Serrulatocereus serruliflorus Guiggi 2018
Creators: name: Guiggi, Alessandro
name: Mariotti, Mauro
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Plantae
Tracheophyta
Magnoliopsida
Caryophyllales
Cactaceae
Serrulatocereus
Serrulatocereus serruliflorus

description: 5. Serrulatocereus serruliflorus (Haworth 1830: 113) Guiggi (2018: 1).
Basionym: Cereus serruliflorus Haworth (1830: 113).
≡ Harrisia serruliflora (Haworth 1830: 113) Lourteig (1991: 408).
Lectotype (designated by Lourteig 1991: 408):― HAITI. Grand Cul de Sac: between Port-au-Prince and Léogane, in hot, dry woods; plant portrayed in September 1689 –1690, or 1693, by Charles Plumier (1689 –1697: 26, pl. 3: 26) (Fig. 10).
Epitype (designated here):― HAITI. Ouest Dept.: Plaine Cul-de-Sac, Croix-des-Bouquets, 18 December 1925, Ekman H-5377, sub Cereus repandus (S15-7962!, two sheets, corpus, areolae, spinae, flos, fructus, Fig. 11; isoepitype: US 00171443!, corpus, areolae, spinae).
= Cereus haitiensis A.R.Franck & Peguero in Franck et al. (2017: 2), non (Schumann 1903: 183) Schelle (1926: 120), nom. illeg. (Arts. 53.1 of ICN).
Type: ― HAITI. Nord-Ouest Dept.: arid thickets, W of Môle gorge, vicinity of Môle-St-Nicolas, 16 February 1929, Leonard & Leonard 13311 sub Cephalocereus nobilis (Haw.) Britton & Rose (holotype US 00171001!, corpus, areolae, spinae, flos, fructus; isotype NY1495818!, corpus, areolae, spinae, flos, fructus).
= Cereus ayisyen Van der Meer (2019: 14), nom. illeg. (Art. 52.1 of ICN).
Etymology: ―From the Latin serrulatus referring to the serrulate apical margin of the perianth segments (Eggli & Newton 2004, Guiggi, 2018).
Typification of Cereus serruliflorus: ―Given the considerable uncertainty associated with this taxon (see discussion below) and the designation of an iconographic lectotype, an epitype represented by a herbarium sample referred to and compatible with all elements included in the Plumier’s drawing is here chosen to establish the application of the name (see Turlan et al. 2018, Art. 9.9 of ICN).
Charles Plumier in his unpublished Botanicon Americanum (1689–1697) included 29 plates describing 24 taxa of Cactaceae discovered during his trips in the Greater and Lesser Antilles. However, his drawings in many cases are not accurate, containing errors or out-of-scale elements (see Areces 2018: 108, 112), probably because they were illustrated from memory (Mottram 2002: 86, Areces 2018: 112). Some examples are Consolea moniliformis (Linnaeus 1753: 468) Berger (1926: 94), based on Plumier’s plate 11, Harrisia divaricata based on plate 23, and Neogriseocereus fimbriatus (Lam. in Lamarck et al. 1785: 539) Guiggi (2013: 1), based on plate 25 (Britton & Rose 1919: 207, Mottram 2002: 88, 2020: 2, 63). Their identification and validity have never been questioned, unlike plate 26 (Fig. 10), used by Haworth (1830: 113) to describe his Cereus serruliflorus. Franck et al. (2017: 5) suspected that C. serruliflorus was a mix with H. divaricata and interpreted their narrowed lectotype in the sense of the latter species.
We are not in agreement with this position (Cereus serruliflorus was a mix with Harrisia divaricata) for several reasons. H. divaricata with its different characters is depicted by Plumier (1689 –1697) on plate 24. Oversized elements including the scales on the flower tube and on the fruits included in pl. 26 occur also in the previously cited cases (i.e. plates nos. 11, 23 and 25). The locality (i.e. Plaine Cul-de-Sac, Croix-des-Bouquets) of Ekman’s collection (H-5377), here chosen as an epitype of Cereus serruliflorus (see Franck et al. 2017: 2–3, Areces 2018: 116), is the same of the plant on which Plumier (1689 –1697: pl. 26) based his drawing. The morphology of the stem in Plumier’s pl. 26, with the visible crenate margins and short and weak spines, are also conspecific with those included in Ekman (H-5377), with the exception of the lower number of ribs (8 vs. 11–13; see Franck et al. 2017: 2), here considered not so decisive, in consideration of artistic interpretations or imprecise memories.
In addition, the lectotype interpretation as Harrisia divaricata by Franck et al. (2017: 5) is in conflict with the protologue that described a large plant (to 4–5 m high, see Franck et al. 2017: 2, Areces 2018: 113) with a large fruit, subconical (Haworth 1830: 113; see also the Plumier’s plate 26), that for this reason could be rejected (Art. 9.19 of ICN). In contrast, H. divaricata is a shrubby plant (2–3 m high, see Franck 2016: 30, 115 fig. 66, 116 fig. 67) normally with globose fruit at maturity (Franck, 2016: 118, fig. 69). As support of these arguments, the morphology of the flower occurring in Plumier’s plate 26 is not the same apart the scales already discussed, as that of H. divaricata characterised by non-deflexed and triangular perianth segments and non-exserted stamens and stigma (see Franck 2016: 117, fig. 68).
Furthermore, in the English translation of the Plumier’s description associated with the pl. 26 (Mottram 2002: 113, 2020: 64), the characters reported (“ […] the trunk is almost as thick as a man’s body […] flowers, opening wide, monopetalous, truly campanulate […], with numerous narrow acuminate fimbriate segments […]. Its pericarpel and receptacle tube with small green scale-like leaves […] having a funnelform, many-branched stigma. […] an oblong or cucumber-shaped fruit”) matches the Areces’s concept of Cereus serruliflorus (see Areces 2018: 109-113, figs. 2, 6, 9, 10).
All things analysed, we do not consider the Plumier’s plate 26 to refer to more the one species (Art. 9.17 of ICN). Therefore, the lectotyfication of Lourteig is valid in our opinion (1991: 408), whereas that of Franck et al. (2017: 5) is unnecessary and the new species Cereus haitiensis A.R.Franck & Peguero in Franck et al. (2017: 2) is also suspected to be a later homonym of C. haitiensis (K.Schum.) Schelle (1926: 120). Its replaced name Cereus ayisyen Van der Meer (2019: 14) see Mottram (2020: 64, 68) needs to be interpreted as illegitimate superfluous name.
Taxonomic notes: ―The original inclusion of the taxon serruliflorus under the genus Cereus Miller (1754) by Haworth (1830: 113; see also Areces 2018: 113, Wisnev 2018: 223) appears inappropriate according to Guiggi (2018: 1), who highlighted that 1) the genus Cereus is not native from Caribbean region and 2) C. serruliflorus has vegetative and reproductive characters more related to other Caribbean genera, i.e Harrisia Britton (1908: 561) and Leptocereus (Berger 1905: 79) Britton & Rose (1909: 433) (see Guiggi 2018: 1). C. serruliflorus is distinguishable from Harrisia and Leptocereus by the following characteristics: flower strongly reflexed with oblong perianth segments, apical margins finely serrulate, style and stamens strongly exserted from the perianth, fruit long and subconical and pendulous. This led to the description of a new genus, Serrulatocereus Guiggi (2018: 1); it would belong to the tribe Leptocereae Buxbaum (1958: 178) sensu Guiggi (2020: 1–5), but new molecular data need (see Guiggi 2020: 1).
Notes on flowering time: ―This species has a specific flowering time during the dry season from December to March (Areces 2018: 118).
Chorology: ―Endemic to Haiti (Areces 2018: 113).
Illustrations examined: ― Mottram (2002: 113 Plumier plate’s 26 Fig.10), Areces (2018: 108–116, figs 2–16), Franck et al. (2017: 10–17, figs. 3–15).
Relevant literature: ― Mottram (2002, 2020), Franck et al. (2017), Areces (2018), Guiggi (2018), Wisnev (2018).
Specimens examined: ― HAITI. Nord-Ouest Dept.: road Jean-Rabel to Môle-St-Nicolas, near Môle-St-Nicolas, 3 July 1925, Ekman H-4446 sub Cereus repandus (L.) Mill. (15-7969 S!, corp, ar, sp; 00171444 US!, corp, ar, sp, ico); vicinity of Jean Rabel, thicket along Mole Road, 3 March 1929, Leonard & Leonard 13682 sub Cephalocereus nobilis (1495817 NY! corp, ar, sp, fl; 00171002 US!, corp, ar, sp, fl); Môle-St-Nicolas, 2 February 1985, Zanoni et al. 33542 sub Harrisia sp. (65076 JBSD!, corp, ar, sp).
description: Published as part of Guiggi, Alessandro & Mariotti, Mauro, 2022, Taxonomic and nomenclatural novelties in some Cactaceae of Greater Antilles, pp. 215-230 in Phytotaxa 573 (2) on pages 225-228, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.573.2.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7349827