(2754) Weberbauerocereus Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941(2): 31. Jun 1942 [Cact.], nom. cons. prop.

Typus: W. weberbaueri (K. Schum. ex Vaupel) Backeb., Descr. Cact. Nov.: 27. 1956 (Cereus weberbaueri K. Schum. ex Vaupel), typ. cons. prop.

The genus Weberbauerocereus Backeb. (in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941(2): 31. 1942) comprises ca 8 species of large shrubby to small treelike columnar cacti from Peru (Cajamarca to Moquegua) and Bolivia (La Paz, Madidi). In the most recent comprehensive treatment of Cactaceae (Hunt & al., New Cactus Lexicon, Text vol.: 278–279. 2006; ed. 2, Atlas vol.: xii, 520. 2013) it is accepted as a taxonomically “good” genus, but with the comment that it is nomenclaturally a synonym of Haageocereus Backeb. (in Cactus J. (Croydon) 1: 52. 1933). This comment reflects Backeberg's (l.c.) choice of type for Weberbauerocereus, which he cited as Cereus fascicularis Meyen (in Allg. Gartenzeitung 1(27): 211. 1833; Reise Erde 1: 447. 1834, as Cactus fascicularis), misinterpreting the latter's identity in line with Britton & Rose (Cact. 2: 141. 1920, under Trichocereus) and misapplying it, as “W. fascicularis (Meyen) Backbg. n. comb.”, to a species now known as Weberbauerocereus weberbaueri (K. Schum. ex Vaupel) Backeb. (Cereus weberbaueri K. Schum. ex Vaupel in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 50(Beibl. 111): 22. 1913). Ritter (Kakt. Südamer. 3: 1125. 1980), however, pointed out that the plant Meyen described as Cereus or Cactus fascicularis agrees more closely with a species of Haageocereus Backeb., not with Weberbauerocereus sensu Backeberg. Recently, the first author (Hoxey in Bradleya 38: 104–119. 2020) retraced in the field Meyen's Peruvian itinerary and came to the same conclusion as Ritter, but with the clarification that Meyen's description was a partial mixture, including the erect stems of juvenile Browningia candelaris (Meyen) Britton & Rose, which look remarkably similar to the fasciculate but sprawling stems of the sympatric Haageocereus chilensis F. Ritter ex D.R. Hunt (= H. fascicularis (Meyen) F. Ritter), whose characters make up the majority of the description.

Although no original material of Cereus fascicularis Meyen is available for typification, it now seems clear that even through neotypification the name cannot properly be applied to a species of Weberbauerocereus, as that genus is currently understood. Nor has the name been used in that sense since Ritter's (l.c.) clarification of its identity appeared.

The name Weberbauerocereus Backeb. in its misapplied sense has been in use fairly consistently in the expansive literature of Cactaceae over the past 70 years and is on the labels and plant record databases of many living and preserved collections of cactus aficionados, botanical gardens and herbaria, as well as in the catalogues of specialist commercial nurseries. If not conserved with a new type as proposed here, it will need to be given a new name, causing unnecessary nomenclatural instability for a group of about eight species, most of which have hitherto been known only as Weberbauerocereus, six out of the eight having no other name, as they were described in and have remained classified in this genus. Cereus weberbaueri K. Schum. ex Vaupel, the conserved type proposed above, is itself securely typified by a holotype conserved in the spirit collection at Berlin: Peru, Arequipa, near Yura, on the Arequipa–Puno railway, 2400 m, 31 August 1902, Weberbauer 1413 (B, photo!).

（2754）Weberbauerocereus Backeb。1942年6月[ Cact。]，标称编号：Cactaceae（Berlin）1941（2）：31 。缺点 支柱。

Typus：W。weberbaueri（K. Schum。ex Vaupel）Backeb。，Descr。仙人掌 1956年11月27日（Cereus weberbaueri K.Schum。ex Vaupel），典型。缺点 支柱。

Weberbauerocereus Backeb属。（在仙人掌科（柏林）1941（2）：31. 1942中）包括大约8种从秘鲁（卡哈马卡至莫克瓜）和玻利维亚（拉巴斯，麦迪迪）的大型灌木状至小型树状柱状仙人掌。在最新的仙人掌科综合治疗方法中（Hunt等人，New Cactus Lexicon，文本卷：278-279。2006；第2版，阿特拉斯卷：xii，520. 2013），该分类法被认为是“良好的”，但在注释上称它为Haageocereus Backeb的同义词。（Cactus J.（Croydon）1：52。，1933年）。此评论反映了Backeberg（web）选择Weberbauerocereus的类型，他将其称为Cereus fascicularisMeyen（在Allg。Gartenzeitung 1（27）：211. 1833; Reise Erde 1：447. 1834，as Cactus fascicularis中），误解了后者的身份，与Britton＆Rose（Cact。2：141. 1920，根据Trichocereus）并将其误用，例如“ W. fascicularis（Meyen）Backbg。。梳子”，现在称为Weberbauerocereus weberbaueri（K. Schum。ex Vaupel）Backeb的物种。（Ber。Jahrb。Syst。50（Beibl。111）：Cereus weberbaueri K. Schum。ex Vaupel，第22卷，1913年）。但是，Ritter（Kakt。Südamer。3：1125. 1980）指出，Meyen植物被描述为Cereus或fascicularis仙人掌，与Haageocereus物种更接近Backeb。，而不是Weberbauerocereus sensu Backeberg。最近，第一作者（Hoxey in Bradleya 38：104–119。2020）在梅恩（Meyen）的秘鲁路线中回溯，得出与里特（Ritter）相同的结论，但澄清了梅恩的描述是部分混合的，包括幼年褐变病（Meyen）Britton＆Rose，看起来与同胞Haageocereus chilensis F. Ritter ex DR Hunt（= H. fascicularis（Meyen）F. Ritter）的无节状但蔓延茎相似。说明。

尽管没有盲肠蜡状芽孢杆菌的原始材料可用于分类，但现在似乎很清楚，即使通过新分型法，该名称也不能正确地用于Weberbauerocereus物种，因为该属目前是已知的。自从出现Ritter（lc）对其身份的澄清以来，就没有使用过该名称。

名称Weberbauerocereus Backeb。在过去的70年中，它的误用在仙人掌科的广泛文献中得到了相当一致的使用，并存在于许多仙人掌和野生动植物，植物园和草本植物的活着和保存的藏品的标签和植物记录数据库中，以及专业商业苗圃的目录。如果不遵循此处提出的新类型，则需要重新命名，这会导致大约8种物种的不必要的命名不稳定性，其中大多数迄今仅被称为Weberbauerocereus，八种物种中有六种没有其他名称，正如它们在本类中所描述的并保持分类。韦氏鲍鱼舒姆 ex Vaupel（上面提出的保守型）本身就是在柏林的烈酒收藏中保存的完整型的典型代表：1902年8月31日在2400 m的Arequipa-Puno铁路上的秘鲁，Yura附近的Arequipa，Weberbauer 1413（B，照片！）。