Erioscyce sp

[Mike]

Hi

Any ideas about this. Looks like haucensis, now apparently referred to eriosyzoides atroviridis.

thanks MIke

[Saxicola]

That was my first thought too. The only other one I know like that one is E. occulta, but the flowers are too dark and the spines are too big.

[CactusFanDan]

Oh wow, my heart skipped a beat when I saw that plant, what a beauty. At a glance I thought it was E. villicumensis, but nope, that's E. heinrichiana.

[DaveW]

E. heinrichiana used to go around as jussieui in the past. Ferryman picture of heinrichianus in habitat:-

heinrichianus3.jpg (126.73 KiB) Viewed 1945 times

[Mike]

Thanks , I find id's for Eriosyce maddening. THe plants in cultivation, at least those I have and see around LA, look considerably different than those in habitat. So comparing them to NCL or Katterman's book is not always so helpful.

It does match the plant being sold around are as huausensis, tho exactly what that is may be debatable. http://miles2go.com/images/8544.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I look at the descrptions of atroviridis and heinrichianus, they seem very close, and both grow near Hausco. Interestingly Katterman has huasensis as a form of crispa.

Wish I could take credit for growing it, but recently purchased.

thanks Mike

[DaveW]

A friend of mine who had been growing cacti for decades emigrated to Australia for a while and said he had a job recognising their plants as they often looked little like the species he knew in the UK. The place where he was the plants grew virtually all year around without the usual UK winter rest, therefore were far more open spined.

Plants grown in different conditions often look very unlike plants in habitat, or even those grown in different climates. Also we grow our plants far more lush than those in habitat, sometimes at the expense of spine length and density.

Ritter says in his book for atroviridis:-

"Type locality Vallenar"

For huascensis:-

"Type locality Huasco"

Later authors have often broadened out the range and description of the species to encompass all the plants they wish to lump under it. Ritter was by todays standards probably a "splitter", but possibly the modern trend for "lumping" has gone a little too far.

The problem with so much lumping is that the distinctions that constituted Ritter's original species have now rather got lost. Another case is E. taltalensis which in Ritter's and Hutchison's case was solely the purple flowered plant, but later workers like Kattermann have lumped in Ritter's other species with white or yellowish flowers:-

http://www.chileflora.com/Florachilena/ ... EH0469.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mike]

Thanks for the info and the great website!