Acanthocereus tetragonus (Linnaeus) Hummelinck (1938: 165)

Korotkova, Nadja, Borsch, Thomas & Arias, Salvador, 2017, A phylogenetic framework for the Hylocereeae (Cactaceae) and implications for the circumscription of the genera, Phytotaxa 327 (1), pp. 1-46 : 19-20

1.13 Acanthocereus tetragonus (Linnaeus) Hummelinck (1938: 165) ≡ C actus tetragonus Linnaeus (1753: 466) ≡

Cereus tetragonus (Linnaeus) Miller (1768 : unpaged)

Neotype (designated by Hummelinck 1938):— CURAÇAO. Hummelinck 196, 170 ( U).

= Acanthocereus pentagonus (Linnaeus) Britton & Rose (1920: 122) ≡ Cactus pentagonus Linnaeus (1753: 466) ≡ Cereus pentagonus (Linnaeus) Haworth (1812: 180)

Type:—Not designated.

= Acanhocereus baxaniensis (Karwinsky ex Pfeiffer) Borg (1937: 132) ≡ Cereus baxaniensis Karwinsky ex Pfeiffer (1837: 10)

Type:—Not designated.

= Acanthocereus horridus Britton & Rose (1920: 122)

Type:— GUATEMALA. Without locality, 1909, Eichlam s.n. (holotype NY-00118675!, isotypes US-00115577, US-00115578, U-0000928!).

= Acanhocereus subinermis Britton & Rose (1920: 125)

Type:— MEXICO. Oaxaca: between Mitla an Oaxaca City, 6 September 1908, Rose 11304 (holotype US-115512!).

= Acanthocereus occidentalis Britton & Rose (1920: 125)

Type:— MEXICO. Sinaloa, vicinity of San blas, near the river in thickets, 4 March 1910, Rose et al. 13431 (holotype US-115513!).

Notes: ― Hummelinck (1938) designated as lectotype of Cereus tetragonus two samples collected by him in Curaçao [Hummelinck 196 (flower), 170 (fruit) U], but Hunt (1991: 82, 1998: 16) and Eggli (in Anderson 2005: 70) corrected its designation as neotype. However, this cannot be accepted according to the Art. 9.17. The designation of one of the specimens as neotype is currently in discussion (Hunt 2006).

Possible typification of Cactus pentagonus is not resolved ( Hunt 1991: 83, Hunt 2006: 25). Eventual typification of Cereus baxaniensis is under discussion, since its identity and provenance is uncertain ( Hunt 1998: 15, 2006: 25).