are these BOTH Mammillaria bocasana ??

I purchased both these plants unlabelled at a local garden center. Over on the Yahoo Cacti & Succulents Group we've sort of narrowed things down to "probably M. bocasana" ...maybe one or both being "var. roseiflora"

I'm still not having any luck using the www.server "host process" so here are links to the images over on Flickr. I know these two affectionately as Plants Nos. 00038 ans 00039

Plant 00038 http://www.flickr.com/photos/hatchtown/3864302263/
Plant 00039 _flower http://www.flickr.com/photos/hatchtown/3865084658/
Plant 00039 http://www.flickr.com/photos/hatchtown/3864302507/
Plant 00038 flower http://www.flickr.com/photos/hatchtown/3865084564/

Thanks for your thoughts!
Jim, Maine USA

Hi Jim,
I would say that you are quite right, they are both Mammillaria bocasana, and I think they both justify to be described as f. roseiflora. The normal bocasana has cream flowers, and I have seen the pink ones vary a bit in colour depth and some seem to have a darker stripe in the centre of the petals than others, but they are all the same.

Hello Chris:

Chris43 wrote:

Hi Jim,
......and I think they both justify to be described as f. roseiflora. ......

I note you ref roseiflora as a form versus a variety -- could you comment on that? -- I'm seeing it both ways "out there."

Thanks for your knowledge!

Jim

I have never seen a formal description of the pink flowered plant, which means that no-one has collected it in habitat. I rather suspect that it is of horticultural origin, a sport which was subsequently propagated, and hence the least it can deserve is the attribute forma.

To be strictly accurate it should be called Mammillaria boacasana f. roseiflora (Hort.). I think!

I'm not a botanist and the intricacies of the ICBN (International Code of Botanical Nomenclature) do pass me by at times.

Chris, dies is O.K.- only M. bocasana (M.bocasana-roseioflora- a cultivar
dr.Muu