JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon. Interpretation and typification of Cactus opuntia L., Opuntia vulgaris Mill., and 0. humifusa (Rafin.) Rafin. (Cactaceae) Beat Ernst Leuenberger Summary Leuenberger, B. E.: Interpretation and typification of Cactus opuntia L., Opuntia vulgaris Mill., and 0. humifusa (Rafin.) Rafin. (Cactaceae). -Taxon 42: 419-429. 1993. -ISSN 0040-0262.The taxonomic history of the controversial names Cactus opuntia and Opuntia vulgaris is discussed, the original elements associated with them are analysed, and the changing interpretation of the names by previous authors is reviewed. The consequences of the possible choices of a lectotype for nomenclatural stability are considered. Lectotypification of Cactus opuntia with material mentioned by previous authors would perpetuate the confusion surrounding this name and the homotypic Opuntia vulgaris based on it, as the latter name has been widely applied to two different species (0. humifusa and 0. monacantha). Lectotypification of Cactus opuntia with another element involved, as here proposed, permits to sink the controversial names in the synonymy of Opuntiaficus-indica, thereby avoiding the necessity of proposals to formally reject them. The correct names for the two species formerly known as "0. vulgaris" are 0. humifusa, and 0. monacantha. A neotype is designated for 0. humifusa.
TAXON VOLUME 42The original elements of Cactus opuntia 's figure, Hist. pl. 1: 154, 1650", i. e., on Bauhin & Cherler's (1650) illustration. Benson (1982: 923), however, designated a specimen marked "Cactus articulato-prolifer, articulis ovatis: spinis setaceis. Lin. spec. plant. 468. 16" in the Linnaean herbarium at Stockholm (S) as the lectotype. This selection was questioned by Telford (1984: 70) and rejected as an error by Leuenberger (1991), who designated that very specimen as neotype of C. ficus-indica L.
Britton & Rose (1919) stated that Cactus opuntia contained different elements and that "Opuntia vulgaris was based on BauhinHoward & Touw (1981) held the type indicated by Britton & Rose (1919) for Opuntia vulgaris to be the lectotype of Cactus opuntia but did not comment in detail on the different elements included in the Linnaean species. They further noted that in the second edition of Species plantarum (Linnaeus, 1762: 669), the word "laxus" was added in the phrase-name, and that an additional citation "Mill. ic. 191" was given, which refers to Miller (1760 as to text; the plate, ic. 191, dated 31 oct. 1757 according to F. Barrie, pers. comm.; see also Stafleu & Cowan, 1981). In their opinion, the name C. compressus of Salisbury (1...