Saetigera / morganiana ??

How confusing could it be? I received a few years ago seeds from M. Lacoste from plants collected in the wild from Jean Marc Chalet ( JMC 2062 ) which he called morganiana ( the 2 right ones on the picture ) . Last year, I visited the H. Rogozinski collection and bought the left one on the picture. He gave them this name: aff. saetigera Rog 432. In my opinion these are the same plants. I think that Rogozinski has it by the right end because they doesn't look morganiana like. ( you could see a picture of morganiana on the frontcover of the new april journal http://www.mammillaria.eu/mitteilungsblatt2.htm ). I believe that it is proven that you can't even trust plant with fieldnumbers anymore or that some fieldworkers have a different interpretation of some plants.

Hugo,
I would agreed with you that the two plant collections above are the same species. Has you will know a field number is the location where the plant is collected, but what that plant actuality is, is open to the interruption and opinion of the field worker. The most important part of the label is the field number, that will never change unless written incorrectly, there's no confusion and it should be totally trustworthy. At the end of the day you can call the plant what ever you what. A problem does arise went you look up a fieldlist and all it says is Mamm species and nothing else, has some times happens in the FO fieldlist.

Hello Mark,
Yes I know that, but couldn't the big shots even compare their plants so that at least we have a base to start with. You're right and I could give the plant the name I want, but the difficulty is that it doesn't fit in the fieldlist anymore. For example: If I change the name from morganiana to aff. saetigera and show a picture on this forum with the changed name, there will be always persons who will say:" No JMC 2062 is mentioned as morganiana" and the discussion will be endless. Not changing the name is also a risk, you will have a correct fieldnumber but with an incorrect name. I think I need bigger labels with four sides, then I can write at least four names on it

Dear Hugo,
You should not confuse a fieldlist with a plant name. A fieldlist is just a list of habitats where plants have beeen collected. 9 times out of 10 the name of the plant collected will be known, other times we will get species this or affinity that. By growing and discussing these plants we can come to some sort of conseneus on what name should be given. I would suggest that this is exactly what this forum is for and is what we are doing now. We both agreed that the plants above are more aff saetigera than morganiana. It does not mean that JMC was wrong at the time he collected the plants. It just means that our knowledge has incresed to a point that WE are able to said 'it is this and not that'. Some one else may disagreed. If so then they can say why. No disussion is endless.
You talk of a starting point, and for myself I use the Cites Cactaceae checklist , 2nd edition has my point of refence. When I buy a plant or grow anything from seed I cross refence it with this checklist. That way I can only end up with two labels, at most, in a pot. The name of the plant at the time of purchase and the name it cross refences with in the checklist. It does not matter which refence you use, only that other people have access to it has well.

I have some seedlings of the ROG plant growing and also a plant named as saetigera SB336, from Galeana which is in Nuevo Leon. I don't know how widespread saetigera actually is, or whether this SB336 plant truly is saetigera. It seems that the status of sateigera is unclear, with Hunt not defining it as either a valid species or a synonym of another; and Reppenhagen, I gather from Pilbeam, says its hahniana.
I'll put a photo of my SB336 on this thread when I can get out into the greenhouse - its rather dark and wet at the moment.

Hello,
This is my saetigera also SB 336. Now we can compare Chris. Not much in common with hahniana, if this plant is really a saetigera.
I don't know were the Chalet plants came from. Did a long google search, but found nothing...

And here is my saetigera SB336. Its quite an old plant and a survivor from my winter 2000 disaster. The base is a bit corky, but I've hiddeen that on this photo. Its not dissimilar from yours, Hugo, but not like the original photos from Rogozinski and Jean-Marc Chalet.

Hello Chris,
Yours and mine are very similar, but if you compare with all the saetigera Rog and Plein on our photogallery, these are not the same. Saetigera Rog and Plein is similar with the one in Craig's book. I don't know what we have with our SB plants, but certainly not saetigera. One more to wish list, hope he got some spares when visiting.

I agree with you, this SB336 doesn't seem to be saetigera. The ROG plants come from the north eastern part of Guanajuato, which is a long way from Galeana in Nuevo Leon. The type location for saetigera is stated in Craig and Hunt (1988) to be Hacienda Cenca (Conca?) on the border between Queretaro and San Luis Potosi, which is not so far away (20km perhaps) from El Guamúchil. So I believe that Rogozinski and Chalet have it right, and Steven Brack is wrong in this SB336 plant.
Looking at the distribution maps in Pilbeam to try to narrow down what might be found in Nuevo Leon that has a resemblence to SB336, I am pointed towards the Leucocephalae, but can't equate this plant with any of the obvious contenders - which are hahniana and its various forms.
I know Hunt equated saetigera to hahniana, and wonder if it was just the geography?
Hmmm......