It certainly is from the right place to be M. ritteriana, and has longer spines that M. chionocephala.
But it doesn't appear to have formed much wool, or have any axillary bristles, both of which appear to be characteristics of chionocephala / ritteriana. I have both ritteriana and caerula, and they seem to be tighter spined plants than in your photo, with more wool / bristles, though not as much as the plant shown as ritteriana in Pilbeam.
From analysing the field data for NL and Huasteca Canyon on Mammillarias.net, the following have been identified from Huasteca Canyon, NL, though of course there could be more, the data almost certainly isn't 100% complete.
Mammillaria caerulea ?
Now fairly clearly it isn't melanocentra, multiceps, plumosa, prolifera or winterae. So unless it is either new, or a species which isn't in the data looked at, then we are left with heyderi and ritteriana / caerula?
Without a bit more detail in the photo, or better still a flower, it could be difficult to say, as the plant in the photo doesn't fit my image of heyderi either. Sorry, Amante, that I can't be more specific. From my two trips so far, I have sene enough to know that you can't just rely on standard descriptions for recognition of plants in habitat, they vary so much.I guess if I had to choose, it would be ritteriana, and a form that perhaps because of location (shadier perhaps) hasn't got so much wool developed.