In the late 1970s, when this review
was written, the literature on Rhipsalis could be broken into
four categories:
- those on general subjects that mentioned Rhipsalis
only briefly,
- general articles and lists,
- review articles on individual species, and
- original professional articles that reported
new species or analyzed established species in depth.
In the category of article that includes those making
brief mention of Rhipsalis, we find very little of substantive
value. These references include Lindman (1900) who listed R. funalis,
R. saglionis, R. warmingiana, R. caniculata, R. sarmentacea and
R. myosurus with out significant discussion. Usteri (1911),
in German, made passing reference to Hariota salicornioides
and R. gracilis as species from Sao Paulo, Brazil. (All
references in this article.)
Stahl (1936) merely reported finding R. fasciculata
in Puerto Rico. And Standley mentioned Rhipsalis in various
issues of th e Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Botanical Series,
to wit, R. cassutha and R. purpusii in Mexico (1924);
R. cassutha in the Panama Canal Zone (1928); R. cassutha
and R. coriacea in Costa Rica (1936); and R. acuminata
in Costa Rica (1937-38). Steyermark and collaborators (SIC) (1951-52)
wrote of R. jamaicensis as an epiphyte in a Venezuelan forest,
the first report of this particular species from that country.
These brief references, along with many obscure references,
add little to our understanding of Rhipsalis. At best they
locate potential collection sites for researchers.
The general review articles and lists, category 2
of the Rhipsalis literature, vary from journal articles that
provide an interpretation of the genus for laymen, to books on cacti
that "cover" the genus. Newton (1974) mentioned R. baccifera
from Africa and included much-needed photographs in an overview of
Ghana cacti. Byles (1955) touched on H. salicornioides in
a one-page review while Rowley (1965) summarized the entire genus
in less than a half page.
Tomlinson (1971) was far more detailed and provided an account of
major generic differences among a number of genera usually linked
with Rhipsalis. Rauh (1967), along with Barthlott (1977)
and Haage (1963) also fall into the category of general overviews
although Barthlott's is the most accurate modern work.
Finally, in this category, there are more lengthy annotated lists
by Borg (1956) and Graf (1973 and earlier editions), and lesser listings
by Bailey (1919) and Bailey and Bailey (1941, 1976). At the time I
conducted my initial study in the late 1970s, Innes' 1977 coverage
appeared to be the most recent. More has been published since then
but I have not had luck getting the publications.
Review articles on Rhipsalis, category 3, tend to be recent,
written in German, and while not adding substantively to the Rhipsalis
story, nevertheless are informative, useful, and much needed. This
category includes articles by Oetken (1973) on L. neves-armondii,
Psuedorhipsalis macrantha (1972), R. aculeata (1972),
R. fasciculata (1971), R. houlletiana (1970), R.
purpusii (1969) and Subtribus Rhipsalinae (1972). Other
works in this category are Liebheit (1974) on Erythrorhipsalis
pilocarpa, Knallinger (1974) on R. mesembryanthemoides
and Friedrich (1974) on R. saxatile. All were in German.
An early review by Roland-Gosselin (1913), in English, discussed the
question of indigenous Rhipsalis in Africa and has historic
value to the student of this genus.
The most important category of literature on Rhipsalis includes
the original work by botanists who named new species or conducted
in-depth reviews of all or part of the genus. This group includes
early works by Baker (1886) on Madagascan flora, Pfeiffer's extensive
work on Rhipsalis taxonomy typified by his 1843 writings;
Schumann's writings typified by his 1899 work; and the work of Salm-Dyck
(1850). Numerous early botanical works by Haworth, Berger, Weber,
Lindberg, Brown, Grisebach amd others are normally inaccessible and
often not in English. These early works were extensively reviewed
by Rose during the preparation of The Cactacea (Britton and
Rose, 1923).
Other botanists' work of the early 1900s falls into this category
of valuable literature including Britton (1909) who wrote on R.
cassutha, R. alata and R. jamaicensis. Other works of
this period, which will be discussed in detail later, are Lofgren
(1915, 1918), the aforementioned Britton and Rose, and the more recent
Backeberg (1956). Barthlott's (1974) detailed work on the R. micrantha
complex falls into this category, but is unusual because it is so
recent. Udalova's (1976) research on "seedling morphogenesis"
in 15 species of Rhipsalis and one Epiphyllopsis
probably belongs here too.
Addenda
From about 1976 through the mid 1980s, Myron Kimnach
wrote about Rhipsalis in the Cactus and Succulent Journal
(US). Wilhelm Barthlott wrote elsewhere, in German. Probably
there are other authors. Let us know
if you run across them.