Pelecyphora chihuahuensis

Species name and subspecies

The name Pelecyphora chihuahuensis was published in 2022 in the account by Sánchez and colleagues. It is based on Escobaria chihuahuensis Britton & Rose from 1923. Older literature also contains Coryphantha chihuahuensis and Escocoryphantha chihuahuensis. POWO now accepts the species in Pelecyphora and recognises subsp. chihuahuensis and subsp. henricksonii. [Sánchez et al. 2022, Sánchez et al., pp. 131–132. POWO, as of 11 October 2026] [2-WWW]

The type material of the species is Edward Palmer's collection no. 72 from near the city of Chihuahua, dated 8 April 1908. Subsp. henricksonii was initially described as Escobaria henricksonii in 1977. Its type comes from Chihuahua, from J.S. Henrickson's collection no. 7744 of September 1972. Both sets of documents show the material to which the names apply. [Sánchez et al. 2022, p. 131–132]

Body and relationships

In the characterisation included in the 2016 field study, stems were described as solitary to clumping, cylindrical, 7–9 cm high and 4–5 cm in diameter. Pink flowers form on the upper tubercles near the apex. The species was associated with small-leaved and rosette-forming xerophytic scrub and rocky hills. This description also includes elongated stems, supplementing the short, globose characterisation in a later review. [Ibarra-Díaz Velarde et al. 2016, p. 12, species characterisation in the introduction to the methods]

The 2026 review characterises the plant as a small, globose cactus with dense, complex spination. It describes the typical habit as mostly solitary, while material formerly called Escobaria henricksonii is described as forming extensive clumps. Variation in this character contributed to the history of different treatments of the subspecies in classification. [Loweree-Rivera et al. 2026, pp. 2, 4]

In the 2022 analysis of plastid DNA and morphology, the species was placed in a group with P. aselliformis, P. strobiliformis, P. laredoi and P. tuberculosa. The outer tepals of former Escobaria have ciliate margins, and the seed-coat surface is usually pitted. In P. chihuahuensis the pits are shallow. This detail was recognised as an exception to the more deeply recessed relief of other members. [Sánchez et al. 2022, p. 119, 122–125]

Chihuahua and potential sites

Ibarra-Díaz Velarde and colleagues studied the species in 2016 under the name Coryphantha chihuahuensis. During fieldwork they recorded 20 georeferenced occurrence sites. They then combined bioclimatic data, elevation, soils, land use and vegetation in MaxEnt models. The method compares the environments of known sites with conditions across a wider area, indicating potentially suitable places. [Ibarra-Díaz Velarde et al. 2016, pp. 11–14]

Fieldwork took place in July and August 2013. Plants were found at 20 of the 56 sites checked. Three sets of environmental data were compared. The first contained only bioclimatic variables, the second also included elevation, and the third additionally included soils, land use and vegetation. Calculations were performed for 1 × 1 km map cells. In each analysis, 75% of records were used for training and 25% for model testing. [Ibarra-Díaz Velarde et al. 2016, pp. 12–14]

The authors obtained AUC values above 0.90 and identified mean diurnal temperature range as an important variable. AUC describes the model's ability to distinguish between the occurrence data and environmental background data used. In a small sample of 20 known points, the high value of this measure reflects the validation method applied. The authors proposed adding slope inclination and aspect to the models and conducting further field searches. [Ibarra-Díaz Velarde et al. 2016, pp. 14–16]

The modelling result concerns possible occurrence in an environment described by the variables used. Known field points and areas indicated by the model are two different types of data. For a local range, search completeness and map resolution also affect the result. The 2026 review identified a need to check range boundaries in the field, including reports from northern Durango. [Ibarra-Díaz Velarde et al. 2016, Ibarra-Díaz Velarde et al., pp. 14–16. Loweree-Rivera et al., p. 2] [Loweree-Rivera et al. 2026, Ibarra-Díaz Velarde et al., pp. 14–16. Loweree-Rivera et al., p. 2]

Conservation and the scope of biotechnology research

The 2026 review discusses habitat loss and fragmentation, plant collection pressure and the need to define distribution more precisely. It also emphasises the development of methods for storing material and propagating plants outside their habitat. Its conclusions on threats synthesise earlier sources. The authors do not present a new experiment measuring population abundance or survival in this species. [Loweree-Rivera et al. 2026, pp. 2–3, 18–19, data statement on p. 20]

Cryopreservation and gene editing appear in this review as research directions, with examples drawn mainly from other plants. For P. chihuahuensis, the authors explicitly describe CRISPR-Cas use as hypothetical. Documented micropropagation of P. aselliformis and P. strobiliformis was described in separate experiments. Results for these species indicate possible methods to test, while retaining their proper experimental scope. [Loweree-Rivera et al. 2026, Loweree-Rivera et al., p. 20. Pérez-Molphe-Balch and Dávila-Figueroa, pp. 73–78. Badalamenti et al., pp. 2–4] [Pérez-Molphe-Balch and Dávila-Figueroa 2002, Loweree-Rivera et al., p. 20. Pérez-Molphe-Balch and Dávila-Figueroa, pp. 73–78. Badalamenti et al., pp. 2–4] [Badalamenti et al. 2016, Loweree-Rivera et al., p. 20. Pérez-Molphe-Balch and Dávila-Figueroa, pp. 73–78. Badalamenti et al., pp. 2–4]

Related articles