The Mammillaria Society Seeds distribution 2007

canelensis rog648

canelensis rog 651

densispina rog 506

floresi rog 230

lindsayi rog 681

pringley KS

senilis rog 514

standleyi rog 658

temorisensis rog 646


to be continued........

Wow...I sowed most of these, and am in the process of repottingt them from their 5cm pots to a 7cm pot, nowhere near ready enough to flower as far as I can see.

I blame the lack of sun!

italian sun, and the magic hands of ento....

Great pictures and very well done.
Has with Chris I grew all these from seed and they are no were near has good as the plants above.
There does not seem to be much different between the canelensis and the lindsayi.
The pringlei should be RS not KS. This was miss print on the seed list at the time and refers to the collector....Rudi Schumacher

canelensis rog651

linsayi rog 681

To add to the range of photos of plants from seeds that were offered in 2007, here is my M. canelensis Rog 654



It doesn't have the yellow spines of most other canelensis forms. It is described as having red flowers. There is a photo of PN325 on page 107 of the 2/2008 AfM journal, in which Wolfgang Plein uses quotes. Rogozinksi has it simply as Rog 654 rote bluete. You should know that PN325 is the same plant as Rog 654. Plein used the name M. montensis for this plant.

In the 1/2009 AfM Journal on P14, Plein suggests that where the yellow spined M. canelensis meets the brown spined, red flowered plans (M. montensis, M. floresii, M. temorisensis), there are hybrid forms. This plant would appear to be one of these.

canelensis red fl. rog 654

I think mine has a way to go yet. Nice to see it as, hopefully, it will be in a few years time. You are a fantastic grower, Ento!

I was just looking throught the updated Rogo field list on the AfM web-site and Rog 654 is now listed has M.sp. Canelo, red flowers.

To pick up Chris's point on Mammillaria hybrids.
In the UK Mammillaria Society Journal, Feb 2010, page 5, there is an article by Roy Mottram entitled Variability in Mammillaria, in which Roy describes the plants from Sonora and Chihuahua and especially those from the Rio Mayo drainage basin has being a good example of a typical hybrid swarm.

Roy suggests that there are only 5 true species ( standleyi, sonorensis, lindsayi, hertrichiana, marksiana ) and that all the other names that have appeared over the years....( auricantha, bellacantha, bellisiana, canelensis, laneusumma, mayensis, monensis, floresii, sinforosensis, ssp cobrensis, spp marionae, fa rubriflora, temorisensis ) are all part of this hybrid swarm and should be all aggregated under the catch all name of M.canelensis.

Interesting to note that Roy makes no mention M.craigii.

I was reading that article just yesterday, and it would seem that he treats M. lindsayi as a separate species, but it isn't clear which plant he is talking about? Is it the plant which had come to be called this, or the plant that Rogo & Plein now believe to be the real lindsayi. This at least seems to have found support in the AfM as newly constituted according to the recent issue.

He seems to be looking for parents of hybrids to explain the yellow flowered forms, since most of the plants he names as species are red flowered forms. Hunt believed that the Baja plants formed part of a larger Group in this Series, and these are yellow flowered. There are yellow flowered forms of a number of Mammillarias - moelleriana, discolor, scrippsiana, scheideana gilensis..... It is entirely possible that the change of colour is a natural variation, and that these plants evolved a long while ago.

As for lumping all the Rio Mayo plants into a few species, then I have ask how he defines the term "species". How can you make safe science when what you are dealing with is not clearly defined. The ICBN is often referenced, but it only provides a framework for naming, it gives no real guidance on which and how many characteristics are needed to identify a "good" species.

I am not saying that Roy is wrong - he knows a lot more botany than I do. But it is just as easy to offer one explanation as another. DNA analysis will give us further clues, but it can give misleading results depending on what sections of DNA are used.

Thanks Mark, thanks Chris, for the information

other three plants

rog 642 yellow fl.

rog 655 temorisensis

rog 693 tesopacensis