Mammillaria id

[Terry S.]

Many of those photos in Chris's hyperlink look like M. carmenae to me or perhaps hybrids of that species. Compare the shape of the flowers on those plants and on the plants in the images with this thread. Spine count is also wildly different.

On the subject of hybridity, I saw a large batch of seedlings at a Dutch wholesale nursery which contained M. carmenae and M. lauii, but with every possible variation in between those two species. These hybrids probably ended up being distributed as one or other of those species but even authentic-looking examples would have contained genes from the other species.

Few people seem to value authenticity. A couple of years ago I sold some veg-propped M. carmenae when I broke up an old plant that had been raised from an early Alfred Lau seed collection - it took a long time to sell the small number of plants that I had.

[Chris43]

Many of those photos in Chris's hyperlink look like M. carmenae to me or perhaps hybrids of that species. Compare the shape of the flowers on those plants and on the plants in the images with this thread. Spine count is also wildly different.

I do agree that they look different, but they are similar to the clone I obtained in 1999, just one year after it was described. That, together with the reply from one of the two discoverer's of M. giselae, make me think that there is no mistake. M. carmenae has far more spines, though the arrangement is not dissimilar, its description say sup to 100.

If the albiflora form were to be M. carmenae, then it would be a significant new population, over 100kms from where it was originally found, and I would have thought that would surely have been recognised. But stranger things have happened.

I'll check with a few locals in Tamaulipas who I know have seen both species in habitat and hope for a response, as it would be good to have some clarification.

[Chris43]

OK, I had a quick reply. As far as my contact is concerned, the plant shown in the link that I posted earlier is not something that has been seen at the M. giselae sites. He has seen a very pale, almost white flowered plant in habitat some years ago, but it had the normal spines. He does wonder if it is a hybrid, as we all know that M. carmenae hybridises well with M. lauii for example, and so was produced in cultivation and showed up in a batch of seedlings. Also he doesn't think it has anything to do with M. schiedeana, just an isolated species in a similar manner to M. anniana.

I suspect that he is right, having just been into the greenhouse and counted spines with a jeweller's loupe. There are certainly more spines on it than on M. giselae, enough more to probably be beyond normal variation. The growth habit, of my plant at least, is much slower than either of the putative parents. I also relooked at the emails I had years ago, and saw that I didn't send a photo, so I rather think that when I talked about a plant with paler flower and spines, the assumption made was that they weren't different in number or arrangement, and that could correspond with the pants that my contact also saw.

It just goes to show that I should have looked more carefully, and not taken at face value the name on the plant!

[iann]

Just had a quick look at the link and my impression is the same: perhaps not quite M. carmenae but almost certainly something close to it.

[iann]

And here's an entirely gratuitous photo of a bunch of M. lasiacantha seedlings, authentic to the best of my knowledge.

[Tony R]

The seeds were purchased as Mammillaria lasiacantha, we had good germination however as they've grown I've become more doubtful that they are lasiacantha due to the spination. Does anyone have any thoughts to what they may be?

Many thanks

Vicky

file.jpg (139.32 KiB) Viewed 1328 times

Since these lovely 'early flowering mamms' are in vogue on the Forum at the moment, I've found this post from Vicky a couple of years ago.

I acquired three of these seedlings, thanks to Vicky and Chris, and there are now growing on well in 6cm pots. They have been flowering well over the last few weeks (with typical flowers of lasiacantha) but I post a picture taken of them this morning:

[Aiko]

I bought seeds from these 2017 sown plants as Mammillaria lasiacantha, from Cerro Bola, Coahuila, Mexico and locality number RS571. Can anyone confirme these look as Mammillaria lasiacantha?

They flowered after four years, but this is the best picture of them in flower I have... I do have other Mammillaria lasiacantha growing, and those are more in line with what I expect them to look like (more white, less prominent spines pointing outward). Of course different localities could have a different look.

Still I have my doubts. However, I do have another pot with Mammillaria lasiacantha growing that look a bit like these too, lifting my hope they are truly M. lasiacantha a bit.

Mammillaria lasiacantha (RS571, Cerro Bola, Coahuila, Mexico)?

[Cidermanrolls]

None of the lasiacantha group seeds I’ve ever grown have had centrals as prominent as those… a few look hooked. I’m thinking a prolifera hybrid..but the pics are not great

[Aiko]

Let's see if this is helpful, a close-up of one of the flowering plants:

[Chris43]

The presence of hooked spines is not unkown in the lasiacantha group. The name of M. magallani v. hamataspinaIts been known at least since Backeberg times, and exists as a good subspecies of M. magallani on Llifle. More recently, TL103 from San Rafael in Coahuila is this which I grew from seed from Doug Rowland in 2006. So I wouldn't rush to assume that hooked spines in this group mean hybridisation.
I suppose that it might be a natural hybrid, and the suggestion of M. prolifera as a parent isn't unreaistic. It has been reported from Coahuila, though not quite as far west as San Rafael (near midway between Torreon and Saltillo), but just to the north of Saltillo.
However, there are quite a few species that exhibit both straight and hooked central spines, and I prefer to think that this is one of those.