Pereskia grandifolia Haw. var. grandifolia

  • Authority

    Leuenberger, Beat E. 1986. Pereskia (Cactaceae). Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 41: 1-140.

  • Family

    Cactaceae

  • Scientific Name

    Pereskia grandifolia Haw. var. grandifolia

  • Description

    Variety Description - Shrub, 2-5 m high, or individual shoots becoming tree-like and to 10 m high. Leaves variable in shape and size, elliptic-oblong, elliptic or narrowly elliptic-lanceolate, shortly acuminate or acute, rather thin, ca. 0.4-0.5 mm thick when fresh, green, concolorous. Bracts on the inflorescence and receptacular bracts green, usually plane, rarely recurved; receptacular bracts shorter to longer than the petaloids; sepaloids greenish-pink to pink; petaloids 15-32 mm long, pink to deep pink; anthers golden-yellow. Fruit variable, pyriform to obtriangular, angled; often nearly as broad as long; locule cup-shaped to broadly obovate-obtriangular. Chromosome number: 2n = 22; cult. hort. Berol. 047-01-78-80 (B), and cult. hort. Berol. 168-02-79-80 (B).

  • Discussion

    Pereskia grandifolia Haworth, Rev. pl. succ. 85. 1819. Type. “Vigebat in regio horto Kewense A. D. 1818, sub nomine Cacti Portulaccaefolii” (description based on a cultivated sterile plant). Neotype designation. Cult. hort. Kew. “raised from seed collected by Bowie & Cunningham in 1816 in the neighbourhood of Rio de Janeiro,” drawing by T. Duncanson, June 11, 1824 (K, ic.). Cactus grandifolius (Haworth) Link, Enum. pl. hort. Berol. 2: 25. 1822. Rhodocactus grandifolius (Haworth) F. Knuth in Backeberg & Knuth, Kaktus-ABC 97. 1935. Pereskia ochnocarpa Miquel, Bull. Sci. Phys. Nat. Néerl. 1: 48. 1838. Type. Brazil. Illustration of Cactus rosa Vellozo (nom. nud.), Fl. flum. 5: pl. 27. 1827. Pereskia rosea Hort. ex A. Dietrich, Allg. Gartenzeitung 19: 152. 1851. Type. Cult, in Hort. Berol., received from F. A. Haage, Erfurt, a specimen of unknown origin. Not preserved. Pereskia tampicana F. A. C. Weber, Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris) 4: 167. 1898. Type. Mexico. Tamaulipas: Nr. Tampico, at El Paso de Doña Cecilia on the RGo Pánuco, ca. 1895, Heese s.n. (not preserved). Rhodocactus tampicanus (F. A. C. Weber) Backeberg, Cactaceae 1: 115. 1958. The natural range of this variety is insufficiently known, but it is widespread in cultivation as an ornamental both in and outside of Brazil and appears to be established in several countries of tropical America. Numerous collections are without indication of its native, spontaneous, or cultivated status. Where I regard them as spontaneous after cultivation or doubtful I have omitted them from the list of specimens. Such collections from Amazonian Peru, Bequia (island S of St. Vincent), Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Puerto Rico, St. Croix, Trinidad, and Venezuela nevertheless represent conspicuous elements of the flora of these countries and they are included in the distribution map, marked accordingly. Abundant collections of plants cultivated in gardens and parks exist from Costa Rica, Cuba, Florida, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico (Chiapas, Morelos, Oaxaca, Veracruz), Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Eustatius, St. Kitts, Trinidad, and Venezuela. Local names and uses. Brazil: sabonete (Espírito Santo), ora pro nobis (Rio de Janeiro), quiabento (Bahia). It is sometimes planted as a hedge and often cultivated as an ornamental. In Venezuela, where it is not native, it is called guamacho morado” according to Hoyos (1978). There is no doubt that Duncanson’s 1824 drawing of Pereskia grandifolia represents this species and variety, and that it probably shows the same plant used as a yet juvenile, sterile specimen by Haworth for the publication of the species in 1819, even though N. E. Brown annotated the drawing as “scarcely the plant described by Haworth.” The seed collected by Bowie and Cunningham in 1816 represent the oldest known collection of the species, but apparently no herbarium specimen exists. The next oldest collections are those of Gay, Gaudichaud, and Riedel from between 1828 and 1833. These, as well as many later collections, are all from Rio de Janeiro. Schumann (1890, 1898) misinterpreted P. grandifolia as a synonym of P. bleo, and Weber (1898b), who was aware of the differences between the two species, nevertheless illustrated P. grandifolia with the wrong caption in Bois (1893-1899, fig. 678). Britton and Rose (1919) recognized the difference between the two species and noted that all previous illustrations with the caption “P. bleo” show in fact P. grandifolia. This species and variety is still found mislabeled as P. bleo in many collections and pictorial works. The spelling “P. grandiflora” is an equally widespread error. This name was mentioned by Pfeiffer (1837a, 1837b), is a nomen nudum for the same species, and is still found and erroneously attributed to Haworth even in recent publications (Hoyos, 1978, p. 208). For P. tampicana no type specimen is available; however, from Weber’s description it seems evident that this name is a synonym of P. grandifolia var. grandifolia and not of P. zinniiflora as Bravo-Hollis (1978) suggested. All specimens identified by previous workers as P. tampicana are apparently from cultivated sources in Mexico and undoubtedly the same as P. grandifolia. Pereskia gigantea hort., illustrated by Hertrich (1956, p. 108, 109, figs. 68, 69) is a nomen nudum belonging here also.

  • Distribution

    Distribution (Fig. 45) and phenology. Eastern Brazil (even there insufficiently known), elsewhere probably subspontaneous after cultivation; from the lowland to ca. 1000 m, in forest, secondary forest, restinga, on waste ground and cultivated in hedges, also cultivated as an ornamental; flowering almost throughout the year (not observed in June, July, and November), fruiting observed in March and April, probably extending over a longer period.

    Brazil South America|