Below I quote an interesting discussion on this ancient hybrid, now stable and considered as a species. You will surely recognise some names, that's for sure! Enjoy!
Date:Tue, 5 Aug 2003 21:07:08 -0700
Reply-To:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
From:d2bleakly <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:New population of Cylindropuntia viridiflora
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To NMRPTC people,I recently discovered a new population of Cylindropuntia viridiflora (SantaFe cholla) in Santa Fe County about 2 miles southeast of downtown Españolanear the ‘Four Corners" where NM 399 and NM 106 intersect US 85/285 in T20N,R8E, sw 1/4 section 12 on the Santa Clara Indian Reservation. At least 30 to40 plants of all ages are scattered in the grassland on both sides of NM 399about 2000 feet west of the intersection. Cylindropuntia imbricata grow insmall numbers sympatrically. While the cacti at this site are best named C.viridiflora, they are somewhat different than the plants at the type localityat Fort Marcy. I visited Fort Marcy in mid June when the cholla there were infull flower, but I have not seen specimens or visited the third knownlocation of Santa Fe cholla near Pojoaque, about 6 miles to the southeast ofthe new location. The joints and tubercles of Santa Fe cholla at the new siteare slightly larger and the flower color is generally pinker, though stillwith a coppery cast, than those at Fort Marcy. Specimens will be availableshortly in the herbarium at UNM. Slides and digital images were made in lateJune when they were flowering. Bob Sivinski has also visited the site andconcurs with my identification.The population near Española is only the third known for this species andconsequently it remains quite rare. Many or all of the cholla on the northside of NM 399 are threatened with destruction due to possible commercialdevelopment at the new location. In my report to the client, I recommendtransplanting or propagating the cacti in a safe, nearby place. However,since it is located on Indian land, many laws and regulations do not apply.Therefore, although it is listed as endangered by the state, is a federalspecies of concern, is a BLM sensitive species, and is considered rare by ourcouncil, it has no legal protection, and it remains to be seen what willhappen.Happy botanizing,David
Date:Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:35:52 -0600
Reply-To:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
From:DavidFerguson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: New population of Cylindropuntia viridiflora
Comments: To: NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Are these populations hybrids of C. imbricata x C. whipplei with bothparents present?I've seen several such populations, usually where C.imbricata was introduced into the range of C. whipplei, most oftenassociated with prehistoric sites of human occupation or agriculture.There are a few naturally occurring groups of hybrids in central NM.Here's a bit of editorial.To me, none of these obvious hybrid populations (at least the ones thatI've seen) match C. viridiflora, though there are similarities.Also, noneof these populations are stable, but rather they are made up of highlyvaried individuals that do not breed true to type (seedlings run the gambitbetween the parents).C. viridiflora from Santa Fe and Pojoaque is astable population that breeds true from seed, and C. whipplei is notpresent in the area.C. viridiflora could be a population derived fromhybridization, but it has long since become a stable reproducing entity.The only other Cylindropuntia species besides C. imbricata which occursrelatively near to true C. viridiflora is C. davisii.C. davisii is asterile "species" made of apparently only two clones (only one clone isfound in most of New Mexico), and it is apparently totally incapable ofproducing viable pollen or ovules.So, it isn't very likely to be apotential parent of C. Viridiflora.Admittedly, I have not looked at all the sites yet.Hopefully I'll get a chance to see the Canyon de Chelly population soon.Sounds interesting.The most interesting site, to me, is at Rio Communities, Valencia County,where C. imbricata, C. kleiniae, C. leptocaulis, and C. whipplei are allgrowing together, and hybrids occur(ed) that involve all four species. Mostof the hybrids are C. imbricata x C. whipplei, but there are a number ofother combinations.These have been devastated by development of RioCommunities though, and most are gone now.The only place I've seen a good stand of C. imbricata x whipplei hybrids inArizona is at the Petrified Forest/Painted Desert, where C. imbricata is anintroduced species that occurs in a relatively small area.I should also mention that a number of the old records for C. viridiflorawere herbarium sheets of C. imbricata or C. whipplei to which were lateradded flowers of C. viridiflora from a garden in Albuquerque.I'm not sureif these have been weeded out of the data base for C. viridiflora yet?Dave
Date:Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:45:12 -0600
Reply-To:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
From:"Sivinski, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: New population of Cylindropuntia viridiflora
Comments: To: NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain
David Bleakly notified me early of the new population of Cylindropuntiaviridiflora at Espanola, so I got to see it in full bloom.Flower colorthere is highly variable - ranging from pale orangey pink to coppery pink tomagenta.The magenta flowers are the same color as the adjacent C.imbricata, but just a shade lighter.I agree with David B. that theseplants are not only larger, but the joints and tubercles are more robust andapproaching C. imbricata.I have seen this plant at all three of its knownnorthern NM locations, and the Espanola site is different.The flowercolors are different, the stems and tubercles are often more robust, andthey grow on deep sandy soils (unlike the other sites).This hybrid taxonmay be reproducing on its own, but I don't think we can say that it "breedstrue" or is a "stable reproducing entity".I get the distinct impressionthat the Espanola population is introgressive with C. imbricata.Theinteresting aspect to me is - why is it still there?One of the parentspecies (C. whipplei) has passed from the local scene, but the hybridlineage still persists.And if it is still introgressive with the otherparent (C. imbricata), why has it not been genetically swamped out by thatdominant species?How long do fertile, or partially fertile, hybrid swarmslast before they fade away or become distinct species?Very interesting,but a taxonomic quagmire.Bob
Date:Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:48:43 -0600
Reply-To:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
From:DavidFerguson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: New population of Cylindropuntia viridiflora
Comments: To: NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Just a bit more, mostly in response to Bob's latest installment.I have no personal doubts about the stability of the Santa Fe populationofC. viridiflora, nor that it breeds true, but the Espanola population soundslike it is a different situation.I have grown hundreds of Santa Fe areaC. viridiflora from seed and there has been no sign of any variability awayfrom the norm of C. viridiflora in any of these seedlings.I have not seenany introgression towards C. imbricata in this area either.It isinteresting that the Pojoaque plants are like the Santa Fe plants, and notmore like the Espanola plants.A bit about flower color.This is not a very reliable trait for taxonrecognition in Cactaceae.While it can be a useful trait, in almost allspecies there are occasional plants that exibit the "wrong" color offlower.Many species are notoriously variable, with almost no two plantsthe same color.This true through much of the Opuntioideae.Many chollaspecies have flower colors ranging from yellow or white through the red,magenta and purple range.C. imbricata is usually some shade of purplishpink to purple, but white is not rare, and yellow, orange, red, andmulticolored flowers occasionally occur, even where there is no chance ofhybridization.In C. whippei the color is typically greenish yellow, butflowers ranging from bright green to brassy almost orange-yellow occur.So, some flower color variation in C. viridiflora is not bothersome to me.In fact, in the Santa Fe area, the flower color is amazingly stable, with"oddballs" being rather uncommon.However, the flower color variation inhybrid plants where C. imbricata are actively hybridizing with C. whippleiis often extreme, plants growing side by side exhibiting flower colors fromgreen-yellow all the way to bright purple, and with lots shades near brown.The morphological variation is quite noticeable too.Even though it seems logical, I am not going to take it for granted thatthe Santa Fe population is even necessarily derived from C. imbricata x C.viridiflora.It could have a different or a more complex ancestry, or not.I also don't think we should class it without question as a "hybrid taxon".On one hand, I think a good case could be made for all cactus species andin fact all living species being "hybrid taxa".It is very difficult todecide when to class something as a hybrid and not.To me C. viridiflora[sensu strictu] does not qualify, because it is a breeding population thatmaintains itself and is not the result of continuing interaction betweenthe supposed "parent species".On the other hand, other "populations"which look somewhat similar are made up plants which show a wide range ofvariation, and which are obviously the result of continuing interactionbetween the parent species.The Espanola population does not sound likethe same situation as the places where C. imbricata, C. whipplei, and theirhybrids exist together.Instead (I'm of course guessing), it sounds like aplace where the barrier that maintains the distinction between C. imbricataand C. viridiflora has broken down to some extent, and it sounds like itmay be C. viridiflora occuring alongside C. imbricata with their hybrids.Perhaps C. whipplei is not really even a factor at all.This next is not a scientific argument at all, but I think it is relevent.When I've visited the sites where active hybridization is going on, myreaction to the plants present has so far, in each case, been "this is notC. viridiflora".I realize that these are all shades of gray, and we will need to learn alot more than we now know before we truly understand the situation.To throw out a similar situation, assuming I understand this particularSunflower correctly:Helianthus paradoxus is supposed to be derived fromhybridization of H. petiolaris x H. annuus;is this correct?It istreated as a good species, it reproduces itself as a stable entity where itgrows, and has protected status.However, I have all my life seen manymany hybrids of H. petiolaris x H. annuus; they occur all over the GreatPlains and Southwest, throrought the distribution of H. petiolaris.Someof these are quite good matches to H. paradoxus.These are particularlycommon where roads or other disturbed areas intrude into sand areas, whereH. annuus follows the distubances into the prefered habitats of H.petiolaris.These hybrids are common, highly variable, and to some degreeare fertile, but they never establish populations, they just occur as aresult of ongoing hybridization of the parent species.Should thesehybrids be called H. paradoxus?Personally I don't think they should betreated as such.It would be interesting to know if H. paradoxus is theresult of one hybridization event, or many.It would also be interestingto try to recreate this event.Am I correct in assuming that H. paradoxushas a higher ploidy than either parent?This is one characteristic that isnot true of C. viridiflorus, though some other factor may be the isolatingmechanism.I think Bob's wondering about how long it takes to swamp a gene poolthrough introgression is interesting.I suspect that because this has notyet occured at Espanola, it is likely that this introgression has startedmoderately recently.On the other hand it has to have been occuring longenough to affect the entire population of C. viridiflorus(???).Perhaps itis a result of human modifications to the habitat that have favoredhybrids, or allowed the two species (whichever they be) to interact moreeasily than before. It would be a very interesting subject to investigatefurther.
Date:Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:12:18 -0600
Reply-To:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
From:"Sivinski, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Cylindropuntia viridiflora
Comments: To: "RAREPLANTS (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: cc: "Jim Nellessen (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Jim Nellessen found a new location of Cylindropuntia viridiflora at SantaCruz (just east of Espanola), north of Hwy 76 in Arroyo del Llano and askedme to look at it to verify his ID.I went out there and saw about a dozenplants (mostly on the east side of the arroyo) that look like the Santa Fecholla.They start right at the BLM fence.I only went a few 100 meters upthe arroyo, so there may be more further up.These plants are identical tothe Santa Fe cholla population David Bleakly found in Espanola last year(about 1.5 miles to the southwest) where the flower color varies fromcoppery-yellow to pale magenta.This plants at this new location aregrowing among a larger population of Cylindropuntia imbricata, but no signof Cylindropuntia whipplei.We now have four locations for this plant.There are lots of similar habitats between Santa Fe and Espanola.
Date:Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:33:42 -0600
Reply-To:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
From:DavidFerguson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: Cylindropuntia viridiflora
Comments: To: NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I need to get up there and look at all these.The Pojoaque plants I knew are mostly destroyed now, and they were basically identical to the Santa Feplants.All with light orange flowers.At Santa Cruz, on sand dunes, is also C. davisii.Since it is apparentlytotally sterile, it is very unlikely that it is involved in anyhybridization.These have sort of a funky brassy yellowish brownish greenflower (hard to describe, but not very attractive).Dave
Date:Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:27:16 -0700
Reply-To:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
From:d2bleakly <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: Cylindropuntia viridiflora
Comments: To: NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: cc: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi all,For your information, the population of C. viridiflora I found in thenorthwest corner of the "Four Corners" south of Espanola (at the movietheater) has been utterly destroyed. Where there used to be a hill withnative vegetation there is now a bulldozed flat spaces many acres in extent.The Santa Claras are planning to develop the site. If you didn't know that ahill was there in the past, you would never guess that there had ever beenone. The cacti on the south side of the highway were not affected by theconstruction. I don't remember the exact number, but no more than about adozen C. viridiflora were destroyed.David
Date:Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:33:50 -0600
Reply-To:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
From:DavidFerguson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: Rare cacti
Comments: To: NMRAREPLANTS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
To put it bluntly, I would simply ignore Anderson's book.It is not ataxonomic revision, nor even treatise.It is an encyclopedia of names.Hechose to follow a certain course with use of names (all author's must), andsometimes what he did will be accepted and many times it will not.Thereis very little original taxonomic work in the book (as I recall, there issome), mostly it is just a compendium of what others have done.Listingnames in synonymy is not taxonomic revision per- se, it is simply adecision to ignore the distinction of the taxon in question.The lumping is more likely a reflection of lack of intimate familiaritywith the taxa in question and an unwillingness to deal with thecomplications of trying to write about each individually.I do notconsider his treatment as an actual taxonomic revision of the groups inquestion, he just lists the names under where he thought they probablybelonged.I know that Anderson's book is being treated as the new "Cactus Bible", butit should not be.Perhaps not part of this issue, but perhaps worthmentioning; there are lot of errors in Anderson's book too (ie. look at theconfusion between Pediocactus sileri and Sclerocactus sileri - two totallydifferent species, not even in the same genus - not a New Mexico issue,rather Arizona/Utah, but still representative of other similar mix-ups).There will be a new treatment.A "Succulent [or perhaps Cactus] Lexicon"or something similarly titled coming out in a few years.It is similar toand I think partly based upon Jacobson's and Backeberg's work from yearsago.Will it replace Anderson's book?It will be a similar encyclopedictreatment, but much larger in scope.I have a hunch it will be moreprogressive in it's treatment of genera and species.It is not edited norprinted in the US, but it will probably be at least as authoritative asAnderson's.It seems silly to totally turn around policy upon books thatamount to little more than fads.I have opinions too, and perhaps they are no better.I would also nottreat all those Escobaria names as separate species.They are indeed, inmy opinion, all variants within the species Escobaria sneedii; however, tolump them all as E. sneedii var. sneedii is to totally ignore the clear andobvious distinctness of these populations of plants.They are mostlygeographically isolated from one another (at least they displace oneanother geographically, even when they are perhaps marginally in contact),and for the most part each is clearly recognizable (even if it is difficultto quantify).The one exception in my mind is E. sandbergii, which Icannot tell in any way from E. organensis, the two occupy the same mountainrange (one north, one south) with no significant break between them, eithergeographically or morphologically.A plant of E. organensis can never bedistinguished by any character from a plant of E. sandbergii.I thinkthere is perhaps more variation in the population north of Organ, so bydefault E. sandbergii is more varied than E. organensis, but to me thatdoes not make them different things.Then there is the question of Escobaria vs. Coryphantha.Clearly twohighly distinct genera, yet the conservative caution of authors still letscombinations like Coryphantha sneedii and Coryphantha vivipara live on.Jumping to FNA for a bit here.Frankly, I am amazed that Escobaria isstill treated as part of Coryphantha.This lumping seems to die hard.Ifound it funny that within FNA the division between the "segregate genusEscobaria" and the "segregate genus Neobesseya" is incorrect, with speciesof "Neobesseya" included mistakenly under "Escobaria", and the distinctiondoes not work in the identification key.In the key, the first speciesthat pops up in "Escobaria" (duncanii) is really a Neobesseya type (or ifyou really like to split the groupings up, an "Escobesseya"), and will keyto "Neobesseya", or at least cause considerable confusion right off(stigmata are green, perianth is deciduous, fruit red, seeds rounded andblack, but spine count is high).A few others toward the end are wronglyplaced as well, but may key out correctly (I'll have to try) - I doubt it.Back to Anderson -I think to not recognize C. scheeri var. valida (or C. robustispina var.valida if you prefer - I won't go into the details of the nomenclaturehere) is the same situation.The plants called "valida" are clearlydistinct from the plants called "scheeri" and to ignore that distinction isto ignore the fact that there are two different entities involved.In thiscase there may be some problems with which name goes on which plants, butthe entities still remain, and should be recognized.Hopefully the namingcomplications will be cleared up soon on this one.I do not agree with the "sporadic" hybrid statement in regard toCylindropuntia viridiflora either.The plants reproduce as a distinctentity, and they breed true from seed.The variation is amazingly minorfrom individual to individual, not something you would expect from a"sporadic hybrid".Occasional groups of hybrids between C. imbricata andC. whipplei do occur where they grow together (a rather rare occurrence),but these are not stable, they do not breed true, and they are clearly adifferent situation.They are perhaps related to events that could havelead to the development of C. viridiflora, but they are a differentsituation, and I believe that calling them the same thing is in error.Sometimes they are morphologically similar to C. viridiflora, but generallythey are different.They are also obviously hybrids (perhaps all F1's),showing variable recombinations of the characters of the parents, which are(as far as I know) always both present at these locations.My experiencepoints to these usually being sterile (I have found no viable seeds), butthis is uncertain and based on small samples during drought years.Once itwas written somewhere that C. viridiflora in Santa Fe was sterile, and thisis clearly not true.The bottom line is that the hybrids more thoroughstudy.Do we through out from consideration other species that are clearly derivedfrom hybridization, but which behave now as species (Helianthus paradoxuscomes to mind, but there are others)?I think you will find very few people who actually study and are familiarwith these taxa of cacti, who will agree with the treatment of them inAnderson's book.It is more difficult to discount the treatment in the North American Flora,which seems to mirror Anderson's, since it has a more "official" feel toit; however, I still feel strongly that these names should not be ignoredas synonyms, nor discounted as "mere hybrids".One more note on Escobaria comes to mind.It is ironic that two elementsof the E. vivipara complex (alversonii and viridiflora), traditionallytreated as varieties, are split into distinct "species" (yet theyintergrade and clearly are not different species), while the generally moreclearly separated elements of the E. sneedii complex are not even accordedvarietal ranking.Go figure.I think gross morphological appearance has alot to do with it.E. vivipara is bigger, so minor differences areapparently more visually apparent (? and therefore more important?).Well, I'm getting a bit high on my high horse here, so I'll climb down fornow.And yes, I think it needs to be discussed.Thanks for bringing it up Bob.Dave
