Maihueniopsis ID

[MikeT]

I'm assuming that this is a Maihueniopsis, but no idea of the name. New pads start off without the glochid tufts, but develop them later.

Is there enough to get an ID?
In my defence, there were loads more cobwebs before I tidied it up.

[Tony R]

I would put it down as a M. glomerata for now and see how it grows on.

[MikeT]

Thanks, Tony

I did find a very faded label, and with suitable lighting can make out Tephro ech...
I'm not sure whether this label relates to this plant, but is Cumulopuntia boliviana echinacea a possibility for this plant?

[RAYWOODBRIDGE]

Interesting Mike; Tony goes for the catch all M. glomerata and I cannot fault that, then you mention an old label, my first thought was echinacea has darker spines even red in some cases, but then I found a picture by Brian Woods taken in Bolivia and the plant does look very similar to yours. No wonder these plants have been moved around in the classification of South American opuntia species.
Hopefully Nobby ( Norbert Sarnes ) will see this and give us his info.

[MikeT]

I have a number of plants labelled Maihueniopsis glomerata (some of which started with other names, but following NCL I have changed to glomerata). They vary considerably in appearance, with regard to size of joints and spination. I can quite believe that a widespread species can have differing forms, and also that points in a spectrum can then get labels as different species. But lacking expert knowledge of plants in the wild (well lacking any knowledge of these plants in the wild ), I'm dependent on someone else to give me help.

Most of my opuntias (in the wider sense) live in a cold frame. I've been repotting last week, removing the various weeds that have made their way in. It surprised me how many had lost their roots (the opuntias that is, the weeds had plenty). They were dry overwinter, I wonder whether they would have benefitted from water earlier in the year when it was warm. Root loss probably isn't a great way to encourage flowers.

[Tony R]

Hi Mike,

I chose Maihueniopsis rather than Cumulopuntia since the distribution of areoles looked uniform across the whole of the (some) segments. Cumulopuntia have more areoles near the top than the bottom. But time will tell.

Regarding NCL and Maihueniopsis, too many species were lumped together under glomerata, partly mistakenly and partly because of lack of good knowledge of the Chilean Maihueniopsis. Following Kattermann's work amongst others, the number of Chilean species was widened again, and some of the old and new names resurfaced. This is covered in the NCL Updates in CSI 35 (December 2016).

[nobby]

Hello, Mike,
like Tony, I'm would say it is maihueniopsis. For M. glomerata the thorns are a bit short - but that can change. Without a flower it is difficult to make a reliable statement.
With time and good care it will show what it is.
Nobby

[MikeT]

Thanks, Tony & Nobby

Glomerata it is then, while I wait for a flower. I don't think any of my glomeratas have flowered (yet?), so I won't hold my breath.

[Phil_SK]

then you mention an old label, my first thought was echinacea has darker spines even red in some cases, but then I found a picture by Brian Woods taken in Bolivia

A photo taken in Bolivia can't be echinacea as that has a very small distribution in the north of Chile and south of Peru. It's one of the few Andean opuntias that I've never come across in cultivation - it's uncommon.

[RAYWOODBRIDGE]

I thought that myself Phil, the photo was on the Cacti guide.com forum and as you say I don't remember echinacea being offered for sale at all, not even Michael Kiessling back in the day when he was specializing in small South American Opuntia.