1,720,972 research outputs found
Opuntieae
No full textTribe Opuntieae: —The membership of the two Chilean genera (Miqueliopuntia Frič ex F.Ritter and Tunilla D.Hunt & Iliff) in the Opuntieae is corroborated by various studies (e.g. Wallace & Dickie 2002, Griffith & Porter 2009, Majure et al. 2012).Published as part of Walter, Helmut E. & Guerrero, Pablo C., 2022, Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy, pp. 79-98 in Phytotaxa 550 (2) on page 82, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/664103
Tephrocactus Lem.
No full textTephrocactus Lem.: — Kiesling (1984) and Rodríguez et al. (2018) placed Tephrocactus nigrispinus (K.Schum.) Backeb. within the genus Maihueniopsis. This assumption was not supported by molecular studies (Wallace & Dickie 2002, Griffith & Porter 2009, Ritz et al. 2012).Published as part of Walter, Helmut E. & Guerrero, Pablo C., 2022, Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy, pp. 79-98 in Phytotaxa 550 (2) on page 87, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/664103
Cereeae Salm-Dyck 1840
No full textTribe Cereeae Salm-Dyck: — Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) proposed a broader circumscription of the tribe Cereeae than traditional concepts (see e.g., Anderson 2001, 2005, Hunt et al. 2013). Lendel (2006) and Ritz et al. (2007) showed, in fact, that the traditionally circumscribed Cereeae and Trichocereeae are not monophyletic. Therefore, we follow Nyffeler & Eggli’s (2010) concept of a tribe Cereeae with three subtribes, i.e. Cereinae Britton & Rose, Rebutiinae Donald (incl. Browningieae Buxb.) and Trichocereinae Britton & Rose.Published as part of Walter, Helmut E. & Guerrero, Pablo C., 2022, Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy, pp. 79-98 in Phytotaxa 550 (2) on page 95, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/664103
Eriosyce jussieui P. C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter, comb. nov.
No full text<i>Eriosyce jussieui</i> (Monv. ex Salm-Dyck) P.C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter, <i>comb. nov.</i> <p> ≡ <i>Echinocactus jussieui</i> Monv. ex Salm-Dyck, Cact. Hort. Dyck 1849: 170 (1850).</p> <p> <b>Type</b> (neotype, designated here):— CHILE: Coquimbo, Elqui, 20 km West of Vicuña, <i>Ritter 252a</i> [SGO121545!, corpus, areoles, spines (includes a small rooted seedling)].</p>Published as part of <i>Walter, Helmut E. & Guerrero, Pablo C., 2022, Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy, pp. 79-98 in Phytotaxa 550 (2)</i> on page 93, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/6641038">http://zenodo.org/record/6641038</a>
Phyllocacteae Salm-Dyck
No full textTribe Phyllocacteae Salm-Dyck: — Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) stated that the monophyly of the tribe is well supported by Nyffeler (2002) and Crozier (2005). Moreover, for nomenclatural reasons, the name Phyllocacteae (incl. Echinocereeae Buxb.) must be used because it has priority over all the other relevant tribal names, i.e. Hylocereeae Buxb., Leptocereeae Buxb., Pachycereeae Buxb. and Peniocereeae Doweld. Despite of this, Hunt et al. (2013) placed the three Chilean genera (Austrocactus Britton & Rose, Eulychnia Phil., and Corryocactus Britton & Rose) within Echinocereeae Buxb., Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) proposed the following three subtribes, one of which (Subtribe Corryocactinae Buxb.) includes the three Chilean genera. The relationships between Austrocactus, Eulychnia, and Corryocactus was corroborated by various molecular-based studies (e.g. Nyffeler 2002, Hernández-Hernández et al. 2011, Bárcenas et al. 2011).Published as part of Walter, Helmut E. & Guerrero, Pablo C., 2022, Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy, pp. 79-98 in Phytotaxa 550 (2) on page 88, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/664103
Copiapoa gigantea Backeb., Jahrb. Deutsche Kakt. Ges.
No full textCopiapoa gigantea Backeb., Jahrb. Deutsche Kakt. Ges. 1: 104. 1936. Type:—Not designated. = Copiapoa eremophila F. Ritter, Kakt. Südam. 3: 1104–1105. 1980. Type:— CHILE, östl. Paposo, s.d. [1956], Ritter 208b [holotype SGO124843, (corpus), areoles, spines]. Notes: —Backeberg (1936: 104) gave a vague type locality (“ Chile: Provinz Antofagasta, auf nachts oft nebelfeuchten Berggipfeln” = “ Chile: Province Antofagasta, on mountain peaks that are often damp at night”) in the protologue of his Copiapoa gigantea. Later, the same author (Backeberg 1977: 107) specified the locality as “above Paposo”. Ritter (1980: 1100) accepted Backeberg’s species for plants occurring east of Paposo area (“Gegen die Wüste des Hinterlandes wächst sie aber nur gegen Süden, während sie im gleichen Klima und in gleicher Höhenlage etwas nördlicher, nämlich östlich von PAPOSO...” = “Towards the desert of the hinterland, however, it [Copiapoa gigantea var. gigantea] only grows towards the south, while in the same climate and at the same altitude it grows a little further north, namely east of PAPOSO...”) and proposed C. haseltoniana Backeb. at variety rank of C. gigantea (Ritter 1980: 1101) for plant occurrring in “... nördlich Paposo an der Küste...” (= “... north of Paposo on the coast...”). Concerning Copiapoa eremophila, Ritter (1980: 1105) reported “Typusort. östlich von PAPOSO am Rand der Vollwüste als einzige noch wachsende Kakteenart; nur von hier bekannt. Von mir entdeckt 1956. Nr. FR 476 (=208a)”, the “Typusort” can be considered as “ holotype ”. We traced this specimen at SGO. Its morphology corresponds to the current concept of C. gigantea (see e.g., Larridon et al. 2015). The “current” concept of Copiapoa gigantea (based on molecular evidence) is Larridon 2015. There are no other works occupying with the status of C. gigantea. Former concepts treated C. gigantea as a synonym of C. cinerea subsp. haseltonia (Hunt et al., Hoffmann & Walter (2004), Anderson (2001) as a synonym of Copiapoa haseltonia and Slaba, (in Kaktussy (special) 33: 3. 1997) as C. cinerea subsp. gigantea for sharing the following characters: Apical wool orange-brown; large dense multi-headed mounds; stem diameter 10–25 cm, farina-covered; spines honey-coloured, later turning greyish-blackish, more numerous at higher elevations; young areoles orange brown.Accordingly, and since the type locality of C. eremophila is nearly the same of that of C. gigantea (Paposo), we here propose to synonymize the two names.Published as part of Walter, Helmut E. & Guerrero, Pablo C., 2022, Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy, pp. 79-98 in Phytotaxa 550 (2) on page 90, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/664103
Eulychnia
No full textEulychnia: —The genus includes two main clades according to Larridon et al. (2018) and Merklinger et al. (2021). The two groups are morphologically and phylogenetically supported and clearly associated with geographical changes in the Atacama Desert (a proposed key is reported below). According to the results of the phylogenetic analyses three former species-complexes were resolved: Eulychnia acida Phil., E. breviflora Phil., and E. iquiquensis (K.Schum.) Britton & Rose. 1. Ribs steep and narrow; flowers and fruits densely covered with wool; perianth segments lanceolate (“ breviflora -group”)............2 - Ribs broad and flattened; flowers and fruits with less and shorter wool; perianth segments spathulate (“ acida -group”)................6 2. Spines numerous, central ones very long; seed large.................................................................................................. 3. E. breviflora - Spines less numerous and shorter; seed smaller.................................................................................................................................3 3. Pulp orange; areoles with long wool; plants low to medium-sized....................................................................................................4 - Pulp whitish; areoles with shorter wool; plants higher......................................................................................................................5 4. Plants shrubby; branches sub-prostrate, thin........................................................................................................... 2. E. barquitensis - Plants arborescent; branches ascending, thicker..................................................................................................... 7. E. saint-pieana 5. Areoles far apart, wool dark brown........................................................................................................................... 8. E. taltalensis - Areoles closely set, wool greyish............................................................................................................................. 6. E. iquiquensis 6. Flower and fruit areoles spiny....................................................................................................................................... 4. E. castanea - Flower and fruit areoles spineless......................................................................................................................................................7 7. Plants shrubby; branches (sub)prostrate with superior portions pointing upwards; ribs 8–12...........................................................8 - Plants arborescent; branches ascending to erect; ribs up to 16.......................................................................................... 1. E. acida 8. Shrubs low; branches thin, grey-green; flowers with short wool; new areoles with abundant white felt................ 5. E. chorosensis - Shrubs higher; branches thicker, yellowish-green; flowers with in conspicuous hairs; areoles with short grey felt.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9. E. vallenarensisPublished as part of Walter, Helmut E. & Guerrero, Pablo C., 2022, Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy, pp. 79-98 in Phytotaxa 550 (2) on page 88, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/664103
Trichocereinae Britton & Rose 1920
No full textSubtribe Trichocereinae Britton & Rose (1920): —Most of the genera in Subtribe Trichocereine are also found in the traditional concept “Trichocereae” and the same applies to all the five Chilean genera [Haageocereus Backeb., Leucostele Backeb., Lobivia Britton & Rose, Oreocereus (A.Berger) Riccob., and Soehrensia Backeb.] in the Subtribe Trichocereinae. Based on DNA sequences and a broad sampling, Schlumperger & Renner (2012) showed that the large genus Echinopsis Zucc. is polyphyletic. Consequently, many former segregate genera were reinstalled, and the names of the Chilean taxa needed to be changed from Echinopsis s.l. into Leucostele Backeb., Lobivia Britton & Rose, and Soehrensia Backeb. (Schlumpberger 2012). Hunt (2012, 2016, see Table 2), accepted Schlumperger’s concept as “alternative”, while Rodríguez et al. (2018) still upheld the Echinopsis s.l. concept. Concerning the genus Leucostele, the old name Cactus coquimbanus Mol. has recently been rejected for being ambiguous (Eggli & Walter 2012) and Wilson (2016). Consequently, all combinations using this basionym must be abandoned. Among them is “ Leucostele coquimbana (Mol.) Schlumpb. ”. A new combination of Cereus nigripilis Phil., which represents the shrubby columnar plants occurring along the coast from the Coquimbo- to the Atacama Region was recently proposed [Leucostele nigripilis (Phil.) P. C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter (see Guerrero & Walter 2019 and Table 2)]. Several new taxa in the genus Leucostele were also recently proposed in different journals. As none of them had been included in the sampling of a molecular-based study, we decided not to accept them as long as they are supported by molecular phylogenies: L. faundezii (Albesiano) Schlumpb., L. pectinifera (Albesiano) Schlumpb., and L. undulosa (Albesiano) Schlumpb. (Korotkova et al. 2021).Published as part of Walter, Helmut E. & Guerrero, Pablo C., 2022, Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy, pp. 79-98 in Phytotaxa 550 (2) on page 95, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/664103
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
