Search

Subtribe 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).

Eulychnia: —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. vallenarensis

Tribe Cylindropuntieae Doweld: —The only species in this tribe occurring in Chile [Cylindropuntia tunicata (Lehmann) Knuth] has been introduced from Northern Mexico and Arizona., 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/6641038

The competition between floristic catalogues and the nomenclatural issues of the treated taxa, is a problem for the botanical knowledge of countries. Consequently, it seems to be necessary to merge former taxonomical proposals into a unified list based on phylogenetic hypotheses, the rules of nomenclature and dichotomous keys to the Chilean subfamilies, tribes and genera. With this approach we here propose an updated catalogue of the Chilean cacti. It would be necessary to merge the various taxonomic proposals into a unified list based on both phylogenetic hypotheses and the rules of nomenclature. With this approach, we here propose to updated the catalogue of Chilean cactus. A neotype was designated for Echinocactus jussieui. In addition, we present a dichotomous taxonomic key to the Chilean subfamilies, tribes, and genera.

Tribe 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/6641038, {"references":["Nyffeler, R. & Eggli, U. (2010) A farewell to dated ideas and concepts: molecular phylogenetics and a revised suprageneric classification of the family Cactaceae. Schumannia 6: 109 - 149.","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2013) The New Cactus Lexicon, Atlas of Illustrations. Dh Books, Milborn Port, 373 pp.","Lendel, A. (2006) Phylogenetic relationships in the tribe Trichocereeae (Cacteae) inferred from cpDNA sequence data analysis. IOS Bulletin 14: 11 - 12","Ritz, C., Martins, L., Mecklenburg, R., Goremykin, V. & Hellwig, F. H. (2007) The molecular phylogeny of Rebutia (Cactaceae) and its allies demonstrates the influence of paleography on the evolution of South American mountain cacti. American Journal of Botany 94: 1321 - 1332. https: // doi. org / 10.3732 / ajb. 94.8.1321"]}

Sphaeropuntia Guggi: — Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) remarked that the exclusively West-Andean species Cumulopuntia sphaerica (C.F.Först.) F. Anderson “is unambiguously shown as a separate lineage”, as it appears in a trichotomy with Austrocylindropuntia Backeb. and Cumulopuntia F. Ritter (Wallace & Dickie, 2002). Also, in Griffith and Porter (2009) the two accessions of C. sphaerica were not placed within the C. boliviana clade, but in a strongly supported trichotomy with Austrocylindropuntia. Finally, Ritz et al. (2012) showed that the well-supported C. sphaerica clade is sister to the C. boliviana clade. The morphology of Sphaeropuntia support above mentioned findings. In fact this genus differs from Cumulopuntia in many character states: shrubs low, 10–15 cm high, forming loose groups Sphaeropuntia is distributed between the latitudes of 33° S and 18°S and from sea-level to the Pre-Cordillera (100–3700 m), while members of the genus Cumulopuntia are mainly distributed in the Altiplano regions (3700–4300 m). According to these findings we accept Sphaeropuntia Gucchi., 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/6641038, {"references":["Nyffeler, R. & Eggli, U. (2010) A farewell to dated ideas and concepts: molecular phylogenetics and a revised suprageneric classification of the family Cactaceae. Schumannia 6: 109 - 149.","Wallace, R. S. & Dickie, S. L. (2002) Systematic implications of chloroplast DNA sequence variation in subfam. Opuntioideae (Cactaceae) Studies in the Opuntieae (Cactaceae). Succulent Plant Research 6: 9 - 24.","Griffith, M. P. & Porter, J. M. (2009) Phylogeny of Opuntioideae (Cactaceae). International Journal of Plant Science 170: 107 - 116. https: // doi. org / 10.1086 / 593048","Ritz, C. M., Reiker, J., Charles, G., Hoxey, P., Hunt, D., Lowry, M., Stuppy, W. & Taylor, N. (2012) Molecular phylogeny and character evolution in terete - stemmed Andean opuntias (Cactaceae - Opuntioideae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65: 668 - 681. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2012.07.027","Stuppy, W. (2002) Seed characters and the classification of the Opuntioideae. Studies in the Opuntieae (Cactaceae). Succulent Plant Research 6: 25 - 58."]}

Eriosyce fulva (F.Ritter) P.C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter comb. nov. ≡ Thelocephala fulva F.Ritter, Kakt. Südamer. 3: 1011. 1980. Holotype:— CHILE: Atacama, Totoral, 1956, Ritter 500 (U0249077! https://data.biodiversitydata.nl/naturalis/specimen/ U %20%200249077)., 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 93, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6641038

Eriosyce jussieui (Monv. ex Salm-Dyck) P.C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter, comb. nov. ≡ Echinocactus jussieui Monv. ex Salm-Dyck, Cact. Hort. Dyck 1849: 170 (1850). Type (neotype, designated here):— CHILE: Coquimbo, Elqui, 20 km West of Vicuña, Ritter 252a [SGO121545!, corpus, areoles, spines (includes a small rooted seedling)]., 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 93, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6641038

Tribe Tephrocacteae Doweld: —According to phylogenetic analyses (Ritz et al. 2012, Walker et al. 2018, Majure et al. 2019), the monophyletic clade “ Tephrocacteae ” represents a widely distributed group which includes the genera Pterocactus K.Schum., Maihueniopsis Speg., Tephrocactus Lem., Austrocylindropuntia Backeb., and Cumulopuntia F.Ritter. The study by Ritz et al. (2012) retrieved two main clades, one of which comprises Pterocactus and Maihueniopsis and the other one harbours Tephrocactus and the sister pair Cumulopuntia and Austrocylindropuntia. Former taxonomic concepts (e.g. Hunt et al. 2006: p. 12) suggested a close relationship between Maihueniopsis and Cumulopuntia mainly for their shared gross morphology. Wallace & Dickie’s (2002) results suggest a close relationship between Maihueniopsis and Thephrocactus and, furthermore, Pterocactus was treated as a tribe, an opinion shared by Nyffeler & Eggli (2010). Yet, in Griffith & Porter (2009), Pterocactus was not isolated but was placed together with Maihueniopsis in a basal grade to the rest of the terete-stemmed Opuntioideae. Ritz et al. (2012) showed that Pterocactus is not isolated, appearing as sister to Maihueniopsis. This finding supports Stuppy’s (2001) assumption that the genus might be closely related to Maihueniopsis. Although some morphological characters of Pterocactus are unique in the tribe and the Opuntioideae (the base of the glochids is rounded; the flowers are immersed into the apex of the segment; at an early oncological stage the fruit is not clearly separated from the surrounding tissue of the segment; the funicular girdle of the seed forms a broad papery and undulating wing), it shares some important morphological characters with Maihueniopsis. According to all these findings our classification follows the results of Ritz et al. (2012). According to the results of Ritz et al. one large species-complex was split: Cumulopuntia boliviana (Salm-Dyck) F.Ritter (Table 2)., 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/6641038, {"references":["Ritz, C. M., Reiker, J., Charles, G., Hoxey, P., Hunt, D., Lowry, M., Stuppy, W. & Taylor, N. (2012) Molecular phylogeny and character evolution in terete - stemmed Andean opuntias (Cactaceae - Opuntioideae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65: 668 - 681. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2012.07.027","Walker, J. F, Yang, Y., Feng, T., Timoneda, A., Mikenas, J., Hutchison, V., Edwards, C., Wang, N., Ahluwalia, S., Olivieri, J., Walker-Hale, N., Majure, L. C., Puente, R., Kadereit, G., Lauterbach, M., Eggli, U., Flores-Olvera, H., Ochoterena, H., Brockington, S. F., Moore, M. J. & Smith, S. A. (2018) From cacti to carnivores: improved phylotranscriptomic sampling and hierarchical homology inference provide further insight into the evolution of Caryophyllales. American Journal of Botany 105: 446 - 462. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / ajb 2.1069","Majure, L. C., Baker, M. A., Cloud-Hughes, M., Salywon, A. & Neubig, K. M. (2019) Phylogenomics in Cactaceae: A case study using the chollas sensu lato (Cylindropuntieae, Opuntioideae) reveals a common pattern out of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts. American Journal of Botany 106: 1327 - 1345. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / ajb 2.1364","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2006) The New Cactus Lexicon. DH Books, Milborn Port, 526 pp.","Wallace, R. S. & Dickie, S. L. (2002) Systematic implications of chloroplast DNA sequence variation in subfam. Opuntioideae (Cactaceae) Studies in the Opuntieae (Cactaceae). Succulent Plant Research 6: 9 - 24.","Nyffeler, R. & Eggli, U. (2010) A farewell to dated ideas and concepts: molecular phylogenetics and a revised suprageneric classification of the family Cactaceae. Schumannia 6: 109 - 149.","Griffith, M. P. & Porter, J. M. (2009) Phylogeny of Opuntioideae (Cactaceae). International Journal of Plant Science 170: 107 - 116. https: // doi. org / 10.1086 / 593048"]}

Copiapoa Britton & Rose: —This endemic genus has formerly been regarded as a member of the tribe Notacacteae Buxb., e.g. by Barthlott & Hunt (1993),Anderson (2001), Hoffmann & Walter (2004), and Hunt et al. (2006). Molecular studies by Nyffeler (2002), Korotkova et al. (2010), Nyffeler & Eggli (2010), Arakaki et al. (2011), and Hernández-Hernández et al. (2011) suggested that Copiapoa is not a member of this tribe as it appears isolated on its own clade. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) treated Copiapoa as a genus of uncertain relationship (incertae sedis), whereas Korotkova et al. (2010) suggested a close relation between Copiapoa and Calymmanthium F.Ritter, although morphology, ecology, and distribution of the two genera are very different. In Nyffeler (2002) and Hernández-Hernández et al. (2011), both genera appear together in a polytomy. Finally, Hunt et al. (2013) accepted Doweld`s (2002) recognition of a “tribe Copiapoae ”. In consideration of the complex situation and the lack of data, we here consider Nyffeler & Eggli’s (2010) concept (incertae sedis). Several infrageneric classifications of Copiapoa based on morphological characters had been proposed by Ritter (1980) [two subgenera (subgenus Pilocopiapoa F.Ritter and subgenus Copiapoa F.Ritter) and five unnamed sections]. Doweld (2002) proposed three sections (sect. Pilocopiapoa (F.Ritter) Doweld (one serie), sect. Echinopoa Doweld (two series: Echinoidei Doweld and Cinerei Doweld), and sect. Copiapoa (two series: Humilis Doweld and Copiapoa); mainly based on general morphological data (Hunt 2001) and stem mucilage and/or root types. Taylor (2001) proposed two subgenera (subgen. Pilocopiapoa (F.Ritter) F.Ritter) and subgen. Copiapoa (five unformal “groups”: “ marginata ”, “ cinerea ”, “ hypogaea ”, “ cinerascens ”, and “ humilis ”). None of these concepts were corroborated by the molecular phylogeny presented by Larridon et al. (2015) whose data retrieved the four well supported sections: sect. Pilocopiapoa (with 1 species), sect. Mammilopoa Helmut Walter & Larridon (1 species), sect. Copiopoa [with two subsections: subsect. Cinerei (Doweld) Helmut Walter & Larridon (2 species), subsect. Copiapoa (22 species)], sect. Echinopoa (Doweld) Helmut Walter & Larridon (5 species) and two basal unnamed monotypic clades (“ Copiapoa australis ” and “ Copiapoa laui ”) (see the proposed key below). According to the results of the phylogenetic analyses five speciescomplexes were split: C. humilis (Phil.) Hutchison, C. cinerea (Phil.) Britton & Rose, C. taltalensis (Werderm.) Looser, C. montana F.Ritter, and C. coquimbana (Rümpler) Britton & Rose. 1. Bract scales numerous distributed all over pericarpel and hypanthium, axils very woolly; ribs to 3.5 cm high (Sect. PILOCOPIAPOA).......................................................................................................................................................... 31. C. solaris - Bract scales few, mainly near hypanthium rim, axils only rarely with fine tiny hairs; ribs ≤ 2 cm high............................................2 2. Ribs in mature plants dissolved into ±conical tubercles; stems soft to the touch..............................................................................3 - Ribs not dissolved into conical tubercles (except for C. longispina), stems soft or not so................................................................4 3. Tubercles obtuse; epidermis ±pruinose; ribs 8-10 (unnamed Section) ......................................................................... 5. C. australis - Tubercles pronounced; epidermis not pruinose; ribs more numerous................................................................................................5 4. Stems dwarf (1–2 cm diam.); tubercles and spines minute (Unnamed Section.................................................................. 21. C. laui - Stems to 8 cm diam.; tubercles large, spines much longer (Sect. HUMILIS)............................................................... 19. C. humilis 5. Plants usually mound-forming; ribs to 2 cm high; fruits large, 1.5–2.0 cm (Sect. ECHINOPOA)...................................................6 - Plants mound-forming or not; ribs lower; fruits ................................................................................ 10 6. Tubercles inconspicuous; roots fascicular..........................................................................................................................................7 - Tubercles well pronounced; taproots of different lengths..................................................................................................................8 7. Mounds up to 2 × 1.5 m; stems often pruinose; ribs to 30; areoles far apart.............................................................. 11. C. dealbata - Mounds much smaller, ribs to 15; stems never pruinose; areoles closely set......................................................... 14. C. echinoides 8. Stems 5–8 cm diam.; tubercles with large chins.................................................................................................... 16. C. fiedleriana - Stems 8–18 cm diam., usually chinless..............................................................................................................................................9 9. Stems 8–12 cm diam.; new spines black, to 4 cm................................................................................................. 10. C. coquimbana - Stems to 18 cm diam.; new spines brownish, later golden yellow, to 6 cm.................................................................... 3. C. armata 10. Rib number up to 40; roots always fascicular; stem tissue very hard (Subsect. CINAREI.............................................................11 - Rib number 8. C. cinerea - Plants forming large dense mounds; apical wool (orange)-brown.............................................................................. 17. C. gigantea 12. Ribs dissolved into conical tubercles....................................................................................................................... 23. C. longispina - Ribs not so........................................................................................................................................................................................13 13. Stem tissue somewhat hard (except for C. hypogaea)......................................................................................................................14 - Stem tissue ±soft-fleshy...................................................................................................................................................................29 14. Bract-scales on hypanthium and fruits large, broad and fleshy; hilum very large................................................... 26. C. megarhiza - Bract scales and hilum not as above.................................................................................................................................................15 15. Rib number usually 15–25................................................................................................................................................................24 - rib number usually low (8–15).........................................................................................................................................................16 16. Roots fascicular................................................................................................................................................................................17 - Roots usually tuberous or long to short taproots..............................................................................................................................18 17. Stem diam. 4–7 cm............................................................................................................................................... 9. C. conglomerata - Stem diam. larger, to 15 cm................................................................................................................................ 23. C. longistaminea 18. Interior perianth segments yellow, without red mid-stripes; style whitish-yellow..........................................................................19 - Interior perianth segments yellowish with red mid-stripes of different widths; style pink to red....................................................22 19. Plants mound-forming; stems elongating; spines short (1.5–2.5 cm), straight................................................................................20 - Plants solitary to few-headed; stems only slightly elongating; spines long (to 5 cm), partly curved...................... 32. C. taltalensis 20. Rib tubercles much pronounced, furrows undulate.......................................................................................... 30. C. serpentisulcata - Ribs only somewhat tuberculate, furrows not undulate...................................................................................................................21 21. Plants forming loose mounds; stems ca. 8 cm diam.; longer ones prostrate; fruit 1cm......................................... 12. C. decorticans - Plants forming compact mounds; stems apically flattened, to 15 cm diam.; stems not prostrate; fruit 1.5 cm..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7. C. cinerascens 22. Plants mound-forming; stems green, not pruinose, to12 × 50 cm; flowers 3.0– 4.5 cm, funnel-form; spines to 5 cm, thick........................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 - Plants solitary to few-headed; stems grey-green, ±pruinose, to 8 × 20 cm; flowers small, (2.5 cm), campanulate; spines short, to 2.5 cm, thin.................................................................................................................................................................... 2. C. aphanes 23. Mounds usually loose, spines to 10, (red)-brown, partly curved................................................................................ 29. C. rupestris - Mounds compact, spines to 20, completely hiding stem, black, straight............................................................... 13. C. desertorum 24. Plants large, forming loose or dense mounds; rib tubercles inconspicuous, areoles closely set in older plants..............................25 - Plants small to medium-sized, not much elongating, few-headed, rib tubercles pronounced; areoles not crowded.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................27 25. Plants forming large, dense mounds; stems to 15 cm diam., pruinose.................................................................... 4. C. atacamensis - Mounds smaller, loose; stems to 10 cm diam., only sometimes pruinose........................................................................................26 26. Stems light grey-green, sometimes pruinose, spines to 3 cm...................................................................................... 6. C. calderana - Stems green, never pruinose, spines to 5 cm............................................................................................................ 25. C. marginata 27. Plants subglobose, temporarily geophytic; epidermis grey-brown........................................................................... 20. C. hypogaea - Plants globose to somewhat elongate; epidermis grey-green...........................................................................................................28 28. Stems to 10 cm diam., not pruinose; areoles large..................................................................................................... 28. C. montana - Stems 4–7 cm diam.; ± pruinose; areoles smaller...................................................................................................... 22. C. leonensis 29. Plants mound-forming; stems to 10 cm diam.; tubercles not chinned................................................................... 18. C. grandiflora - Plants solitary to few-headed; stems 3–7 cm diam.; tubercles ±chinned.........................................................................................30 30. Ribs broad and flattened............................................................................................................................................ 27. C. mollicula - Ribs narrower and deeper.................................................................................................................................................................31 31. Flowers large, broadly campanulate; stems to 7 cm diam. green, not pruinose................................................... 15. C. esmeraldana - Flowers small, narrowly funnel-form; stems to 4 cm, grey-brown, somewhat pruinose........................................ 1. C. angustiflora Several new taxa in the genus Copiapoa were 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 not corroborated by molecular phylogenies: Copiapoa coquimbana subsp. rubrispina Piombetti in Xerophilia 4(3): 76. 2015; Copiapoa longispinea subsp. imperialis Piombetti in Xerophilia 4(3): 78. 2015; Copiapoa corralensis Schaub & Keim in Cactus Explorer 16: 48. 2016; Copiapoa fusca Schaub, Cactus Explorer 16: 42. 2016; Copiapoa humilis subsp. matancillensis Schaub & Keim in Cactus & Co 20(1): 15. 2016. Concerning Copiapoa gigantea Backeb., Hunt et al. (2006) use the epithet “ haseltoniana ” (instead of “ gigantea ”) in the combination C. cinerea subsp. haseltoniana (Backeb.) N.P.Taylor (see species list). The results by Larridon et al. (2015, 2018b) suggest that this taxon is not closely related to C. cinerea and should thus be considered as a valid species. Also, C. gigantea has priority over C. haseltoniana at species level (ICN, Art. 11.2) as below reported., 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 pages 88-90, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6641038, {"references":["Hoffmann, A. E. & Walter, H. E. (2004) Cactaceas en la flora de Chile, 2 nd ed. Fundacion Claudio Gay, Santiago de Chile, 307 pp.","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2006) The New Cactus Lexicon. DH Books, Milborn Port, 526 pp.","Nyffeler, R. (2002) Phylogenetic relationships in the Cactus family. American Journal of Botany 89: 312 - 326. https: // doi. org / 10.3732 / ajb. 89.2.312","Korotkova, N., Zabel. I., T., Quandt, D. & Bartlott, W. (2010) A phylogenetic analysis of Pfeiffera and the reistatement of Lymanbensonia as an independently evolved lineage of epiphytic Cactaceae within a new tribe Lymanbensonieae. Willdenowia 40: 151 - 172. https: // doi. org / 10.3372 / wi. 40.40201","Nyffeler, R. & Eggli, U. (2010) A farewell to dated ideas and concepts: molecular phylogenetics and a revised suprageneric classification of the family Cactaceae. Schumannia 6: 109 - 149.","Hernandez-Hernandez, T., Hernandez, H. M., De-Nova, J. A., Puente, R., Eguiarte, L. E. & Magallon, S. (2011) Phylogenetic relationships and evolution of growth form in Cactaceae (Caryophyllales, Eudicotyledoneae). American Journal of Botany 98: 44 - 61. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / tax. 12066","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2013) The New Cactus Lexicon, Atlas of Illustrations. Dh Books, Milborn Port, 373 pp.","Ritter, F. (1980) Kakteen in Su ¨ damerika, vol. 3. Friedrich Ritter Selbstverlag, Spangenberg, 381 pp.","Doweld, A. B. (2002) On the phylogeny and systematics of the genus Copiapoa Britton & Rose. Sukkulenty 2001, series I - II 4: 46 - 56.","Hunt, D. (2001) Coping with Copiapoa - continued. Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives 12: 15 - 17.","Taylor, N. P. (2001) Roots and mucilage in Copiapoa. Cactaceae Systematics Initiative 12: 18."]}

Tribe 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/6641038, {"references":["Wallace, R. S. & Dickie, S. L. (2002) Systematic implications of chloroplast DNA sequence variation in subfam. Opuntioideae (Cactaceae) Studies in the Opuntieae (Cactaceae). Succulent Plant Research 6: 9 - 24.","Griffith, M. P. & Porter, J. M. (2009) Phylogeny of Opuntioideae (Cactaceae). International Journal of Plant Science 170: 107 - 116. https: // doi. org / 10.1086 / 593048","Majure, L. C., Puente, R., Griffith, M. P., Judd, W. S., Soltis, P. S. & Soltis, D. E. (2012) Phylogeny of Opuntia s. s. (Cactaceae): clade delineation, geographic origins, and reticulate evolution. American Journal of Botany 99: 847 - 864. https: // doi. org / 10.3732 / ajb. 1100375"]}

Tephrocactus 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/6641038, {"references":["Kiesling, R. (1984) Estudios en Cactaceae de Argentina: Maihueniopsis, Tephrocactus y generosafines (Opuntioideae). Darwiniana 25: 171 - 215.","Rodriguez, R., Marticorena, C., Alarcon, D., Baeza, C., Cavieres, V., Finot, L., Fuentes, N., Kiessling, A., Mihoc, M., Pauchard, A., Ruiz, E., Sanchez, P. & Marticorena, A. (2018) Catalogo de las plantas vasculares de Chile. Gayana Botanica 75: 1 - 430. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.4067 / S 0717 - 66432018000100001","Wallace, R. S. & Dickie, S. L. (2002) Systematic implications of chloroplast DNA sequence variation in subfam. Opuntioideae (Cactaceae) Studies in the Opuntieae (Cactaceae). Succulent Plant Research 6: 9 - 24.","Griffith, M. P. & Porter, J. M. (2009) Phylogeny of Opuntioideae (Cactaceae). International Journal of Plant Science 170: 107 - 116. https: // doi. org / 10.1086 / 593048","Ritz, C. M., Reiker, J., Charles, G., Hoxey, P., Hunt, D., Lowry, M., Stuppy, W. & Taylor, N. (2012) Molecular phylogeny and character evolution in terete - stemmed Andean opuntias (Cactaceae - Opuntioideae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65: 668 - 681. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2012.07.027"]}

Austrocactus: —The Austrocactus species from around the town of Chile Chico was shown to be A. coxii (K.Schum.) Backeb. (see Walter 2019) and not A. patagonicus Hosseus according to Rodríguez et al. (2018) and Hunt et al. (2013, 2016). A. coxii can easily be distinguished from A. patagonicus (= A. bertinii Britton & Rose) by large multi-headed cushions (vs. simple, rarely few-headed in A. patagonicus), branches 10–15 cm long (vs. 50–60 cm) and 5 cm thick (vs. to 15 cm), all spines straight (vs. hooked), centrals 2.0– 2.5 cm (vs. 2–4 cm), flowers yellow to orange (vs. pinkish to white)., 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/6641038, {"references":["Walter, H. E. (2019) The cacti of the Chilean Patagonia. Cactus World 37: 49 - 56.","Rodriguez, R., Marticorena, C., Alarcon, D., Baeza, C., Cavieres, V., Finot, L., Fuentes, N., Kiessling, A., Mihoc, M., Pauchard, A., Ruiz, E., Sanchez, P. & Marticorena, A. (2018) Catalogo de las plantas vasculares de Chile. Gayana Botanica 75: 1 - 430. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.4067 / S 0717 - 66432018000100001","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2013) The New Cactus Lexicon, Atlas of Illustrations. Dh Books, Milborn Port, 373 pp.","Hunt, D. (2016) CITES Cactaceae Checklist Third Edition. Milborne Port, Remous Limited, 175 pp."]}

Copiapoa 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/6641038, {"references":["Ritter, F. (1980) Kakteen in Su ¨ damerika, vol. 3. Friedrich Ritter Selbstverlag, Spangenberg, 381 pp.","Hoffmann, A. E. & Walter, H. E. (2004) Cactaceas en la flora de Chile, 2 nd ed. Fundacion Claudio Gay, Santiago de Chile, 307 pp."]}

Maihueniopsis Speg.: — Hunt’s et al. (2016) and Hunt’s (2013) circumscription of the genus Maihueniopsis includes only four species occurring in Chile, i.e. the two endemics M. archiconoidea F.Ritter and M. conoidea F.Ritter, and two species occurring also in Argentina (M. darwinii Hnsl. and M. ovata Pfeiff.). These authors merged the rest of the Chilean species described by Ritter (1980) and Espinosa (1933) into the widespread Argentinean species M. glomerata (Haw.) R.Kiesling without any evidence (i.e. detailed descriptions, morphological keys, and/or molecular phylogenies). They did not realize, however, that the Chilean Maihueniopsis are clearly divided into two main groups (the “ glomerata - group” and the “ domeykoensis- group”) when all members of the domeykoensis group [M. camachoi (Espinosa) F.Ritter, M. colorea F.Ritter, M. crassispina F.Ritter, M. domeykoensis F.Ritter, M. grandiflora F.Ritter, and M. wagenknechtii F.Ritter] are included in the sampling. All members of the domeykoensis group are endemic to the western slopes of the Chilean Andes. Populations of M. glomerata s.str. had not yet been documented in Chile. The molecular-based phylogeny presented by Ritz et al. (2012) shows that M. domeykoensis [a species that was lumped into M. glomerata by Hunt (2011)] is sister to the rest of the nine taxa (all of them being members of the glomerata group). Ritz et al. (2012) found it “interesting” that M. domeykoensis was not placed within the “ glomerata ” group. Their sampling was unbalanced, as they included nine species assigned to the “ glomerata ” group (see above) but only one assigned to the “ domeykoensis ” group (i.e. M. domeykoensis). Maihueniopsis domeykoensis is likely a separate lineage. So, we conclude that a) as M. domeykoensis did not cluster with M. glomerata (or other members of the glomerata -clade), it cannot be considered a synonym of M. glomerata, and thus b) the rest of the members of the domeykoensis group, who share the same morphological characters with M. domeykoensis, cannot be considered synonyms of M. glomerata. This conclusion is corroborated by a broadly sampled (i.e. all the members of the domeykoensis group) molecular phylogeny (Guerrero, in preparation) that showed that Maihueniopsis is split into two groups congruent with the above presented morphylogy-based groups (a morphologybased key is reported below). According to the results of the phylogenetic analyses one large species-complex was split: Maihueniopsis glomerata. However, Hunt (2016) withdrew his opinion and reinstalled all of the formerly not accepted species of the domeykoensis-clade. A nomenclatural note on the no validly published name “ Maihueniopsis leoncito (Werderm.) F.Ritter ” is necessary. According to Art. 41.5 ICN (Turland et al. 2018), Ritter’s “ Maihueniopsis leoncito ” is invalid because it does not include the place of publication of the basyonym. The correct name Maihueniopsis leoncito (Werdermann ex F.Ritter) P.C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter was recently published by Guerrero & Helmut Walter (2019); 1. Branch segments ≤ 5 cm; spines ± flattened; mature fruits unspined, ±ovoid or cylindric; seeds pale yellow, with short trichomes (“ glomerata -group”)...........................................................................................................................................................................2 - Branch segments 5–10 cm, spines terete in cross-section; fruits spiny, obconical urn-shaped; seeds brown, with long trichomes (“ domeykoensis -group”).....................................................................................................................................................................7 2. Spines strongly flattened and broad at base, often deflexed..............................................................................................................3 - Spines less flattened, not broad at base, thinner, not deflexed...........................................................................................................4 3. Compact, large cushions 20–60 cm high; segments to 4 cm, broadly conical, apex acute; spines to 4 cm, pointed downwards to porrect......................................................................................................................................................................... 10. M. leoncito - Small, loose cushions up to 20 cm diam. and 10 cm high; segments 1. M. archiconoidea 4. Branch segments M. darwinii - Cushions loose, to 10 cm high; areoles few, 1–2 mm, only upper third to upper half spiniferous; stigma-lobes red.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11. M. ovata 6. Small, loose cushions; spines directed sideward to ±downwards, new ones blackish-violet; fruits cylindric, areoles wooly................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5. M. conoidea - Large compact cushions; spines porrect to erect, new ones yellowish; fruits ovoid, areoles not woolly............. 2. M. atacamensis 7. Areole number M. wagenknechtii 8. Spines red-brown, base whitish; seeds small.....................................................................................................................................9 - Spines white or light honey-brown; seeds large...............................................................................................................................10 9. Stigma lobes red; spines to 12 cm.............................................................................................................................. 3. M. camachoi - Stigma lobes green; spines to 6 cm................................................................................................................................ 4. M. colorea 10. Shrubs up to 2 m diam.; spines white, those on flowers and fruits contorted........................................................ 9. M. grandiflora - Shrubs to 50 cm diam.; spines honey-brown, stiff...........................................................................................................................11 11. Segments light yellowish-green; most spines directed upwards; stigma green.................................................. 8. M. domeykoensis - Segments bluish grey-green; most spines directed; sideward or downwards; stigma ruby-red............................... 6. M. crassispina, 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 pages 86-87, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6641038, {"references":["Hunt, D. (2016) CITES Cactaceae Checklist Third Edition. Milborne Port, Remous Limited, 175 pp.","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2013) The New Cactus Lexicon, Atlas of Illustrations. Dh Books, Milborn Port, 373 pp.","Ritter, F. (1980) Kakteen in Su ¨ damerika, vol. 3. Friedrich Ritter Selbstverlag, Spangenberg, 381 pp.","Espinosa, M. R. (1933) Una Opuntia nueva chilena. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 37: 126 - 130.","Ritz, C. M., Reiker, J., Charles, G., Hoxey, P., Hunt, D., Lowry, M., Stuppy, W. & Taylor, N. (2012) Molecular phylogeny and character evolution in terete - stemmed Andean opuntias (Cactaceae - Opuntioideae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65: 668 - 681. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2012.07.027","Hunt, D. (2011) Classification of the \" cyndroid \" opuntias of South America. Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives 25: 5 - 29.","Walter, H. E. (2019) The cacti of the Chilean Patagonia. Cactus World 37: 49 - 56."]}

The relevance of classifying the Cactaceae family into different subfamilies helps to better understand the subdivision into clades that differ morphologically (see key below). On the other hand, the delimitation of some subfamilies has shown to been difficult (for example the paraphyly of the Pereskioideae K.Schum. and the ambiguous relationships of the Maihuenioideae P.Fearn with other subfamilies). Also, the tribes within the Opuntioideae K.Schum. and Cactoideae Eaton have undergone several changes, as molecular-based phylogenies provided new information about evolutionary relationships of its members. Most of the proposed changes at these taxonomic levels have an impact on the classification of Chilean cacti because the cactus flora in the Atacama Desert, the Altiplano, the Mediterranean area, and the Chilean Patagonian steppe harbours three of the four subfamilies and seven of the ten tribes. 1. Stems with functional leaves, at least on immature shoots; a 739 bp non-coding intron region in the chloroplast-encoded gene rpo C 1 present.....................................................................................................................................................................................2 - Stems without functional leaves; a 739 bp non-coding intron region in the chloroplast-encoded gene rpo C 1 is lost (subfam. Cactoideae).........................................................................................................................................................................................3 - Stems without functional leaves; a 739 bp non-coding intron region in the chloroplast-encoded gene rpo C 1 is lost (Subfamily CACTOIDEAE)................................................................................................................................................................................10 2. Leaves persistent, terete; glochids on areoles absent; seeds without funicular envelope; stems astomatous, barky... (subfam. Maihuenioideae).......................................................................................................................................................... 12. Maihuenia - Leaves ephemeral, flat; areoles with spines and glochids; seeds encased in a funicular envelope; stems stomatous, bark formation delayed (subfam. Opuntioideae).........................................................................................................................................................4 4. Branch segments flat to subterete; shrubs to 20 cm high.................................................................................................... 22. Tunilla - Segments cylindric; shrubs to 1.5 m high........................................................................................................... 14. Miqueliopuntia 3. Branches flattened to subterete or cylindric.........................................................................................................Tribe OPUNTIEAE - Branch segments never flattened, terete in cross-section...................................................................................................................5 5. Shrubs to 60 cm high, then mound-forming; segments to 10 cm, with determinate growth; spines without sheath..................................................................................................................................................................................... TEPHROCACTEAE (pro parte) - Shrubs to 1.5 m; branch segments to 30 cm, with indeterminate growth; spines with a papery sheath (CYLINDROPUNTIEAE)................................................................................................................................................................................. 6. Cylindropuntia 6. Flowers dark red; petaloids few, 21. Tephrocactus (nigrispinus) - Flowers not dark red; petaloids>10; fruits 2–5 cm, greenish yellow, not glabrous, pulp never red.................................................7 7. Seeds laterally compressed; perisperm large......................................................................................................................................8 - Seeds ± globose; perisperm small......................................................................................................................................................9 8. Flowers immersed into apex; funicular girdle of seed formed into a papery wing.................................................... 17. Pterocactus - Flowers not immersed; seeds not winged.............................................................................................................. 13. Maihueniopsis 9. Segments ±globose, etuberculate, easily detaching; spines on segments and fruits 20. Sphaeropuntia - Segments ±conical, tuberculate; not detaching; spines much longer; areoles crowded towards apex; fruits cylindric; lateral ridges present......................................................................................................................................................................5. Cumulopuntia 10. Hypanthium shorter than pericarpel; stems always cylindric (PHYLLOCACTEAE subtribe CORRYOCACTINAE).................11 - Hypanthium longer than pericarpel; stems cylindric or not.............................................................................................................13 11. Plants low, branches 10–50 cm; central spines 1. Austrocactus - Plants tall, 0.8–5 m; central spines longer, to 15 cm; flowers densely covered with large bracts; fruits 5–10 cm..........................12 12. Flowers to 7 cm, whitish, narrow funnelform................................................................................................................ 8. Eulychnia - Flowers 8–11 cm, yellow, campanulate..................................................................................................................... 4. Corryocactus 13. Stems ±globose to elongating, small to medium-sized; flowers 1.5-6 cm; fruits never with pulp..................................................14 - Stems cylindric, (subcylindric in Lobivia ferox), mostly tall; flowers large, 7-18 cm; fruits with pulp or pulpless (CEREEAE)...17 14. Fruit dehiscing apically, funiculi juicy at fruit maturity (seed ant-dispersed) (INCERTAE SEDIS).............................. 3. Copiapoa - Fruit dehiscion not as above; funiculi dry at fruit maturity (seed not ant-dispersed) (Tribe NOTOCACTEAE)............................15 15. Flowers 2–7 cm, bract scales numerous, axils woolly and bristly; fruit always dehiscing basally (except for Eriosyce rodentiophila).................................................................................................................................................................... 7. Eriosyce - Flowers small, to 2 cm, bract scales few, axils naked; fruit dehiscence lateral or basal..................................................................16 16. Stems 1–3 cm, areoles subtended by tiny persistent leaf; fruits elongating to 3 cm, dehiscing basally.................... 18. Rimacactus - Stems to 15 cm diam., leaf absent; fruits .............................................................15. Neowerdermannia 17. Flower scales large, fleshy, imbricate; axils naked; stems with densely branched crown (subtribe REBUTIINAE).. 2. Browningia - Flower scales small, not fleshy, not imbricate; axils with ± wool (subtribe TRICHOCEREINAE)................................................18 18. Flowers brightly carmine red, zygomorphic; fruits without pulp, dehiscing basally................................................... 6. Oreocereus - Flowers never carmine red, actinomorphic; fruits, with pulp never dehiscing basally....................................................................19 19. Stamens inserted in a single series; fruits indehiscent.............................................................................................. 9. Haageocereus - Stamens inserted in two series; fruits dehiscent...............................................................................................................................20 20. Plants> 0.5 m, branches columnar or thickly cylindric....................................................................................................................21 - Plants 11. Lobivia [ferox] 21. Plants ±branching, shrubby or treelike; flowers narrowly funnelform, whitish........................................................... 10. Leucostele - Plants usually unbranched, thickly cylindric; flowers campanulate, yellow............................................................... 19. Soehrensia The comparison of the taxonomic classifications shows that there are important differences in the number of Chilean genera and species (Table 1). Hunt’s classification (2006, 2013, 2016) includes the lowest number of species (95), whereas Rodríguez et al. (2018) reports the lowest number of genera (17). The percentage of endemic species also varies: 73% by Hunt et al. (2006, 2013, 2016), 74% by Rodríguez et al. (2018), 81% in the present study. These results highlight the importance of updating the taxonomic classifications in the Flora of Chile, because underestimating the endemism and number of species may have major negative effects on conservation (see e.g., Mace 2004, Duarte et al. 2014). The number of species accepted here means that the Cactaceae represent 6% of the Chilean native angiosperms and 5% of endemic species of Chile (Rodríguez et al. 2018)., 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 pages 80-81, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6641038, {"references":["Rodriguez, R., Marticorena, C., Alarcon, D., Baeza, C., Cavieres, V., Finot, L., Fuentes, N., Kiessling, A., Mihoc, M., Pauchard, A., Ruiz, E., Sanchez, P. & Marticorena, A. (2018) Catalogo de las plantas vasculares de Chile. Gayana Botanica 75: 1 - 430. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.4067 / S 0717 - 66432018000100001","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2006) The New Cactus Lexicon. DH Books, Milborn Port, 526 pp.","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2013) The New Cactus Lexicon, Atlas of Illustrations. Dh Books, Milborn Port, 373 pp.","Hunt, D. (2016) CITES Cactaceae Checklist Third Edition. Milborne Port, Remous Limited, 175 pp.","Mace, G. M. (2004) The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 359: 711 - 719. https: // doi. org / 10.1098 / rstb. 2003.1454","Duarte, M., Guerrero, P. C., Carvallo, G. & Bustamante, R. O. (2014) Conservation network design for endemic cacti under taxonomic uncertainty. Biological Conservation 176: 236 - 242."]}

Eriosyce Phil. (see a proposed key below): —The results of the molecular phylogeny by Guerrero et al. (2019b) show that Eriosyce s.l. (see also Kattermann 1994) species from Chile, Perú, and Argentina form a strongly supported monophyletic clade, but only with the exclusion of Rimacactus laui (Lüty) Mottram, a species that had been included within Eriosyce section Neoporteria subsection Chileosyce by Kattermann (1994, as Eriosyce laui Lüthy) and within the “ Islaya -group” by Hunt et al. (2006, 2013, as Eriosyce laui). Phylogenetic analyses retrieved seven major clades in the genus (Guerrero et al. 2019b). The first branching clade (Section Eriosyce Katt.) comprises two species from Chile, one from Argentina, and two from Perú. The next branching clade (Section Campanulatae P.C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter) comprised two taxa from southern-central Chile [Eriosyce marksiana (F.Ritter), Eriosyce marksiana var. lissocarpa (F.Ritter) Katt.]. Subsequently branching is a clade (Section Pyrrhocactus (A.Berger) P.C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter) harbouring four species endemic to Argentina. Then, a group of 12 taxa endemic to south and and northern-central Chile (Sect. Horridocactus (Backeb.) P.C. Guerrero & H.E. Walter). The next branching clade formed by three species endemic to north central Chile (Section Diaguita P.C.Guerrero & Helmut Walter). Subsequently branching is a clade comprising 15 taxa endemic to south and northcentral Chile (Sect. Horridocactus (Backeb.) P.C. Guerrero & H.E. Walter), and finally, an unnamed clade composing 22 taxa from northern Chile. In Kattermann (1994), Wallace proposed an infrageneric classification with two sections [sect. Eriosyce (with subsect. Eriosyce, subsect. Islaya (Backeb.) Katt., and subsect. Pyrrhocactus (A.Berger) Katt. and sect. Neoporteria (with subsect. Neoporteria (Britton & Rose) Katt., subsect. Horridocactus (Backeb.) Katt., and subsect. Chileosyce Katt.), whereas Hunt et al. (2006, 2013) and Hoffmann & Walter (2004) proposed six “groups” (= subgenera) based on the former genera Islaya Backeb., Pyrrhocactus A.Berger, Neoporteria Britton & Rose, Horridocactus Backeb., Thelocephala Ito, and Eriosyce Phil. None of these concepts were corroborated by the results of the molecular phylogeny (Guerrero et al. 2019b). Moreover, at species level, the large “species complexes” E. napina (Phil.) Katt., E. odieri (Lem. ex Salm-Dyck) Katt., E. heinrichiana (Backeb.) Katt., E. subgibbosa (Haw.) Katt., (Backeb.) Katt and E. curvispina (Bertero ex Colla) Katt. were not supported by the results of Guerrero et al. (2019b) (see Table 2). In addition, the taxonomic delimitation of E. curvispina Bertero ex Colla including several infraspecies did not resist standing upright much longer, by not complying with the principle of monophyly as reported by Guerrero et al (2019b), and by new molecular data of several putative members of the E. curvispina complex (Villalobos-Barrantes et al. 2022). Concerning Eriosyce kunzei (C.F. Först.) Katt., a nomenclatural note is necessary.In the protologue of Echinocactus kunzei, Förster gave “ Chile ” as the type locality but mentioned that the plants are sometimes covered by a light layer of snow in winter. F. Ritter (1980) referred Förster’s E. kunzei to the plants from near Copiapó, that perfectly match Förster’s description (see Table 3 F. Ritter, Kakteen in Südamerika, p.p. 955 and 956 and the specimen at SGO 121487, Ritter 220 loc. 2) clearly shows the typically long and narrow areole of this taxon. Kattermann (1994), however, chose material from Guanta, Provincia de Elqui, FK 459 (DBG) for his typification of Eriosyce kunzei and based his decision not to refer the plants from around Copiapó to Förster’s Echinocactus kunzei (as proposed by F. Ritter, 1980) on the single argument that it never snows in this area. Yet, according to meteorological data (Vergara 2011) this assumption cannot be upheld. Hunt (2003) stated that “… the editorial preference would be to supersede Kattermann’s neotypification and to substitute FR 220 material from Paipote (SGO 121487)”. Moreover, several relevant morphological characters (Kattermann 1994; stems, areoles and spines, see Table 3) of the plants from Guanta and its vicinity do not match Försters original description. We thus follow F. Ritter’s proposal to refer Förster’s Echinocactus kunzei to the plants from the vicinity of Copiapó. This makes E. confinis (F.Ritter) Katt. a heterotypic synonym of E. kunzei (C.F. Först.) Katt. (see list of species). With regard to Echinocactus jussieui Monv. ex Salm Dyck a note is necessary. E. jussieui was published by Salm-Dyck (1849: 34, 170–171) in his Hortus Dyckensis with a short diagnosis (“ Caule aterrime virente, tuberculis gibberatis in costas 13 subconfluentibus, aculeisque brunneis ad praecedentem valde accedit; sed differt aculei centrali validissimo ”). No specimen referring to the original material could be traced and, therefore, a neotypification is required according to the Art. 9.8 of ICN (Turland et al. 2018). Ritter (1980) used the epiteth jussieui for plants occurring in the middle and upper Elqui Valley (Pyrrhocactus jussieui (Monv. ex Salm-Dyck) F.Ritter var. jussieui and var. spinosior F.Ritter), argueing that these plants match Salm-Dyck’s original protologue (see below) based on “body blackish-green”, “ribs 13”, “ribs tuberculate”, “spines brown”, “strong central spine”. Kattermann (1994: 156), however, considered E. jussieui as “a name of doubtful application, possibly referable to Eriosyce heinrichiana (Backeb.) Katt. ”. To avoid the epithet “jussieui”, he chose the name E. heinrichiana subsp. intermedia var. intermedia (F.Ritter) Katt. for the plants in and around the Elqui Valley. Yet, Ritter’s locality for his P. setosiflora var. intermedia was “ 60 km south of the Elqui Valley low coastal hills”. The morphology of the plants occurring in this region differs in several character states from the plants in the middle- and upper Elqui Valley (plants from the Elqui Valley in brackets): stems subglobose to flat on the ground (globose to somewhat elongating), stem diameter 2–5 cm (6–9 cm), stem colour often reddish-brown (dark-green); spines thin (thick), mostly straight (mostly curved upward), 1.5–4.0 cm long (3–6 cm); flowers 4–6.5 (3–4.5); seeds small, 0.9 × 0.7 mm (1.2 × 0.9 mm). Moreover, Kattermann’s “subspecies intermedia ” is not at all related to E. heinrichiana subsp. heinrichiana , but a species in its own right (Guerrero et al. 2019b), thus the name E. heinrichiana subsp. intermedia can not be uphold and, consequently, a new name for the plants from the middle- and upper Elqui Valley must be found. Following Ritter’s (1980) arguments, we here propose a new combination for these plants under the genus Eriosyce as well as a neotypification of Echinocactus jussieui based on a Ritter’s collection: 1. Stem diameters large; ribs many; areoles large; roots always fascicular...........................................................................................2 - Stem diameters from very small to medium-sized; ribs less numerous; areoles smaller; roots various............................................5 2. Seed testa cell appendages lacking or inconspicuous, interstices pitted or sunken; flowers funnel-form (Sect. ERIOSYCE).........3 - Seed testa cell appendages present, interstices not pitted nor sunken; flowers campanulate (Sect. CAMPANULATAE)................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31. E. marksiana 3. Flowers and fruits with erect spine-like bristles; fruits not elongating..............................................................................................4 - Flowers and fruits not as above; fruits much elongating, balloon-like..................................................................... 25. E. islayensis 4. Stems very thick; fruits completely covered by wool; loculus pulpless; dehiscent by a basal pore................................ 5. E. aurata - Stems thinner; fruits not completely covered by wool; loculus with mucilagineous pulp; indehiscent............. 39. E. rodentiophila 5. Stems subglobose, globose to somewhat elongating; flowers always diurnal, always funnel-form, usually not fuchsia-colour, interior perianth segments directed outward; nectary small; seed notched below hilum or not........................................................6 - Stems elongating; flowers mostly tubular, fuchsia-colour, interior perianth segments inclining inward to erect; flowers usually remaining open during the night; nectar chamber usually very large; seeds never notched below hilum (sect. NEOPORTERIA).............................................................................................................................................................................................................37 6. Nectary always tubular; ovary always elongate to isodiametric; roots various.................................................................................7 - Nectary widened at base; ovary compressed (with a few exceptions); roots never facicular (unnamed Section)...........................18 7. Pericarpel, hypanthium and fruits with inconspicuous white wool and without bristles; tubercles arranged in parastichies (Sect. HORRIDOCACTUS).........................................................................................................................................................................8 - Flowers and fruits always covered by long dense wool and numerous long porrect bristles; ribs not arranged in parastichies (Sect. DIAGUITA)......................................................................................................................................................................................16 8. Stems green, never pruinose, medium; fruits short, ovoid to barrel-shape, perianth remnant attachment area large; roots various...............................................................................................................................................................................................................9 - Stems grey-green to grey brown, often ±pruinose, small, fruits elongating, perianth remnant attachment area small; taproots always present...............................................................................................................................................................................................14 9. Stems with a tendency towards basal branching..............................................................................................................................10 - Stems not branching.........................................................................................................................................................................11 10. Fruit dry, dehiscing by partial circumscissile splitting; spines finely acicular; ribs low............................................ 3. E. aspillagae - Fruit-wall fleshy when mature, dehiscing by a complete circumscissile slit; spines thicker; ribs steep......................... 2. E. armata 11. Stems ±elongating, spines numerous, often obscuring stem............................................................................................................12 - Stems subglobose to globose or somewhat elongating, spines less numerous.................................................................................13 12. Spines long, white to yellowish, tipped dark; floral bristles scant, only near hypanthium rim................................... 15. E. engleri - Spines shorter, yellow, not turning grey; bristles numerous, distributed all over hypanthium.............................. 21. E. garaventae 13. Ribs numerous; ovary much elongated; rootstock a long taproot; spines thickly acicular..................................... 28. E. limariensis - Ribs fewer; ovary ±isodiametric; roots fascicular; spines thinner........................................................................... 13. E. curvispina 14. Ribs dissolved into tubercles arranged in parastichies; stems very small; spines very short...........................................................15 - Ribs arranged in orthostichies; stems medium-sized; spines much longer.................................................................. 44. E. jussieui 15. Stems never elongating, tubercles large; spines black; flowers with brownish wool and black bristles..................... 32. E. napina - Stems elongating with age; tubercles small, spines horn-coloured to white; flowers with white wool and white bristles..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14. E. duripulpa 16. Stems to 6 cm; ribs to 21 discernible, tubercles rhomboid...............................................................................................................17 - Stems 2-4 cm; ribs 12, tubercles rounded...................................................................................................................... 38. E. riparia 17. Stems not branching; roots neckless; adult plants spineless; style yellow; seed large, hilum pyriform............... 19. E. fankhauseri - Stems branching; roots with a narrow neck; spines present; style red; seed smaller, hilum oval.............................. 47. E. tenebrica 18. Stems medium-sized, ±globose sometimes elongated; spine length various, centrals always present............................................19 - Stems very small, flattened to subglobose; spines ≤ 1.5 cm, centrals often absent..........................................................................28 19. Spines long, hair-like, flexible, often contorted; stem epidermis grey-brown, ±pruinose.............................................. 12. E. crispa - Spines shorter, not hair-like or flexible; epidermis usually green to grey-green, blackish-green or glaucous, not pruinose.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 20. Spines numerous, occulting stems....................................................................................................................................................21 - Spines less numerous, not occulting stems.......................................................................................................................................24 21. Flowers purple, narrowly funnel-form; exterior perianth segments ±bent downwards...................................................................22 - Flowers never purple; funnel-form; exterior perianth segments not as above.................................................................................23 22. Perianth segments concolourous; interior ones nearly erect; ribs numerous............................................................. 42. E. sociabilis - Perianth segments bicolourous; interior ones directed outward; ribs fewer............................................................. 46. E. taltalensis 23. Stems elongating; areoles round-oval; spines yellow, not turning grey; fruit red and juicy when ripe................ 17. E. eriosyzoides - Stems globose; areoles narrow; spines brownish, soon turning grey; fruit dry when ripe............................................. 27. E. kunzei 24. Fruits clavate; spines short; flowers very short................................................................................................................................25 - Fruits not clavate; spines longer; flowers longer..............................................................................................................................26 25. Stems globose to somewhat elongating; flowers yellow; ribs to16....................................................................... 24. E. iquiquensis - Stems small, subglobose; flowers reddish; ribs fewer............................................................................................... 7. E. caligophila 26. Stems green or glaucous; ribs few; flowers whitish-yellowish........................................................................................................27 - Stems blackish grey-green; ribs more numerous; flowers reddish............................................................................. 4. E. atroviridis 27. Stems (sub)globose, green, areoles not woolly; style whitish; fruits yellowish.......................................................... 6. E. calderana - Stems ±elongating, glaucous, areoles woolly; style red; fruits red...................................................................... 36. E. paucicostata 28. Ribs dissolved into tubercles arranged in parastichies....................................................................................................................29 - Ribs arranged in orthostichies..........................................................................................................................................................35 29. Hypanthium and pericarpel with long porrect bristles.....................................................................................................................30 - Hypanthium and pericarpel not as above.........................................................................................................................................33 30. Stems branching, not elongating; spines often completely lacking, not interwoven, short.............................................................31 - S, 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 pages 91-94, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6641038, {"references":["Guerrero, P. C., Walter, H. E., Arroyo, M. K. T, Pena, C., Tamburrino, I., De Benedictis, M. & Larridon, I. (2019 b) Molecular phylogeny of the large South American genus Eriosyce (Notocacteae, Cactaceae): Generic delimitation and proposed changes in infrageneric and species ranks. Taxon 68: 557 - 573. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / tax. 12066","Kattermann, F. (1994) Eriosyce (Cactaceae) The genus revised and amplified. Succulent Plant Research 1: 5 - 176.","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2006) The New Cactus Lexicon. DH Books, Milborn Port, 526 pp.","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2013) The New Cactus Lexicon, Atlas of Illustrations. Dh Books, Milborn Port, 373 pp.","Vergara, E. (2011) World's driest desert hits snow rain. NBC News. Available from http: // www. nbcnews. com (accessed 27 January 2022).","Hunt, D. (2003) Subg. Horridocactus. Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives 16: 9 - 10.","Hoffmann, A. E. & Walter, H. E. (2004) Cactaceas en la flora de Chile, 2 nd ed. Fundacion Claudio Gay, Santiago de Chile, 307 pp.","Ritter, F. (1980) Kakteen in Su ¨ damerika, vol. 3. Friedrich Ritter Selbstverlag, Spangenberg, 381 pp.","Salm-Dyck, J. (1849) Cactaceae Hortus Dyckensis 34: 170 - 171."]}

Tribe 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/6641038, {"references":["Nyffeler, R. & Eggli, U. (2010) A farewell to dated ideas and concepts: molecular phylogenetics and a revised suprageneric classification of the family Cactaceae. Schumannia 6: 109 - 149.","Nyffeler, R. (2002) Phylogenetic relationships in the Cactus family. American Journal of Botany 89: 312 - 326. https: // doi. org / 10.3732 / ajb. 89.2.312","Crozier, B. S. (2005) Systematics of Cactaceae Juss.: phylogeny cpDNA evolution and classification, with emphasis on the genus Mammilaria Haw. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 154 pp.","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2013) The New Cactus Lexicon, Atlas of Illustrations. Dh Books, Milborn Port, 373 pp.","Hernandez-Hernandez, T., Hernandez, H. M., De-Nova, J. A., Puente, R., Eguiarte, L. E. & Magallon, S. (2011) Phylogenetic relationships and evolution of growth form in Cactaceae (Caryophyllales, Eudicotyledoneae). American Journal of Botany 98: 44 - 61. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / tax. 12066"]}

Subtribe Rebutiinae Donald. (incl. Browningieae Buxb.): —Various molecular-based studies (e.g. Lendel et al. 2006, Ritz et al. 2007) showed that Browningia Britton & Rose is closely related to Rebutia K.Schum., while other authors using only morphology-based characters (e.g. Hunt et al. 2013, Anderson 2001, 2005) placed the two genera in different tribes: Hunt et al. (2013) placed Browningia in tribe Cereeae and Rebutia in tribe Trichocereeae, whereas Anderson (2001, 2005) placed Rebutia in Trichocereeae and Browningia in Browningieae (together with Stetsonia Britton & Rose, Jasminocereus Britton & Rose, Armatocereus Backeb. and Neoraimondia Britton & Rose). We here accept to include Browningieae in the tribe Rebutiinae., 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/6641038, {"references":["Lendel, A. (2006) Phylogenetic relationships in the tribe Trichocereeae (Cacteae) inferred from cpDNA sequence data analysis. IOS Bulletin 14: 11 - 12","Ritz, C., Martins, L., Mecklenburg, R., Goremykin, V. & Hellwig, F. H. (2007) The molecular phylogeny of Rebutia (Cactaceae) and its allies demonstrates the influence of paleography on the evolution of South American mountain cacti. American Journal of Botany 94: 1321 - 1332. https: // doi. org / 10.3732 / ajb. 94.8.1321","Hunt, D., Taylor, N. & Charles, G. (2013) The New Cactus Lexicon, Atlas of Illustrations. Dh Books, Milborn Port, 373 pp."]}