Mammillaria huitzilopochtli -- very first flower!

[7george]

I am not an expert on Mammillaria but if I have not read all above, I would assume that pictured plant is some Mammillaria crucigera (it has typically 4 brownish centrals like those, by description).

http://mammillaria.forumotion.net/t1032 ... -crucigera" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Steve Johnson]

While my interest in the finer points of taxonomy is somewhat limited, I do try to identify plant names as accurately as possible. Since the inaccuracies come from the sellers I deal with (in this case Mesa Garden), I'll gratefully accept a correction of the name coming from those of you who know your taxonomical stuff more than I ever will.

[A. Dean Stock]

I believe that your plant is M. crucigera but not all the populations presently included as varieties or subspecies of M. crucigera will be maintained in that position for very long. Still lots of work to be done with that group but it certainly contains some hybrid populations and possibly another good species.
Dean

[DaveW]

Just looked up M. huitzilopochtli in the CSSGB Journal. Best copy I could do keeping file size down, you may have to increase screen size using "Zoom" under "Tools".

huitzilopotchli.jpg (72.47 KiB) Viewed 1858 times

huitzilopotchli2.jpg (48.69 KiB) Viewed 1858 times

M. crucigera does also usually branch dichotomously after a time.

[cactushobbyman]

My M. huitzilopochtli

1.jpg (109.3 KiB) Viewed 1847 times

[A. Dean Stock]

Thanks, that description settles the matter. The plant above in question is certainly M. crucigera and not M. huitzilopochtli.
Dean

[Steve Johnson]

M. crucigera it is then, and that I can pronounce! Thanks for weighing in here, guys!

[Astro]

Good to see I wasn't completely out to lunch wrt M. crucigera.

Interestingly, I also have a few 2 year-old M. huitzilopochtli grown from MG seed and they look like the genuine article.

[DaveW]

Lau collected a few crucigera group variants in Tomellin Canyon along with M huitzopochtli. I was going to scan the article but found it is already online here. Mammillaria huitzilopotchli as it was later named by David Hunt was Lau 066:-

http://www.cactuspro.com/lecture/Cactus ... 71.en.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the original David Hunt article for Lau's new Mammillaria's:-

http://www.cactuspro.com/lecture/Cactus ... 09.en.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mammillaria huitzilopopochtli publication here:-

http://www.cactuspro.com/lecture/Cactus ... 20.en.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[C And D]

It's time for a Plant Comparison
None of them are flowering yet.

Mammillaria huitzilopochtli

IMG_6637.jpg (59.28 KiB) Viewed 1812 times

IMG_6642.jpg (56.05 KiB) Viewed 1812 times

M. crucigera
close up of one clone that has similar spines

IMG_6654.jpg (67.75 KiB) Viewed 1812 times

another clone with smaller areoles and spines

IMG_6669.jpg (75.85 KiB) Viewed 1812 times

M. tlalocii

IMG_6647.jpg (66.03 KiB) Viewed 1812 times

Conclusion
Steve's plant has spines more like a M. crucigera
It could be that, or a hybrid
or it could be an actual M. huitzilopochtli with different spines than the normal M. Huitzilopochtli
maybe it has specific locality data since he got it from Mesa Gardens.

[A. Dean Stock]

All of those are possible explanations for the spine morphology presented in Steve's plant. Problems not answered are: No one know whether M. cruciger and M. huitzilopochtli will produce hybrids, especially natural ones, although it is likely that they will if they come in contact. The plant in question (Steve's) is likely misidentified rather than a spine variant of M. huitzilopochtli. If the latter species has spines like those of M. crucigera in some plants then one might question the distinctness of M. huitzilopochtli. Many times when a plant is named by someone that has not spent time at the type locality, it is hard to know how much variation actually exists but in this case, there was a very good observer that, I think, detected that the plant now known as M. huitzilopochtli represents a distinctly different population. Only time and much more field work will answer some, if not all of the taxonomic question.
Dean

[DaveW]

Again Mammillaria tlalocii is just as confused regarding central spines as the others are. No doubt some plants that are not tlalocii have been mixed up, or the species is far more variable than originally thought:-

http://mammillaria.forumotion.net/t169- ... aca-l-1109" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.cactus-art.biz/schede/MAMMIL ... _FO229.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the link at the end for Spanish speakers, difference between crucigera and huitzilopotchli, afraid I can't translate:-

"17. Aréolas circulares a elípticas.
22. Espinas centrales adpresas, rectas. M. crucigera
22. Espinas centrales ascendentes, rectas, curvas o retorcidas.
23. Lóbulos del estigma rosados o amarillos. M. Huitzilopochtli"

For M. tlalocii

"Mammillaria crucigera Mart. subsp. tlalocii (Repp.) D.R.Hunt, Mammillaria Postscripts 6: 9. 1997.
Mammillaria tlalocii Repp., Gattung Mammillaria 120. fig. 34. 1987.
Mammillaria crucigera Mart. var. tlalocii (Repp.) Linzen, Rogoz. & Wolf, Mitteilungsbl. Arbeitskreises Mammillaienfr. 21: 208. 1998.

TIPO: MÉXICO. Oaxaca: Barranca Ixcatlán [Santa María Ixcatlán], W. Reppenhagen 901, 27 oct 1974 (holotipo: ZSS).

Tallos generalmente simples, 5.0-7.0(-20.0) cm alto, 4.0-8.0 cm ancho, globosos a corto-cilíndricos, espinas radiales 16-22, 1.0-2.0 mm largo, espinas centrales 2-4, 1.0-2.0 cm largo, blancas, ápice pardo. Flores 1.2-1.4 cm largo. Frutos 0.8-1.6 cm largo, 0.2-0.3 cm ancho. Distribución. Endémica de México, sólo se conoce del estado de Oaxaca en el Valle de Tehuacán-Cuicatlán.

http://www.ibiologia.unam.mx/barra/publ ... an/F95.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[A. Dean Stock]

Dave, this whole group of Mammillaria is full of problems. Far to many photos of them around with names that are just a "best guess". Much more needs to be done on site with these populations and until then the full range of variation and species boundaries will remain in question. I think that it is shear madness to bounce the names back and forth between subspecies and variety; a fools game. Many taxa recognized at subspecies level eventually are found to be good species once the populations are really well known. A lot or work here for DNA people but this has to be done with plants in habitat, not in cultivation. I don't see that happening for some time. In the meantime, these plants are often hybridized in culture, just as often, unintentionally.
Dean

[DaveW]

The problem is often clines where one so called species gradually changes into another, with all variations of spination in between.

DNA unfortunately is often a no more reliable answer for classifying plants than morphology was:-

Can't get the link to post, so Google "DNA sequences and cactus classification – a short review, Root Gorelick"

No doubt we will never achieve the ultimate classification.

[C And D]

Mesa Garden's Mammillaria huitzilopochtli selection does not sound much like anything different than the normal Mammillaria huitzilopochtli.

701.72-huitzilopochtli FO-13 very short centrals, white radials
701.8-huitzilopochtli L066 sometimes long black sp
701.92-huitzilopochtli L1495 long curly centrals