Current page: Home > wikiEntry
Austrocactus coxii nomen dubium, (K.-Sch.) Backebg in Backeberg 1959,  Die Cactaceae 3  page 1562
Alt. Name:
Echinocactus coxi Phil. nom. nud. (in Cox 1863: 453)
Echinocactus ? intertextus nom. illeg. (in Cox 1863: 465 et 1865: 81)
Type Locality:
Base of the Valdiviaen andes
Collection No:
Extra Info:
I doubt that the three names for the same type plant (in 1862/63 collected by Guillermo E. Cox at the base of the Valdiviaen andes), Echinocactus coxi Phil.  nom. nud, (in Cox 1863: 453) = Ph. Echinocactus ? intertextus nom. ilIeg. (in Cox 1863: 465 et 1865: 81) or = Echinocactus Coxii K.-Schum. (1898) apply to an Austrocactus. The descriptions of Philippi and Schumann (woolly top, seed size 2 lin = ca. 4mm according to Cox 1863. 81, 3,5 mm according to Schumann 1898) does not match to any Austrocactus!
These names would have gone into oblivion if not for Skottsberg (1916: 268), who claimed that he had found the plant. But what Skottsberg described and the specimen he deposited at the herbarium in Uppsala (Skottsberg 626) is clearly that of an Austrocactus patagonicus, first published as Cereus patagonicus by F.A.C. Weber in 1897.
Backeberg 1959,  Die Cactaceae 3  page 1562 used the name Echinocactus Coxii K.-Schum. as basionym for his Austrocactus coxii (K.-Schum.) Backeb. But he described a completely different plant, equal to the description of Skottsbergs 'Echinocactus coxii ' and his own description of Austrocactus patagonicus  And he considers the same plant, as Echinocactus intertextus Phil. as to be synonymous with Austrocactus patagonicus (page 1560) !!
E&N Sarnes (2015: 41-51) claimed to have found the true A. coxii in the province of Neuquén, a plant with yellow flowers and seeds about 2,5-3,0 mm in size..
Thus Austrocactus coxii sensu E&N Sarnes has nothing to do with the plant mentioned by Backeberg  or Philippi and Schumann either (absolutely no wool at the top of the stem). What they found in the field is one of the tentatively identified Austrocacti which were already present in some collections at the end of the 20th century but were wrongly named Austrocactus coxii and obviously not yet formally described.
Frohning, Hans / de / 2020.01.28.