I obtained this plant back in the early 1970s from Dennis Sargant on the Isle of Wight. He was importing Lau collected material at that time and this was bought from him as Mediolobivia oculata Lau 422. The problem is that Ralph's admirable database gives that number as an Echinopsis. So can anyone make sense of this, perhaps it had another number which changed a digit during transcription? It is a nice form but becomes useless if the associated collection data is completely mixed up.
Mediolobivia oculata, what's it really? Solved
Forum rules
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
- Paul D
- BCSS Trustee
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 21 May 2009
- Branch: GRAMPIAN (N.E.Scotland)
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Trustee
- Location: Collieston, Aberdeenshire
- Contact:
Re: Mediolobivia oculata, what's it really?
Lau 422a and 422b are both Mediolobivias- unfortunately both of these have been inappropriately spread as Lau 422 right from the 1930s (according to rebutia.sk). They are listed variously as steinmannii / applanata / cincinnata.
I don't have either plant in my collection to compare, I'm afraid.
I don't have either plant in my collection to compare, I'm afraid.
Paul in North-east Scotland (Grampian Branch BCSS)
National Collection Rebutia, Aylostera & Weingartia (inc. Sulcorebutia). Also growing a mixture including Ferocactus, Gymnocalycium, Lobivia, Mammillaria, Lithops, Gasteria, Haworthia.
http://www.rebutia.org.uk
National Collection Rebutia, Aylostera & Weingartia (inc. Sulcorebutia). Also growing a mixture including Ferocactus, Gymnocalycium, Lobivia, Mammillaria, Lithops, Gasteria, Haworthia.
http://www.rebutia.org.uk
- Ali Baba
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 2296
- Joined: 26 Dec 2007
- Branch: DOVER
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Member
Re: Mediolobivia oculata, what's it really?
The picture of steinmanni ‘cincinnata’ in The cactus file handbook is a good match to your plant, which would match 422a, although the picture isn’t of that collection.
- ralphrmartin
- BCSS Research Committee Chairman
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: None
- Country: United Kingdom
- Role within the BCSS: Chairman - Research
- Location: Pwllheli
- Contact:
Re: Mediolobivia oculata, what's it really?
That plant's body looks like I would expect for occulata, being quite close to that of A. euanthema, which oculata is sometimes listed a variety or form of. However, oculata means eyed, and the flower does not have some change in colour in the throat which is what you would expect for a name like that. Maybe that's not a constant feature.
Some forms of A. euanthema do have a differently coloured throat (see the one I posted a couple of days back as my favourite plant, which is an extreme example).
The only numbers in my database for M. oculata are
RW378 oculata v. nov
RW595 oculata v.
None of the Lau numbers I have refer to oculata.
This page is very helpful (as it is for Rebutias, in the wide sense, in general)
http://www.rebutia.sk/select/names/oculata_s.htm
I suspect that the plant the gets called A. euanthema v. tilcarensis and related names these days is perhaps what was meant by oculata:
E.g.
MN163
WR700
Some forms of A. euanthema do have a differently coloured throat (see the one I posted a couple of days back as my favourite plant, which is an extreme example).
The only numbers in my database for M. oculata are
RW378 oculata v. nov
RW595 oculata v.
None of the Lau numbers I have refer to oculata.
This page is very helpful (as it is for Rebutias, in the wide sense, in general)
http://www.rebutia.sk/select/names/oculata_s.htm
I suspect that the plant the gets called A. euanthema v. tilcarensis and related names these days is perhaps what was meant by oculata:
E.g.
MN163
WR700
Ralph Martin
https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/cacti.html
Members visiting the Llyn Peninsula are welcome to visit my collection.
Swaps and sales at https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/forsale.php
My Field Number Database is at https://www.fieldnos.bcss.org.uk
https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/cacti.html
Members visiting the Llyn Peninsula are welcome to visit my collection.
Swaps and sales at https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/forsale.php
My Field Number Database is at https://www.fieldnos.bcss.org.uk
- Phil_SK
- Moderator
- Posts: 5446
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: MACCLESFIELD & EAST CHESHIRE
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Forum Moderator
- Location: Stockport, UK
Re: Mediolobivia oculata, what's it really?
Even though it was first published in 1935, the original description includes a colour photo:
https://www.cactuspro.com/lecture/Werde ... 56.en.html
The text is on the following page.
While I was hunting around for this, I came across a formal proposal in Taxon to reject the name in favour of euanthema. It didn't succeed, so euanthema isn't valid at species level - oculata is.
I don't think your plant is that, though.
https://www.cactuspro.com/lecture/Werde ... 56.en.html
The text is on the following page.
While I was hunting around for this, I came across a formal proposal in Taxon to reject the name in favour of euanthema. It didn't succeed, so euanthema isn't valid at species level - oculata is.
I don't think your plant is that, though.
Phil Crewe, BCSS 38143. Mostly S. American cacti, esp. Lobivia, Sulcorebutia and little Opuntia
- ralphrmartin
- BCSS Research Committee Chairman
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: None
- Country: United Kingdom
- Role within the BCSS: Chairman - Research
- Location: Pwllheli
- Contact:
Re: Mediolobivia oculata, what's it really? Solved
Thanks for the pointer to the picture Phil. I think (well, hope, anyway) the flower in the original description is consistent with those on the plants in my photos.
Ralph Martin
https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/cacti.html
Members visiting the Llyn Peninsula are welcome to visit my collection.
Swaps and sales at https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/forsale.php
My Field Number Database is at https://www.fieldnos.bcss.org.uk
https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/cacti.html
Members visiting the Llyn Peninsula are welcome to visit my collection.
Swaps and sales at https://www.rrm.me.uk/Cacti/forsale.php
My Field Number Database is at https://www.fieldnos.bcss.org.uk
Re: Mediolobivia oculata, what's it really?
Thank you for these helpful replies. My basic confusion is that Lau 422 is listed as a Parodia (not Echinopsis as I said initially) in the Field Number Data Base. However our National Collection holder has been able to tell us that Lau 422 is usually regarded as Mediolobivia (or whatever genus) steinmannii. Any identification of this material was probably provisional and carried out by Lau or Sargent, so I am not particularly concerned about what microname was put on it. I will now be happy to distribute this clone as Aylostera steinmannii Lau 422 using current nomenclature. The plant is undergoing a two stage demolition because the bottom parts of the stems are now rather brown after 45 years!
- Paul D
- BCSS Trustee
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 21 May 2009
- Branch: GRAMPIAN (N.E.Scotland)
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Trustee
- Location: Collieston, Aberdeenshire
- Contact:
Re: Mediolobivia oculata, what's it really?
Not 422 though, Terry, but 422a. Lau collected three different plants, 422, 422a and 422b. As far as I can tell 422b has been "lost", 422 is a Parodia, and 422a is likely to be your plant.Terry S. wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:50 am Thank you for these helpful replies. My basic confusion is that Lau 422 is listed as a Parodia (not Echinopsis as I said initially) in the Field Number Data Base. However our National Collection holder has been able to tell us that Lau 422 is usually regarded as Mediolobivia (or whatever genus) steinmannii. Any identification of this material was probably provisional and carried out by Lau or Sargent, so I am not particularly concerned about what microname was put on it. I will now be happy to distribute this clone as Aylostera steinmannii Lau 422 using current nomenclature. The plant is undergoing a two stage demolition because the bottom parts of the stems are now rather brown after 45 years!
The habit that collectors have of numbering different plants with the same number but putting a letter after them to distinguish them has long been a source of annoyance for me, particularly when some collectors not only do that, but will even use a small "a" for one plant and a captial "A" for a different plant. No wonder that confusion arises.
I agree with Ralph that it is probably what was called Lobivia euanthema, but oculata (as Aylostera oculata (Werderm.) Mosti & Papini, comb. nov.) was resurrected by them in their 2011 review after molecular studies.
Paul in North-east Scotland (Grampian Branch BCSS)
National Collection Rebutia, Aylostera & Weingartia (inc. Sulcorebutia). Also growing a mixture including Ferocactus, Gymnocalycium, Lobivia, Mammillaria, Lithops, Gasteria, Haworthia.
http://www.rebutia.org.uk
National Collection Rebutia, Aylostera & Weingartia (inc. Sulcorebutia). Also growing a mixture including Ferocactus, Gymnocalycium, Lobivia, Mammillaria, Lithops, Gasteria, Haworthia.
http://www.rebutia.org.uk
Re: Mediolobivia oculata, what's it really?
Thanks again. Many collectors/observers use the a,b,c system to denote different species growing at the same locality - this is what Des Cole did when Lithops finds grew in mixed populations.
- Phil_SK
- Moderator
- Posts: 5446
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: MACCLESFIELD & EAST CHESHIRE
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Forum Moderator
- Location: Stockport, UK
Re: Mediolobivia oculata, what's it really?
I came across that name, too, yesterday, but it's nom. inval. as they listed the basionym wrongly.
Phil Crewe, BCSS 38143. Mostly S. American cacti, esp. Lobivia, Sulcorebutia and little Opuntia