Rog 656

I received seeds of this plant from Mammillaria Society in 2007, such m. standleyi Rog656, but Rog656 is m. maycobensis n.n. . What do you think?

Maybe the mam.sos. look at Mam.maycobensis as a form of Mam.standley or a mistake in the number, ROG658 is Mam.standley from La Aduana. A picture from thos are above.
To confuse you more, I add a second one with a Mam.floresii form in between.

Has the Mamm Society seed distributior I can say that the seed came direct from Helmut Rogozinski and was labelled has M.standleyi Rog 656 from La Aduana, Sonora, and I am sure it was stated to have white flowers. I also checked the Rog field list at that time which confirmed that Rog 656 was listed has standleyi.

I now see in the Rogozinski field list that is on the AfM web-site, which would appear to have been updated since 2007, that Rog 656 is listed has M.maycobensis n.n. from near Maycoba.

It would be handy if any of our friends over there in Europe could get in touch with Rogo and just inquire on the matter.

Mark, I have his original fieldlist, and indeed the ROG656 is listed as Mam.maycobensis, 34.2km east Maycoba

As Mark has said, this was the year in which Rogo donated a lot of seed. But in checking some of the data the following year, I had reason to amend the numbers under which we had advertised the seed for several species. This wasn't a species that I sowed, so I didn't look into it. My interest was in getting the right numbers for the seed that we had issued under Rog 646 and 655.
I suppose the question is whether the plant that Ento shows in flower is a form of M. maycobensis, in which case it is rightly named and numbered.

Hi Walter,

All I can say has an absolute is that the imformation.... standleyi Rog 656, La Aduana, Son, white flowers.... was written on the packet in Rogo's own hand writting and this is also refected in the notes in the Mammillaria Journal that accompanyed that seed list.
I am also sure that the copy of Rogo's field list which I had, and if memory serve me well, came from Wolfgang Plein, had Rog 656 listed has standleyi.
When Rogo added his later coellctions the list appeared to be updated and some of the earlier imformation was corrected. I do recall asking Wolfgang some questions about names that had been changed at the time.

I thank you all for the information

In the German Mammillaria journal of 2009, issue 4, p. 184, Rogozinski describes his Rog 656. It is identified as M. maycobensis n.n. and it is identical with Rog 223 and Rog 737, all from near Maycoba. Flowers are red.
Mark mentioned that Rogozinski had labelled the seed as M. standleyi Rog 656 from La Aduana.
It is my assumption that somewhere an error was made, because Rog 658 is listed as M. standleyi from La Aduana (if I remember well, it is in the Alamos, Sonora region, not close at all to Maycoba). Therefore I think that the plant of Ento is M. standleyi Rog 658.

Wolter.

An addition:
In the 2011 AfM seedlist, number 388A is listed as M. standleyi Rog 658 red and white, La Aduana, Son. That 'red and white' fits perfectly well with the flowers of the plant of Ento.
To me, it means that the seed distributed by the Mamm Soc was actually Rog 658 and not Rog 656.

Wolter.

Hi Wolter,

Thanks for the information. I would have to agreed with you on the above.
It just slightly disappointting that Rogo should make that kind of mistake in the first place.

This doesn't actually surprise me as I mentioned earlier that there were 2 other mistakes by Rogo. I think it is worth taking a look at all the seed that Rogo sent that year, and doing a check on the numbers.