taxonID	type	description	language	source
03B987C7FFE7FFB6FF3000C5FC8FF831.taxon	discussion	On the other hand, the delimitation of some subfamilies has shown to been difficult (for example the paraphyly of the Pereskioideae K. Schum. and the ambiguous relationships of the Maihuenioideae P. Fearn with other subfamilies). Also, the tribes within the Opuntioideae K. Schum. and Cactoideae Eaton have undergone several changes, as molecular-based phylogenies provided new information about evolutionary relationships of its members. Most of the proposed changes at these taxonomic levels have an impact on the classification of Chilean cacti because the cactus flora in the Atacama Desert, the Altiplano, the Mediterranean area, and the Chilean Patagonian steppe harbours three of the four subfamilies and seven of the ten tribes.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFE7FFB6FF3000C5FC8FF831.taxon	discussion	The comparison of the taxonomic classifications shows that there are important differences in the number of Chilean genera and species (Table 1). Hunt’s classification (2006, 2013, 2016) includes the lowest number of species (95), whereas Rodríguez et al. (2018) reports the lowest number of genera (17). The percentage of endemic species also varies: 73 % by Hunt et al. (2006, 2013, 2016), 74 % by Rodríguez et al. (2018), 81 % in the present study. These results highlight the importance of updating the taxonomic classifications in the Flora of Chile, because underestimating the endemism and number of species may have major negative effects on conservation (see e. g., Mace 2004, Duarte et al. 2014). The number of species accepted here means that the Cactaceae represent 6 % of the Chilean native angiosperms and 5 % of endemic species of Chile (Rodríguez et al. 2018).	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFE5FFB7FF05024AFC7EFB5A.taxon	discussion	— The only species in this tribe occurring in Chile [Cylindropuntia tunicata (Lehmann) Knuth] has been introduced from Northern Mexico and Arizona.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFE5FFB7FF0502B3FE0EFAC6.taxon	discussion	— The membership of the two Chilean genera (Miqueliopuntia Frič ex F. Ritter and Tunilla D. Hunt & Iliff) in the Opuntieae is corroborated by various studies (e. g. Wallace & Dickie 2002, Griffith & Porter 2009, Majure et al. 2012).	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFE5FFB7FF05031FFE3DF84E.taxon	discussion	— According to phylogenetic analyses (Ritz et al. 2012, Walker et al. 2018, Majure et al. 2019), the monophyletic clade “ Tephrocacteae ” represents a widely distributed group which includes the genera Pterocactus K. Schum., Maihueniopsis Speg., Tephrocactus Lem., Austrocylindropuntia Backeb., and Cumulopuntia F. Ritter. The study by Ritz et al. (2012) retrieved two main clades, one of which comprises Pterocactus and Maihueniopsis and the other one harbours Tephrocactus and the sister pair Cumulopuntia and Austrocylindropuntia. Former taxonomic concepts (e. g. Hunt et al. 2006: p. 12) suggested a close relationship between Maihueniopsis and Cumulopuntia mainly for their shared gross morphology. Wallace & Dickie’s (2002) results suggest a close relationship between Maihueniopsis and Thephrocactus and, furthermore, Pterocactus was treated as a tribe, an opinion shared by Nyffeler & Eggli (2010). Yet, in Griffith & Porter (2009), Pterocactus was not isolated but was placed together with Maihueniopsis in a basal grade to the rest of the terete-stemmed Opuntioideae. Ritz et al. (2012) showed that Pterocactus is not isolated, appearing as sister to Maihueniopsis. This finding supports Stuppy’s (2001) assumption that the genus might be closely related to Maihueniopsis. Although some morphological characters of Pterocactus are unique in the tribe and the Opuntioideae (the base of the glochids is rounded; the flowers are immersed into the apex of the segment; at an early oncological stage the fruit is not clearly separated from the surrounding tissue of the segment; the funicular girdle of the seed forms a broad papery and undulating wing), it shares some important morphological characters with Maihueniopsis. According to all these findings our classification follows the results of Ritz et al. (2012). According to the results of Ritz et al. one large species-complex was split: Cumulopuntia boliviana (Salm-Dyck) F. Ritter (Table 2).	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFE1FFBCFF30027FFA0BFB49.taxon	discussion	— Hunt’s et al. (2016) and Hunt’s (2013) circumscription of the genus Maihueniopsis includes only four species occurring in Chile, i. e. the two endemics M. archiconoidea F. Ritter and M. conoidea F. Ritter, and two species occurring also in Argentina (M. darwinii Hnsl. and M. ovata Pfeiff.). These authors merged the rest of the Chilean species described by Ritter (1980) and Espinosa (1933) into the widespread Argentinean species M. glomerata (Haw.) R. Kiesling without any evidence (i. e. detailed descriptions, morphological keys, and / or molecular phylogenies). They did not realize, however, that the Chilean Maihueniopsis are clearly divided into two main groups (the “ glomerata - group ” and the “ domeykoensis- group ”) when all members of the domeykoensis group [M. camachoi (Espinosa) F. Ritter, M. colorea F. Ritter, M. crassispina F. Ritter, M. domeykoensis F. Ritter, M. grandiflora F. Ritter, and M. wagenknechtii F. Ritter] are included in the sampling. All members of the domeykoensis group are endemic to the western slopes of the Chilean Andes. Populations of M. glomerata s. str. had not yet been documented in Chile. The molecular-based phylogeny presented by Ritz et al. (2012) shows that M. domeykoensis [a species that was lumped into M. glomerata by Hunt (2011)] is sister to the rest of the nine taxa (all of them being members of the glomerata group). Ritz et al. (2012) found it “ interesting ” that M. domeykoensis was not placed within the “ glomerata ” group. Their sampling was unbalanced, as they included nine species assigned to the “ glomerata ” group (see above) but only one assigned to the “ domeykoensis ” group (i. e. M. domeykoensis). Maihueniopsis domeykoensis is likely a separate lineage. So, we conclude that a) as M. domeykoensis did not cluster with M. glomerata (or other members of the glomerata - clade), it cannot be considered a synonym of M. glomerata, and thus b) the rest of the members of the domeykoensis group, who share the same morphological characters with M. domeykoensis, cannot be considered synonyms of M. glomerata. This conclusion is corroborated by a broadly sampled (i. e. all the members of the domeykoensis group) molecular phylogeny (Guerrero, in preparation) that showed that Maihueniopsis is split into two groups congruent with the above presented morphylogy-based groups (a morphologybased key is reported below). According to the results of the phylogenetic analyses one large species-complex was split: Maihueniopsis glomerata. However, Hunt (2016) withdrew his opinion and reinstalled all of the formerly not accepted species of the domeykoensis-clade. A nomenclatural note on the no validly published name “ Maihueniopsis leoncito (Werderm.) F. Ritter ” is necessary. According to Art. 41.5 ICN (Turland et al. 2018), Ritter’s “ Maihueniopsis leoncito ” is invalid because it does not include the place of publication of the basyonym. The correct name Maihueniopsis leoncito (Werdermann ex F. Ritter) P. C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter was recently published by Guerrero & Helmut Walter (2019);	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEEFFBCFF0502A8FA26F8ED.taxon	discussion	— Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) remarked that the exclusively West-Andean species Cumulopuntia sphaerica (C. F. Först.) F. Anderson “ is unambiguously shown as a separate lineage ”, as it appears in a trichotomy with Austrocylindropuntia Backeb. and Cumulopuntia F. Ritter (Wallace & Dickie, 2002). Also, in Griffith and Porter (2009) the two accessions of C. sphaerica were not placed within the C. boliviana clade, but in a strongly supported trichotomy with Austrocylindropuntia. Finally, Ritz et al. (2012) showed that the well-supported C. sphaerica clade is sister to the C. boliviana clade. The morphology of Sphaeropuntia support above mentioned findings. In fact this genus differs from Cumulopuntia in many character states: shrubs low, 10 – 15 cm high, forming loose groups <50 cm diameter (20 – 50 cm high, forming compact mounds 0.5 – 2.0 m diameter); stem segments easily despatching (not so), spherical to short ovoid (long conical to nearly cylindric), epidermis with white wax (not so), not or only slightly tuberculate (strongly tuberculate); areoles evenly dispersed all over the segment (only upper third, crowding near apex), large, 5 – 10 mm (small, ≤ 5 mm), prominent (not so), closely set (more apart); spines 3 – 5 cm (3 – 15 cm), present on all areoles (only superior ones spiniferous); floral areoles dispersed all over pericarpel and hypantium (only rim of hypanthium); pericarpel short and broader than long (isodiametric or long); fruits globose to obconical, often broader than high (cylindric), 2.0 – 2.5 (– 3.5) cm, areoles large, spiny all over (small, spines only at rim); flank of seeds not ridged (ridges present; see also Stuppy 2002). Moreover, both occur in different habitats: Sphaeropuntia is distributed between the latitudes of 33 ° S and 18 ° S and from sea-level to the Pre-Cordillera (100 – 3700 m), while members of the genus Cumulopuntia are mainly distributed in the Altiplano regions (3700 – 4300 m). According to these findings we accept Sphaeropuntia Gucchi.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEEFFBCFF050127FD36F85B.taxon	discussion	— Kiesling (1984) and Rodríguez et al. (2018) placed Tephrocactus nigrispinus (K. Schum.) Backeb. within the genus Maihueniopsis. This assumption was not supported by molecular studies (Wallace & Dickie 2002, Griffith & Porter 2009, Ritz et al. 2012).	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEFFFBDFF050433FEDCFD32.taxon	discussion	— The Austrocactus species from around the town of Chile Chico was shown to be A. coxii (K. Schum.) Backeb. (see Walter 2019) and not A. patagonicus Hosseus according to Rodríguez et al. (2018) and Hunt et al. (2013, 2016). A. coxii can easily be distinguished from A. patagonicus (= A. bertinii Britton & Rose) by large multi-headed cushions (vs. simple, rarely few-headed in A. patagonicus), branches 10 – 15 cm long (vs. 50 – 60 cm) and 5 cm thick (vs. to 15 cm), all spines straight (vs. hooked), centrals 2.0 – 2.5 cm (vs. 2 – 4 cm), flowers yellow to orange (vs. pinkish to white).	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEFFFBDFF0504EBFA0BFA72.taxon	discussion	— The genus includes two main clades according to Larridon et al. (2018) and Merklinger et al. (2021). The two groups are morphologically and phylogenetically supported and clearly associated with geographical changes in the Atacama Desert (a proposed key is reported below). According to the results of the phylogenetic analyses three former species-complexes were resolved: Eulychnia acida Phil., E. breviflora Phil., and E. iquiquensis (K. Schum.) Britton & Rose.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEFFFBDFF0503F1FD40F8D9.taxon	discussion	— The Notocacteae had long been a heterogeneous group of South American genera (Parodia Speg., Eriosyce Phil., Blossfeldia Werderm., Frailea Britton & Rose, Copiapoa, Eulychnia, Neowerdermannia Frič, and Austrocactus). Nyffeler’s (2002) DNA-based study, however, showed that Notocacteae sensu Hunt et al. (2006) is highly polyphyletic and, therefore, he reduced the tribe to the strongly supported monophyletic group (“ core Notocacteae ”) comprising Eriosyce s. l., Parodia Speg. s. l., and Neowerdermannia. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) showed that the two monotypic genera Rimacactus Mottram and Yavia Kiesling & Pilz, as well as Eriosyce, Parodia, and Neowerdermannia, form a strongly supported monophyletic clade (“ Notocacteae ”). Finally, the results of Guerrero et al. (2019) corroborated the monophyly of the tribe, yet Hunt et al. (2013) upheld the inclusion of Blossfeldia Werderm. and Frailea Britton & Rose within tribe Notocacteae.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEFFFBDFF0506F5FE61FDDB.taxon	discussion	— Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) stated that the monophyly of the tribe is well supported by Nyffeler (2002) and Crozier (2005). Moreover, for nomenclatural reasons, the name Phyllocacteae (incl. Echinocereeae Buxb.) must be used because it has priority over all the other relevant tribal names, i. e. Hylocereeae Buxb., Leptocereeae Buxb., Pachycereeae Buxb. and Peniocereeae Doweld. Despite of this, Hunt et al. (2013) placed the three Chilean genera (Austrocactus Britton & Rose, Eulychnia Phil., and Corryocactus Britton & Rose) within Echinocereeae Buxb., Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) proposed the following three subtribes, one of which (Subtribe Corryocactinae Buxb.) includes the three Chilean genera. The relationships between Austrocactus, Eulychnia, and Corryocactus was corroborated by various molecular-based studies (e. g. Nyffeler 2002, Hernández-Hernández et al. 2011, Bárcenas et al. 2011).	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEFFFBFFF050135FAC3FB66.taxon	discussion	— This endemic genus has formerly been regarded as a member of the tribe Notacacteae Buxb., e. g. by Barthlott & Hunt (1993), Anderson (2001), Hoffmann & Walter (2004), and Hunt et al. (2006). Molecular studies by Nyffeler (2002), Korotkova et al. (2010), Nyffeler & Eggli (2010), Arakaki et al. (2011), and Hernández-Hernández et al. (2011) suggested that Copiapoa is not a member of this tribe as it appears isolated on its own clade. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) treated Copiapoa as a genus of uncertain relationship (incertae sedis), whereas Korotkova et al. (2010) suggested a close relation between Copiapoa and Calymmanthium F. Ritter, although morphology, ecology, and distribution of the two genera are very different. In Nyffeler (2002) and Hernández-Hernández et al. (2011), both genera appear together in a polytomy. Finally, Hunt et al. (2013) accepted Doweld`s (2002) recognition of a “ tribe Copiapoae ”. In consideration of the complex situation and the lack of data, we here consider Nyffeler & Eggli’s (2010) concept (incertae sedis). Several infrageneric classifications of Copiapoa based on morphological characters had been proposed by Ritter (1980) [two subgenera (subgenus Pilocopiapoa F. Ritter and subgenus Copiapoa F. Ritter) and five unnamed sections]. Doweld (2002) proposed three sections (sect. Pilocopiapoa (F. Ritter) Doweld (one serie), sect. Echinopoa Doweld (two series: Echinoidei Doweld and Cinerei Doweld), and sect. Copiapoa (two series: Humilis Doweld and Copiapoa); mainly based on general morphological data (Hunt 2001) and stem mucilage and / or root types. Taylor (2001) proposed two subgenera (subgen. Pilocopiapoa (F. Ritter) F. Ritter) and subgen. Copiapoa (five unformal “ groups ”: “ marginata ”, “ cinerea ”, “ hypogaea ”, “ cinerascens ”, and “ humilis ”). None of these concepts were corroborated by the molecular phylogeny presented by Larridon et al. (2015) whose data retrieved the four well supported sections: sect. Pilocopiapoa (with 1 species), sect. Mammilopoa Helmut Walter & Larridon (1 species), sect. Copiopoa [with two subsections: subsect. Cinerei (Doweld) Helmut Walter & Larridon (2 species), subsect. Copiapoa (22 species)], sect. Echinopoa (Doweld) Helmut Walter & Larridon (5 species) and two basal unnamed monotypic clades (“ Copiapoa australis ” and “ Copiapoa laui ”) (see the proposed key below). According to the results of the phylogenetic analyses five speciescomplexes were split: C. humilis (Phil.) Hutchison, C. cinerea (Phil.) Britton & Rose, C. taltalensis (Werderm.) Looser, C. montana F. Ritter, and C. coquimbana (Rümpler) Britton & Rose.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEFFFBFFF050135FAC3FB66.taxon	discussion	Several new taxa in the genus Copiapoa were recently proposed in different journals. As none of them had been included in the sampling of a molecular-based study, we decided not to accept them as long as they are not corroborated by molecular phylogenies: Copiapoa coquimbana subsp. rubrispina Piombetti in Xerophilia 4 (3): 76. 2015; Copiapoa longispinea subsp. imperialis Piombetti in Xerophilia 4 (3): 78. 2015; Copiapoa corralensis Schaub & Keim in Cactus Explorer 16: 48. 2016; Copiapoa fusca Schaub, Cactus Explorer 16: 42. 2016; Copiapoa humilis subsp. matancillensis Schaub & Keim in Cactus & Co 20 (1): 15. 2016. Concerning Copiapoa gigantea Backeb., Hunt et al. (2006) use the epithet “ haseltoniana ” (instead of “ gigantea ”) in the combination C. cinerea subsp. haseltoniana (Backeb.) N. P. Taylor (see species list). The results by Larridon et al. (2015, 2018 b) suggest that this taxon is not closely related to C. cinerea and should thus be considered as a valid species. Also, C. gigantea has priority over C. haseltoniana at species level (ICN, Art. 11.2) as below reported.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEDFFB8FF3002C2FE91FF1E.taxon	materials_examined	Type: — Not designated.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEDFFB8FF3002C2FE91FF1E.taxon	materials_examined	Type: — CHILE, östl. Paposo, s. d. [1956], Ritter 208 b [holotype SGO 124843, (corpus), areoles, spines].	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEDFFB8FF3002C2FE91FF1E.taxon	discussion	Notes: — Backeberg (1936: 104) gave a vague type locality (“ Chile: Provinz Antofagasta, auf nachts oft nebelfeuchten Berggipfeln ” = “ Chile: Province Antofagasta, on mountain peaks that are often damp at night ”) in the protologue of his Copiapoa gigantea. Later, the same author (Backeberg 1977: 107) specified the locality as “ above Paposo ”. Ritter (1980: 1100) accepted Backeberg’s species for plants occurring east of Paposo area (“ Gegen die Wüste des Hinterlandes wächst sie aber nur gegen Süden, während sie im gleichen Klima und in gleicher Höhenlage etwas nördlicher, nämlich östlich von PAPOSO ... ” = “ Towards the desert of the hinterland, however, it [Copiapoa gigantea var. gigantea] only grows towards the south, while in the same climate and at the same altitude it grows a little further north, namely east of PAPOSO ... ”) and proposed C. haseltoniana Backeb. at variety rank of C. gigantea (Ritter 1980: 1101) for plant occurrring in “ ... nördlich Paposo an der Küste ... ” (= “ ... north of Paposo on the coast ... ”). Concerning Copiapoa eremophila, Ritter (1980: 1105) reported “ Typusort. östlich von PAPOSO am Rand der Vollwüste als einzige noch wachsende Kakteenart; nur von hier bekannt. Von mir entdeckt 1956. Nr. FR 476 (= 208 a) ”, the “ Typusort ” can be considered as “ holotype ”. We traced this specimen at SGO. Its morphology corresponds to the current concept of C. gigantea (see e. g., Larridon et al. 2015). The “ current ” concept of Copiapoa gigantea (based on molecular evidence) is Larridon 2015. There are no other works occupying with the status of C. gigantea. Former concepts treated C. gigantea as a synonym of C. cinerea subsp. haseltonia (Hunt et al., Hoffmann & Walter (2004), Anderson (2001) as a synonym of Copiapoa haseltonia and Slaba, (in Kaktussy (special) 33: 3. 1997) as C. cinerea subsp. gigantea for sharing the following characters: Apical wool orange-brown; large dense multi-headed mounds; stem diameter 10 – 25 cm, farina-covered; spines honey-coloured, later turning greyish-blackish, more numerous at higher elevations; young areoles orange brown. Accordingly, and since the type locality of C. eremophila is nearly the same of that of C. gigantea (Paposo), we here propose to synonymize the two names.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFEAFFBBFF0506F7FA0BF7C7.taxon	discussion	— The results of the molecular phylogeny by Guerrero et al. (2019 b) show that Eriosyce s. l. (see also Kattermann 1994) species from Chile, Perú, and Argentina form a strongly supported monophyletic clade, but only with the exclusion of Rimacactus laui (Lüty) Mottram, a species that had been included within Eriosyce section Neoporteria subsection Chileosyce by Kattermann (1994, as Eriosyce laui Lüthy) and within the “ Islaya - group ” by Hunt et al. (2006, 2013, as Eriosyce laui). Phylogenetic analyses retrieved seven major clades in the genus (Guerrero et al. 2019 b). The first branching clade (Section Eriosyce Katt.) comprises two species from Chile, one from Argentina, and two from Perú. The next branching clade (Section Campanulatae P. C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter) comprised two taxa from southern-central Chile [Eriosyce marksiana (F. Ritter), Eriosyce marksiana var. lissocarpa (F. Ritter) Katt.]. Subsequently branching is a clade (Section Pyrrhocactus (A. Berger) P. C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter) harbouring four species endemic to Argentina. Then, a group of 12 taxa endemic to south and and northern-central Chile (Sect. Horridocactus (Backeb.) P. C. Guerrero & H. E. Walter). The next branching clade formed by three species endemic to north central Chile (Section Diaguita P. C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter). Subsequently branching is a clade comprising 15 taxa endemic to south and northcentral Chile (Sect. Horridocactus (Backeb.) P. C. Guerrero & H. E. Walter), and finally, an unnamed clade composing 22 taxa from northern Chile. In Kattermann (1994), Wallace proposed an infrageneric classification with two sections [sect. Eriosyce (with subsect. Eriosyce, subsect. Islaya (Backeb.) Katt., and subsect. Pyrrhocactus (A. Berger) Katt. and sect. Neoporteria (with subsect. Neoporteria (Britton & Rose) Katt., subsect. Horridocactus (Backeb.) Katt., and subsect. Chileosyce Katt.), whereas Hunt et al. (2006, 2013) and Hoffmann & Walter (2004) proposed six “ groups ” (= subgenera) based on the former genera Islaya Backeb., Pyrrhocactus A. Berger, Neoporteria Britton & Rose, Horridocactus Backeb., Thelocephala Ito, and Eriosyce Phil. None of these concepts were corroborated by the results of the molecular phylogeny (Guerrero et al. 2019 b). Moreover, at species level, the large “ species complexes ” E. napina (Phil.) Katt., E. odieri (Lem. ex Salm-Dyck) Katt., E. heinrichiana (Backeb.) Katt., E. subgibbosa (Haw.) Katt., (Backeb.) Katt and E. curvispina (Bertero ex Colla) Katt. were not supported by the results of Guerrero et al. (2019 b) (see Table 2). In addition, the taxonomic delimitation of E. curvispina Bertero ex Colla including several infraspecies did not resist standing upright much longer, by not complying with the principle of monophyly as reported by Guerrero et al (2019 b), and by new molecular data of several putative members of the E. curvispina complex (Villalobos-Barrantes et al. 2022). Concerning Eriosyce kunzei (C. F. Först.) Katt., a nomenclatural note is necessary. In the protologue of Echinocactus kunzei, Förster gave “ Chile ” as the type locality but mentioned that the plants are sometimes covered by a light layer of snow in winter. F. Ritter (1980) referred Förster’s E. kunzei to the plants from near Copiapó, that perfectly match Förster’s description (see Table 3 F. Ritter, Kakteen in Südamerika, p. p. 955 and 956 and the specimen at SGO 121487, Ritter 220 loc. 2) clearly shows the typically long and narrow areole of this taxon. Kattermann (1994), however, chose material from Guanta, Provincia de Elqui, FK 459 (DBG) for his typification of Eriosyce kunzei and based his decision not to refer the plants from around Copiapó to Förster’s Echinocactus kunzei (as proposed by F. Ritter, 1980) on the single argument that it never snows in this area. Yet, according to meteorological data (Vergara 2011) this assumption cannot be upheld. Hunt (2003) stated that “ … the editorial preference would be to supersede Kattermann’s neotypification and to substitute FR 220 material from Paipote (SGO 121487) ”. Moreover, several relevant morphological characters (Kattermann 1994; stems, areoles and spines, see Table 3) of the plants from Guanta and its vicinity do not match Försters original description. We thus follow F. Ritter’s proposal to refer Förster’s Echinocactus kunzei to the plants from the vicinity of Copiapó. This makes E. confinis (F. Ritter) Katt. a heterotypic synonym of E. kunzei (C. F. Först.) Katt. (see list of species). With regard to Echinocactus jussieui Monv. ex Salm Dyck a note is necessary. E. jussieui was published by Salm-Dyck (1849: 34, 170 – 171) in his Hortus Dyckensis with a short diagnosis (“ Caule aterrime virente, tuberculis gibberatis in costas 13 subconfluentibus, aculeisque brunneis ad praecedentem valde accedit; sed differt aculei centrali validissimo ”). No specimen referring to the original material could be traced and, therefore, a neotypification is required according to the Art. 9.8 of ICN (Turland et al. 2018). Ritter (1980) used the epiteth jussieui for plants occurring in the middle and upper Elqui Valley (Pyrrhocactus jussieui (Monv. ex Salm-Dyck) F. Ritter var. jussieui and var. spinosior F. Ritter), argueing that these plants match Salm-Dyck’s original protologue (see below) based on “ body blackish-green ”, “ ribs 13 ”, “ ribs tuberculate ”, “ spines brown ”, “ strong central spine ”. Kattermann (1994: 156), however, considered E. jussieui as “ a name of doubtful application, possibly referable to Eriosyce heinrichiana (Backeb.) Katt. ”. To avoid the epithet “ jussieui ”, he chose the name E. heinrichiana subsp. intermedia var. intermedia (F. Ritter) Katt. for the plants in and around the Elqui Valley. Yet, Ritter’s locality for his P. setosiflora var. intermedia was “ 60 km south of the Elqui Valley low coastal hills ”. The morphology of the plants occurring in this region differs in several character states from the plants in the middle- and upper Elqui Valley (plants from the Elqui Valley in brackets): stems subglobose to flat on the ground (globose to somewhat elongating), stem diameter 2 – 5 cm (6 – 9 cm), stem colour often reddish-brown (dark-green); spines thin (thick), mostly straight (mostly curved upward), 1.5 – 4.0 cm long (3 – 6 cm); flowers 4 – 6.5 (3 – 4.5); seeds small, 0.9 × 0.7 mm (1.2 × 0.9 mm). Moreover, Kattermann’s “ subspecies intermedia ” is not at all related to E. heinrichiana subsp. heinrichiana, but a species in its own right (Guerrero et al. 2019 b), thus the name E. heinrichiana subsp. intermedia can not be uphold and, consequently, a new name for the plants from the middle- and upper Elqui Valley must be found. Following Ritter’s (1980) arguments, we here propose a new combination for these plants under the genus Eriosyce as well as a neotypification of Echinocactus jussieui based on a Ritter’s collection:	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFE8FFBAFF300463FE28FD34.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: — CHILE: Atacama, Totoral, 1956, Ritter 500 (U 0249077! https: // data. biodiversitydata. nl / naturalis / specimen / U % 20 % 200249077).	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFE8FFBAFF30073FFDB0FE77.taxon	materials_examined	Type (neotype, designated here): — CHILE: Coquimbo, Elqui, 20 km West of Vicuña, Ritter 252 a [SGO 121545!, corpus, areoles, spines (includes a small rooted seedling)].	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFF6FFA4FF05068FFB8BFE8A.taxon	discussion	— Nyffeler & Eggli (2010) proposed a broader circumscription of the tribe Cereeae than traditional concepts (see e. g., Anderson 2001, 2005, Hunt et al. 2013). Lendel (2006) and Ritz et al. (2007) showed, in fact, that the traditionally circumscribed Cereeae and Trichocereeae are not monophyletic. Therefore, we follow Nyffeler & Eggli’s (2010) concept of a tribe Cereeae with three subtribes, i. e. Cereinae Britton & Rose, Rebutiinae Donald (incl. Browningieae Buxb.) and Trichocereinae Britton & Rose.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFF6FFA4FF050743FD52FD87.taxon	discussion	— Various molecular-based studies (e. g. Lendel et al. 2006, Ritz et al. 2007) showed that Browningia Britton & Rose is closely related to Rebutia K. Schum., while other authors using only morphology-based characters (e. g. Hunt et al. 2013, Anderson 2001, 2005) placed the two genera in different tribes: Hunt et al. (2013) placed Browningia in tribe Cereeae and Rebutia in tribe Trichocereeae, whereas Anderson (2001, 2005) placed Rebutia in Trichocereeae and Browningia in Browningieae (together with Stetsonia Britton & Rose, Jasminocereus Britton & Rose, Armatocereus Backeb. and Neoraimondia Britton & Rose). We here accept to include Browningieae in the tribe Rebutiinae.	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
03B987C7FFF6FFA4FF05045FFC8EFB6B.taxon	discussion	— Most of the genera in Subtribe Trichocereine are also found in the traditional concept “ Trichocereae ” and the same applies to all the five Chilean genera [Haageocereus Backeb., Leucostele Backeb., Lobivia Britton & Rose, Oreocereus (A. Berger) Riccob., and Soehrensia Backeb.] in the Subtribe Trichocereinae. Based on DNA sequences and a broad sampling, Schlumperger & Renner (2012) showed that the large genus Echinopsis Zucc. is polyphyletic. Consequently, many former segregate genera were reinstalled, and the names of the Chilean taxa needed to be changed from Echinopsis s. l. into Leucostele Backeb., Lobivia Britton & Rose, and Soehrensia Backeb. (Schlumpberger 2012). Hunt (2012, 2016, see Table 2), accepted Schlumperger’s concept as “ alternative ”, while Rodríguez et al. (2018) still upheld the Echinopsis s. l. concept. Concerning the genus Leucostele, the old name Cactus coquimbanus Mol. has recently been rejected for being ambiguous (Eggli & Walter 2012) and Wilson (2016). Consequently, all combinations using this basionym must be abandoned. Among them is “ Leucostele coquimbana (Mol.) Schlumpb. ”. A new combination of Cereus nigripilis Phil., which represents the shrubby columnar plants occurring along the coast from the Coquimbo- to the Atacama Region was recently proposed [Leucostele nigripilis (Phil.) P. C. Guerrero & Helmut Walter (see Guerrero & Walter 2019 and Table 2)]. Several new taxa in the genus Leucostele were also recently proposed in different journals. As none of them had been included in the sampling of a molecular-based study, we decided not to accept them as long as they are supported by molecular phylogenies: L. faundezii (Albesiano) Schlumpb., L. pectinifera (Albesiano) Schlumpb., and L. undulosa (Albesiano) Schlumpb. (Korotkova et al. 2021).	en	Walter, Helmut E., Guerrero, Pablo C. (2022): Towards a unified taxonomic catalogue for the Chilean cacti: assembling molecular systematics and classical taxonomy. Phytotaxa 550 (2): 79-98, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.1
