Hylocereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose, 1909
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.327.1.1 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/251987B3-CA34-FF9A-FF4B-1656FCAAFC64 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Hylocereus |
status |
|
The Hylocereus / Selenicereus clade
Hylocereus is confirmed as monophyletic while Selenicereus forms a grade in which Hylocereus is nested ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ).
Within Hylocereus , there are two highly supported clades that largely correspond to the two current sections, but neither of them is monophyletic. The clade of Hylocereus sect. Hylocereus ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ) contains the type species H. triangularis Britton & Rose and corresponds to Hylocereus in its traditional circumscription, e.g. sensu Britton & Rose (1920) . This clade includes the earlier-proposed monotypic genus Wilmattea Britton & Rose [ W. minutiflora (Britton & Rose) Britton & Rose View in CoL ], that was originally separated from Hylocereus due to its smaller flowers and the lack of a floral tube.
The second clade (Salmdyckia clade, Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ) contains most of Hylocereus sect. Salmdyckia D.R. Hunt. It was transferred from Selenicereus View in CoL to Hylocereus only recently by Bauer (2003a). This section was based on the genus Mediocactus Britton & Rose that was characterized by having characters of both Hylocereus and Selenicereus View in CoL [see Hunt (1989) for a detailed classification history and notes on typification]. Buxbaum (1962) regarded Mediocactus to be close to Hylocereus , while Hunt (1989) suggested including it in Selenicereus View in CoL and this was followed in subsequent treatments (e.g., Anderson 2001, Barthlott & Hunt 1993). The transfer of Selenicereus sect. Salmdyckia D.R. Hunt to Hylocereus was based on unpublished DNA sequence data of Robert Wallace presented at an IOS congress in 1996 and was adopted by Bauer (2003a), Taylor & Zappi (2004), and Hunt (2006). Most species comprising the Salmdyckia clade are native to South America, except H. ocamponis , which occurs in Mexico.
The Selenicereus View in CoL grade is formed by three lineages and several accessions of S. inermis (Otto) Britton & Rose View in CoL that do not form a clade and remain unresolved ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ). They are also not found closely related to the Salmdyckia clade, contrary to the classification according to Bauer (2003a). The monotypic genus Cryptocereus Alexander [ C. anthonyanus Alexander View in CoL ≡ Selenicereus anthonyanus (Alexander) D.R. Hunt View in CoL ] is resolved within Selenicereus View in CoL . Backeberg (1959) additionally included Werckleocereus imitans Kimnach & Hutchison View in CoL in Cryptocereus and suggested a close relationship to phyllocactoid genera, i.e. the Epiphyllum View in CoL alliance. These species differ from typical members of Selenicereus View in CoL having flat-stemmed epiphytes with stems resembling fernleaves ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 ). Our data confirm the proposal by Hunt (1989) who pointed out a possible affinity with Werckleocereus Britton & Rose , as well as its inclusion in Selenicereus View in CoL because it shares the spiny pericarpel.
The genera Hylocereus and Selenicereus View in CoL are morphologically similar as both contain scrambling or climbing cacti with large, usually white nocturnal flowers. Britton & Rose (1920) originally defined Hylocereus to possess pericarpels covered by scales while the pericarpels in Selenicereus View in CoL have hairs or spines. The transfer of Selenicereus sect. Salmdyckia to Hylocereus ( Bauer 2003a) included species with spines on the pericarpel in Hylocereus so that the original concept of Britton & Rose did not apply anymore. Bauer (2003a) had justified this transfer only by unpublished sequence data of Wallace, referred to in Taylor and Zappi (2004) and did not mention any morphological characters to substantiate his new concept of Hylocereus .
Our results confirm the finding of earlier molecular phylogenetic studies, using either plastid or nuclear DNA sequences. All of them have shown that there is no separation between Hylocereus and Selenicereus , although only few species were sampled ( Arias et al. 2005, Bárcenas et al. 2011, Cruz et al. 2016, Hernández-Hernández et al. 2011, Plume et al. 2013). The most extensive dataset generated so far (plastid rpl32-trnL, trnQ -rps16 and psbD -trnT and nuclear ITS) also found Hylocereus nested in a paraphyletic Selenicereus ( Plume et al. 2013) . The same conclusion was reached using a morphological and anatomical comparison of Hylocereus and Selenicereus ( Gómez-Hinostrosa et al. 2014) . Therefore, we merge both genera under the name Selenicereus and provide the necessary new combinations (see Taxonomic synopsis). A next level of study is required in Selenicereus concerning the delimitation of several species which remain insufficiently known, e.g. Selenicereus ocamponis / S. purpusii , S. triangularis / S. trigonus , S. vagans / S. murrillii , and S. costaricensis / S.monacanthus . These taxa require insights from extensive field studies and a combination of molecular, morphological and ecological data.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
Hylocereus
Korotkova, Nadja, Borsch, Thomas & Arias, Salvador 2017 |
Cryptocereus
Alexander 1950 |
Cryptocereus
Alexander 1950 |
sensu
Britton & Rose 1920 |
S. inermis (Otto)
Britton & Rose 1920 |
Hylocereus
Britton & Rose 1909 |
Hylocereus
Britton & Rose 1909 |
Hylocereus
Britton & Rose 1909 |
Hylocereus
Britton & Rose 1909 |
Hylocereus
Britton & Rose 1909 |
Hylocereus
Britton & Rose 1909 |
Hylocereus
Britton & Rose 1909 |
H. ocamponis
Britton & Rose 1909 |
Hylocereus
Britton & Rose 1909 |
Hylocereus
Britton & Rose 1909 |
Epiphyllum
Haworth 1812 |