Rebutia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

Rebutia
Rebutia muscula in flower
Scientific classification
Kingdom:Plantae
(unranked):Angiosperms
(unranked):Eudicots
(unranked):Core eudicots
Order:Caryophyllales
Family:Cactaceae
Subfamily:Cactoideae
Tribe:Trichocereeae
Genus:Rebutia
K.Schum.

etc.

 
Jump to: navigation, search
Rebutia
Rebutia muscula in flower
Scientific classification
Kingdom:Plantae
(unranked):Angiosperms
(unranked):Eudicots
(unranked):Core eudicots
Order:Caryophyllales
Family:Cactaceae
Subfamily:Cactoideae
Tribe:Trichocereeae
Genus:Rebutia
K.Schum.

etc.

Rebutia K. Schum. is a genus in the family Cactaceae, native to Bolivia and Argentina.

It was designated in 1895 by Karl Moritz Schumann[1] and named after Pierre Rebut (1828–1898), a French cactus nurseryman. The type species is R.minuscula, which has been in cultivation since 1887.[2] These are generally small, colorful cacti, globular in form, which freely produce flowers that are relatively large in relation to the body. They have no distinctive ribs, but do have regularly arranged small tubercles. They are considered fairly easy to grow and they may produce large quantities of seeds that germinate freely around the parent plant.

Contents

Synonymy

There has been considerable debate about the extent of the genus. In the middle of the twentieth century there was a tendency to separate groups of plants within Rebutia as new genera, e.g. Mediolobivia, whereas towards the end of the century the reverse tendency predominated, with genera previously regarded as separate, such as Weingartia, being subsumed within Rebutia. At the beginning of the twenty-first century there was a broad consensus, as reflected in the list of Vascular Plant Families and Genera maintained at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, that the following genera should be regarded as synonyms of Rebutia:

(The generic names Bridgesia, Spegazzinia, Echinorebutia, Eurebutia, Mediorebutia, Neogymnantha and Setirebutia are invalid, the first two because they are homonyms of Bridgesia Bert. ex Cambess. and Spegazzinia Saccardo respectively, the remainder for lack of any valid publication. Some of these are nevertheless valid names for subdivisions of the genus.)


History of the taxonomic treatment of genera: Rebutia, Aylostera, Weingartia, Sulcorebutia and Cintia.

K. SchumannBritton & RoseSpegazziniA. V. Frič
18951896 - 1921192219231932 - 1938
Rebutia
genera nova
Echinocatus
Echinopsis
Rebutia
renovation
Rebutia
Rebutia
Aylostera
genera nova
Digitorebutia, Cylindrorebutia,
Echinorebutia, Setirebutia,
Hymenorebutia, Scopaerebutia
BackebergDonaldICSG AndersonRowleyMosti & Papini
19661975200120092011
Rebutia K. Schum.Rebutia
sectio Rebutia
RebutiaRebutia
subg. Rebutia
Rebutia
Aylostera Speg.Rebutia
sectio Aylostera
RebutiaAylostera
subg. Aylostera
Aylostera
subg. Aylostera
Mediolobivia Backeb.Rebutia
sectio Setirebutia,
Digitorebutia, Cylindrorebutia
RebutiaAylostera
subg. Mediolobivia
Aylostera
subg. Mediolobivia
Weingartia Werderm.
syn.Spegazzinia Backeb.
WeingartiaRebutiaRebutia
subg. Weingartia
Weingartia
Sulcorebutia Backeb.SulcorebutiaRebutiaRebutia
subg. Sulcorebutia
Weingartia
incl. Cintia

Phylogeny

More recent research has indicated that the genus Rebutia as currently defined is polyphyletic. Sulcorebutia and Weingartia were kept as separate genera in the study; a summary cladogram for those species studied is shown below.[3]




Rebutia I (R. pseudodeminuta, R. fiebrigii, R. deminuta, R. pygmaea, R. steinmannii and R. einsteinii)



Other genera





Browningia hertingiana





Browningia candelaris



Rebutia II (R. minuscula and R. padcayensis)




Sulcorebutia, Weingartia and Cintia





Species formerly classified as Weingartia, Sulcorebutia and Cintia Kníže & Říha show a close relationship to each other and to species of Rebutia with naked pericarpels (Rebutia II), including the type species R. minuscula. The larger group of species of Rebutia studied, those with hairy or bristly pericarpels, form a separate, more distantly related clade (Rebutia I). It is suggested that these be excluded from the genus.[3]

The number of species is similarly debatable, because of disagreement both over what constitutes the genus and what constitutes a species. A very large number plants that have circulated as species of Rebutia are now generally regarded as varieties, forms or synonyms of others.[4] E. F. Anderson recognised forty-one species.[5]

List of species

Checklist of species and infraspecific taxa recognized by Stefano Mosti & Alessio Papini, 2011. [6]

1. Rebutia calliantha Bewer., 1948.
2. Rebutia fabrisii Rausch, 1977.
3. Rebutia kariusiana Wessner, 1963.
4. Rebutia krainziana Kesselr., 1948.
5. Rebutia margarethae Rausch, 1972.
6. Rebutia marsoneri Werderm., 1937.
7. Rebutia minuscula K. Schum., 1895
8. Rebutia padcayensis Rausch, 1970.
9. Rebutia senilis Backeb., 1932.
10. Rebutia violaciflora Backeb., 1935,
11. Rebutia wessneriana Bewer., 1948
11a. Rebutia wessneriana Bewer. subsp. berylloides, 1976.
12. Rebutia xanthocarpa Backeb., 1932.

Gallery

Rebutia II

Rebutia I - Aylostera, Sulcorebutia, Weingartia

Notes

  1. ^ Monatsschrift für Kakteenkunde, 5: 102, 1895
  2. ^ N. L. Britton, J. N. Rose, The Cactaceae, Washington, 1920, vol.III, p.45.
  3. ^ a b Ritz, Christiane M.; Martins, Ludwig; Mecklenburg, Rainer; Goremykin, Vadim & Hellwig, Frank H. (2007), "The molecular phylogeny of Rebutia (Cactaceae) and its allies demonstrates the influence of paleogeography on the evolution of South American mountain cacti", American Journal of Botany 94: 1321–1332. Summary cladogram based on Fig. 2.
  4. ^ Cf. the list of approximately two hundred names under Rebutia (not to mention those given under other genera) provided in B. Fearn and L. Pearcy, The Genus Rebutia, 1895-1981, Matlock: Abbey Brook, 1981, pp.60-71.
  5. ^ Edward F. Anderson, The Cactus Family, Portland, Oregon: Timber Press, 2001, pp.599-611.
  6. ^ Stefano Mosti, Nadeesha Lewke Bandara y Alessio Papini, en su estudio Further insights and new combinations in Aylostera (cactaceae) based on molecular and morphological data. Pak. J. Bot., 43(6): 2769-2785, 2011

Further reading