The genus Astrophytum Lemaire, introduction
The plants from the genus Astrophytum are something special in the cactus-family for bota-nists, field-research and enthusiasts. Only these plants own, at least when juvenile, white hairy scales on the epidermis. The Mexico traveller admires at the habitat the unbelievable optical mimicry to the surroundings as a strategy to be protected und hide for eating ene-mies. And the collector in the greenhouse enjoys the great beauty of the plants, the variety of forms and the simple crossing between the yellow-flowering species and between the red-throated line.
The botanical history and science of Astrophytum starts in 1827 when Thomas Coulter col-lected an unknown plant in the Mexican State of Hidalgo and sent it under the number 40 to Paris. In 1828 this specimen was described by De Candolle as Echinocactus ornatus, the Astrophytum ornatum as we call it today. Already he mentioned a property of this plant which makes the genus so unique within the cacti: white tufts of hair on the epidermis. But De Can-dolle was not sure if these tufts of hair were “constant or diminishing”. The same doubts had Charles Lemaire when he described in 1838 the Echinocactus mirbelii as a synonymous to Echinocactus ornatus. He thought this white dots could be a sign of sickness. Also argues F.W.A. Miquel who described in the same year the same plant with a further synonymous as Echinocactus holopterus.
At a first look it is an astonishing fact that Echinocactus ornatus was not integrated into As-trophytum by Charles Lemaire when he created this new genus in 1839. A. Weber did it much later in 1896. At a second look we find that the definition of the genus from 1839 has no hint for the white tufts of hair in contrary to the Astrophytum myriostigma which was the definition-plant and got its name “myriostigma” because of the many white dots (with his words: „...épiderme couvert de myriades de points blancs...“). Lemaire took the star form from this plant as essential for the new genus. Perhaps he did not accept the Echinocactus mirbelii as star-shaped or thought the white dots of this plants were really fungi caused. It is of interest that in the same year G. Galeotti also published an original description of Astro-phytum myriostigma under the name Cereus callicoche, which also has no hint to the white dots of the plants.
After J.G. Zuccarini described in 1845 with Echinocactus asterias a further star shaped cacti with white dots and A. Dietrich followed in 1851 with Echinocactus capricornis, Chales Le-maire completed his definition of the genus with this property. Already in 1845 J. Salm-Dyck tried to solve the conflict Echinocactus ? Astrophytum by creating a section “Asteroidei”, which means star-similar, which owned the tufts of hair. This construction were accepted by many followers like Dr. A. Dietrich (1851), J. Labouret (1853), J. Croucher (1873), C.F. För-ster (1885), Dr. K. Schumann (1898), E. Schelle (1907).
Britton & Rose treat in their important work „The Cactaceae, Descriptions and Illustrations of Plants of the Cactus Family“ from 1922 Astrophytum as an own genus. This concept is until today the most accepted construction: C. Backeberg (1937), M. Megata (1944), Haage & Sadovsky (1957), D. R. Hunt (1967 ? 1999), H. Bravo-Hollis & H. Sanchez-Mejorada (1991). Es gibt aber auch noch später Verfechter des Salm-Dyck`schen Systems: I. Ochoterena (1922), Dr. H. Möller (1927), A. Berger (1929), L. Benson (1982), Del Weniger (1972, 1984).
In 1925 described E.C. Rost in the periodical „Sukkulentenkunde“ the genus Maierocactus and takes Astrophytum capricorne as type-species. A severe fault from the author and abso-lutely wrong from botanical sight. Nobody has ever followed his meaning.
At the same time A.V. Fric had an important influence in the botanical scene by his sensa-tional new founds in Mexico and his description of the genus Astrophytum. He went also new ways concerning phylogeny view and evolution of cacti, which are rarely can be followed nowadays. He described with Astrophytum senile a new, not valid species and created many synonymous names which were enlarged later on by some splitter authors: C. Backeberg (1960), W. Haage & O. Sadovsky (1957), O. Sadovsky & B. Schütz (1979).
Later on there were published in Japan some important works about the genus Astrophytum. None of them, without M. Megata (1944) „An Account of The Genus Astrophytum Lemaire“, have easy literarily access today: A. Mori (1933), Dr. Y. Okumura (1933, 34, 35), T. Oritake (1935), T. Ryutanzi (1935), K. Hasunani (1935), M. Tsuda (1934-36)
F. Buxbaum posited a near relationship between Astrophytum and the tribe Notocacteae in the Frailea-line (F. Buxbaum (1951) , Krainz, H. (1961-65); Endler, J.; Buxbaum, F. (1982)), which was the cause for a partly very severe controversy with C. Backeberg. The worthy work in botany and the international reputation of Buxbaum has attached to this opinion un-fortunately too much meaning. It also contains bill arguments like the evolutionary secondary tall-growth of Astrophytum ornatum coming from a tiny ball-shaped Frailea after wandering from northern South America to the Mexican highland and rebuilding mighty spines. Espe-cially Buxbaum represented the “law of shorting the vegetative phase in phylogeny”, so his arguments do not seem very plausible. Actual results in cytology disprove a near evolution-ary connection between Frailea ? Astrophytum and confirm the very tight relationship to Echinocactus (Cota, J. H.; Wallace, R. S., 1996).
When M. Megata wrote his Astrophytum monograph in 1944 he lamented rightly the miss of field-research and reports from the habitat at this time. Only few work was he at disposal like this from H. W. Viereck (1939). But even the report of Viereck is written from the view of a cacti dealer who is eager to hide his knowledge of habitats against his competitors. The situation changed essentially in the second half of the 20’th century. There are many worthy articles and reports from this time which treat the genus Astrophytum in the natural habitat (among others: E. F. Anderson (1958), U. Bernhard (1987), N. H. Boke (1968), R. M. Braca-montes (1978), H. Bravo-Hollis (1958), A. Brooks (1995), N. Damude & J. Poole (1990), H. W. Fittkau (1975-79), C. Glass & R. Foster (1974), D. B. Gold (1967-69), H. Hoock (1986-2002), K. Johner (1959), W. Klaus (1971-85), K. P. Kleszewski (1989-2002), F. Krähenbühl (1974-75), J. Meyran (1955-91), F. Otero (1968-70), M. Sachez-Mejorada (1955-78), P. Schätzle (1987-94)). Today the situation has changed into the contrary: the plants are en-dangered by economic use of the country, road construction, collectors and tourists. Megata wished at his time more information from the habitat, today we, in contrary, demand for more effective plant protection. A few habitats of Astrophytum are nearly complete destroyed and the plants wiped out (W. Clausing (1985), A. Draxler (2002), H. Hoock (1996), H. Sanchez-Mejorada (1982, 1987), D. Weniger (1972), J. A. Wehbe & J. L. Elizondo (1986)).
The discovery of Digitostigma caput-medusae has created some excitement among the Astrophytum-friends. It is obvious that these plants belong to "their" genus, because they have flakes on the epidermis, hat-formed seeds and the construction of the flower is almost exactly like in Astrophyum. Nuevo Leon where they were found is also the home of Astrophytum capricorne and an old site of Astrophytum asterias. It is therefore hardly surprising that a recombination to Astrophytum caput-medusae occurred. As mentioned Astrophytum is regarded today mainly as a separate genus although a subsequent reintegration into Echinocactus based on modern knowledge may appear useful. From this perspective, we would be back where in the history 1828 began with Echinocactus ornatus.
introduction to the species
historical data of plant descriptions
original descriptions of the genus
photo examples of the species and varieties
Astrophytum genus
home