocephala (190), Astrophy-tum (191), Sclerocactus (192), Leuchtenbergia (193), Neogomesocus (194) (195), Hamatocactus (196), Echino fossillocactus (197), Coloradoa (198), Thelocactus (199), Echino-mastus (200), Utahia (201), Pediocactus (202), Gymnocactus (203), Strombocactus (204) ), Obregonia (205), Toumeya (206), Navajoa (207), Pilocanthus (208), Turbinicarpus (209), Aztekium (210), Lophophora (211), Epithelantha (212), Glandulicactus (2l3), Ancistrocactus (214) ) The last two genera form the second subgroup. The status of individual genera and their place in the system are controversial and are being clarified by new studies. Almost all cacti of this group are traditionally considered the most valuable plants in the collections. The second group is divided by Bakerberg into three subgroups depending on the place of occurrence of the flower. The first subgroup includes cacti blooming from the base of the groove or its rudimentary formation. This subgroup - Coryphanthae - unites the genera: Neslloydia (215), Neobesseya (216), Escobaria (217), Lepidocoryphantha (218), Coryphantha (219), Roseocactus (220), Encephalocarpus (221), Pelecyphora (222).
The second subgroup - Mediomammillariae - includes one genus Ortegocactus (223), which forms a pubescent axilla flower and a pubescent berry. Observations of G. Frank show that information about the pubescence of the C. centipede and berries arose as a result of a careless description of the plant. Apparently, the genus Ortegocactus belongs to the first subgroup.
The third subgroup - Eumammillariae - is formed by the genera: So-lisia (224), Ariocarpus (225), Mammlllaria (226), Porfiria (227), Krainzia (228), Phellosperma (229), Dolichothele (230), Bartschella (231), Mamillopsis (232) and Cochemiea (233) enclosing the Bakeberg system.
Cacti of the Mammillaria group are also usually collected in collections, and plants of several genera are “elite”. As for their classification, it is not accepted unconditionally: the relationships and status of some genera have been disputed by many experts. Among the most significant proposals are the combination of D. R. Hunt in a single genus Mammiliaria of cacti of the third subgroup (with the exception of ariocarpus), as well as various movements within both groups.
After the death of Bakeberg (1966), numerous new species of cacti were found and described (dozens of names of different taxa appeared annually in the literature), new genera were proposed, the status of which in some cases seems doubtful (Cochiseya, Eomatucana, Mirabella (?)), But in others (Uebelmannia) no doubt. F. Buxbaum, relying on the results of his research, published a number of articles in the 60s that clarified the hierarchy and status of individual genera in the main lines of development of cactus plants.
Of particular interest are studies of cacti using modern instrumental methods. Mention should be made of the work of B. Löenberger, an employee of the Botanical Garden and Museum in West Berlin, on the study of pollen microstructure. He studied pollen from about 700 cacti, representing 630 species (210 genera out of 233 according to the Bakeberg system), as a result of which valuable information was obtained for systematics. Известно, что Буксбаум в своей системе отнес мексиканские астрофитумы к южноамериканским кактусам по ряду признаков.Löonberger, studying these cacti, showed that the pollen grains of astrophytum and frily are indeed similar in a number of signs, but these signs are found independently in both North American and South American plants. Representatives of another cactus genus, which is problematic for the taxonomy, weingartia, together with sulcorecuts, turned out to be closer to restitutions, as was suggested by a number of researchers. In the case of discocacti, from this point of view, Bakeberg, who considered them to be related to melocactuses, and Bucksbaum, who placed them closer to the hymnocalycuses, turned out to be wrong. The latter, in turn, found similarities with spears. The pollen grains of the cacti of the genera Austrocacius, Pyrrhocactus, Eriosyce, Eulychnia, Neoporteria showed much in common, but the pollen structure was different in plants of the genus Reicheocactus, which was close to the genus. Similar to this criterion were sclerocactus and echinocactus. According to the structure of pollen, oregonium was unique in a series of closely related cacti. Lobivia and chamecereus, according to Lönberger, are close to echinopsis, although according to the separation of Buxbaum these plants belong to different tribes. Obviously, the results of such studies alone cannot be a solution to the contentious issues of cactus classification. but in the complex of signs important for taxonomy, the pollen microstructure and seed tests play an important role. For example, in 1977, the Cactus and Succulent journal (USA) audited the genus Turbinicarpus using data obtained by analyzing seeds using a scanning electron microscope. As a result of radical changes, many plants have lost the status of a species, and most importantly, the long-standing disputes of specialists Pelecyphora pseudopectinata and Gymnocactus valdezianus have been added to the turbinicarps.
Cacti and succulents "species definition"
Message Avflower Jan 6, 2006 1:26 p.m.
Message Avflower Jan 6, 2006 1:28 p.m.
Message Avflower Jan 6, 2006 1:32 p.m.
Message Avflower »Jan 6, 2006 1:34 p.m.
Message Vladimir Jan 9, 2006 4:46 p.m.
Message Andrey Damm "Jan 17, 2006 9:17 AM
Definition of Cacti for Polla
Message Polla May 24, 2006 6:11 PM
Message Andrey Damm May 25, 2006 1:29 AM
Pola, which from the right looks like Mammillaria bokasana. The plant begins to "stretch" - so that on the lightest window sill of it. (and the rest too).
In the middle - A Parody (from Notocactus, what color was the flower?)
I find it difficult to say about the left. the fact that rebutia is unique, but which one? Wait for the flowering.
And yet - for a more accurate definition of your plants (this applies to all users), it is necessary to photograph each individually and larger (I do not mean the size of the photo, but the ratio of the size of the cactus and photo), at an angle of 45 degrees. And larger is the number and arrangement of thorns. Better without a flash, in natural daylight.
Message Polla May 25, 2006 9:35 p.m.
Message Sveta Luneva May 25, 2006 9:48 p.m.SharePinTweetSendSend