Difference between revisions of "Epithelantha"
Cact. 3: 92, fig. 102. 1922.
FNA>Volume Importer |
imported>Volume Importer |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
|distribution=sw United States;Mexico. | |distribution=sw United States;Mexico. | ||
|discussion=<p>Species 2–5 (2 in the flora).</p><!-- | |discussion=<p>Species 2–5 (2 in the flora).</p><!-- | ||
| − | --><p>In fully adult plants of Epithelantha, the distal portions of the longest spines are worn, leaving all but the apex of the plant covered with short, innocuous spines. Where the ranges of the two species in the flora area overlap, they usually occur on different geologic substrates, although they grow intermingled with no evidence of hybridization, at some sites in Coahuila, Mexico. The interspecific differences have been obscured by published illustrations of misidentified specimens and by inaccurate spine counts.</p><!-- | + | --><p>In fully adult plants of <i>Epithelantha</i>, the distal portions of the longest spines are worn, leaving all but the apex of the plant covered with short, innocuous spines. Where the ranges of the two species in the flora area overlap, they usually occur on different geologic substrates, although they grow intermingled with no evidence of hybridization, at some sites in Coahuila, Mexico. The interspecific differences have been obscured by published illustrations of misidentified specimens and by inaccurate spine counts.</p><!-- |
| − | --><p>Although generally resembling Mammillaria and superficially similar to M. lasiacantha, chloroplast DNA evidence somewhat inconclusively indicates that Epithelantha is taxonomically isolated and more closely related to Pediocactus and Ariocarpus than to Mammillaria (C. A. Butterworth et al. 2002).</p> | + | --><p>Although generally resembling <i>Mammillaria</i> and superficially similar to <i>M. lasiacantha</i>, chloroplast DNA evidence somewhat inconclusively indicates that <i>Epithelantha</i> is taxonomically isolated and more closely related to <i>Pediocactus</i> and <i>Ariocarpus</i> than to <i>Mammillaria</i> (C. A. Butterworth et al. 2002).</p> |
|tables= | |tables= | ||
|references= | |references= | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
|publication year=1922 | |publication year=1922 | ||
|special status= | |special status= | ||
| − | |source xml=https:// | + | |source xml=https://bitbucket.org/aafc-mbb/fna-data-curation/src/2e0870ddd59836b60bcf96646a41e87ea5a5943a/coarse_grained_fna_xml/V4/V4_435.xml |
|subfamily=Cactaceae subfam. Cactoideae | |subfamily=Cactaceae subfam. Cactoideae | ||
|genus=Epithelantha | |genus=Epithelantha | ||
Latest revision as of 21:58, 5 November 2020
Plants miniature, erect, usually unbranched [branched], not deep-seated in substrate. Roots diffuse [tuberlike in E. pachyrhiza of Mexico]. Stems unsegmented, mostly spheric, often flat-topped, 1–4(–6) × 2–4(–6) cm, surface completely obscured by spines; tubercles numerous, not confluent into ribs, hemispheric or short cylindric, very small, ca. 1–3 mm; areoles at tips of tubercles, nearly circular, elliptic when distended by flower or fruit, copiously woolly only at sexually mature stem apex; areolar glands absent; cortex and pith not mucilaginous. Spines 20–90 per areole, in 1–5 series, appressed on sides of stems, erect at sexually mature stem apex, white to ashy gray, straight, terete, slender, innocuous, 4.5–12 mm at sexually mature stem apex, often shorter from breakage or wear, smooth or microscopically roughened by breakup of epidermis, not distinguishable as radial and central spines. Flowers diurnal, borne at adaxial margins of spine clusters deep within woolly stem apex, inconspicuous, only distal portion visible from spines and hairs, funnelform, 0.6–1.7 × 0.3–1.7 cm; outer tepals entire or sparsely erose-fimbriate; inner tepals pink to white (rarely yellow), (1–)2–6(–9) × 1–2.3(–3) mm, margins entire or perhaps weakly erose-denticulate; ovary smooth, scales, hairs, and spines absent; stigma lobes (2–)3–4(–6), white, to 1 mm. Fruits indehiscent, bright red, narrowly cylindric, 3–20 × 2–3(–5) mm, weakly succulent, soon drying and papery, smooth, spineless; pulp absent; floral remnant deciduous. Seeds blackish, obliquely hemispheric, 1.2–1.4 × 1 mm, glossy, impressed-reticulate; testa cells flat or slightly convex, anticlinal cell walls not protruding. x = 11.
Distribution
sw United States, Mexico.
Discussion
Species 2–5 (2 in the flora).
In fully adult plants of Epithelantha, the distal portions of the longest spines are worn, leaving all but the apex of the plant covered with short, innocuous spines. Where the ranges of the two species in the flora area overlap, they usually occur on different geologic substrates, although they grow intermingled with no evidence of hybridization, at some sites in Coahuila, Mexico. The interspecific differences have been obscured by published illustrations of misidentified specimens and by inaccurate spine counts.
Although generally resembling Mammillaria and superficially similar to M. lasiacantha, chloroplast DNA evidence somewhat inconclusively indicates that Epithelantha is taxonomically isolated and more closely related to Pediocactus and Ariocarpus than to Mammillaria (C. A. Butterworth et al. 2002).
Selected References
None.
Lower Taxa
Key
| 1 | Spines 20-35(-40) per areole, in 1-3 superimposed series except for a dense adaxial tuft, grayish or purplish white, often with brown bases collectively forming brown spot at center of each spine cluster; general aspect of stem relatively rough; spine clusters at sides of stem 4-5(-7) mm diam.; flowers 0.6-0.9 × 0.3-0.5 cm | Epithelantha micromeris |
| 1 | Spines (40-)50-90 per areole, in more than 3 superimposed series, uniformly white to creamy yellow; general aspect of stem appearing smooth and shiny; spine clusters at sides of stem 2- 2.5(-4) mm diam.; flowers 1-1.7 × 1-1.7 cm | Epithelantha bokei |