Four Mamm's to identify

Hello i have some problems to identify this mammillarias, if somebody could have me a hand, it was great.... 

1: https://mammillaria.forumotion.net/gallery/Personal-album-of-ocachucho/Problem-1-002-pic_145.htm

 2:https://mammillaria.forumotion.net/gallery/Personal-album-of-ocachucho/Problem-2-001-pic_147.htm?pic_id=147&pic_action=orig

3:https://mammillaria.forumotion.net/gallery/Personal-album-of-ocachucho/Problem-3-001-pic_149.htm

4:https://mammillaria.forumotion.net/gallery/Personal-album-of-ocachucho/Problem-4-002-pic_152.htm

Thanks 

Hi,

I think....
No 1 is a form of M. hahniana, the wool and hairs vary quite a lot, but I think that 's the one.
No 2 is M. rhodantha, nice long coloured spines on your plant.
No 3 is M. polythele
No 4 is M. karwinskiana ssp beiselii with the pure white spines.

Thanks, was a nice and precious help....

Hi Ocachucho,

Chriis beat me to it. Got delayed with a phone call.

I agree with Chris's answers.Only adding that no3 I would have added ssp. m.obconella and also for no4 my 1st thoughts were with m.beiselii, but also considered m. tropica which had not been exposed to too much sun to colour it up, to the reddish colouration you often see.

Delandmo, you maybe right about no.3, but don't you agree that no.4 is Mammillaria karwinskiana ssp collinsii instead beiselii???


This question goes to bouth of you, Chris and Delandmo or someone who want collaborate.




thkx

Yes, no 3 could very well be polythele ssp. obconella, the spine colour and brighter red flower support this.

I still think no 4 is beiselii, almost pure white spines. What makes you think of collinsii? According to Pilbeam, and supported by observation of my own plants, collinsii does not divide dichotomously. Your plant certainly has divided, I assume naturally?

Dichotomous division isn't an absolute character, as I have seen karwinskiana plants in Oaxaca that have offset as well as divided dichotomously. It is a tendency, and the dominant method in karwinskiana, and its subspecies. The nature of collinsii to me suggests that although Hunt has put collinsii under karwinskiana, the reason being largely geographic, to my mind it fits better under voburnensis.

Chris check this photos.... that's the reason i think no4 is collinsii, but you're the men 

Beiselli:

http://www.mammillarias.net/gallery/HIJK/beis2

Collinsii:

http://www.mammillarias.net/gallery/HIJK/1154_377a

I respect you opinion, just i'm confused.

Yes, I see what you mean, at least in that the photo of beiselii shows a plant that has offset rather than divided dichotomously, at least I think so.
It is difficult to compare the two photos from mammillarias.net as one is a cultivated plant and the other a photo from habitat.
Maybe some other members would like to chip in, as it is confusing!

Let's wait...

This is a hard work, if i look at this....

http://www.mammillarias.net/gallery/HIJK/1166_381a

it seems like mine?!?!

I had not selected nejapensis because your plant has some quite long spines, but now on re-reading the books, there is a form which at one stage was called nejapensis v. longispina. Also when I blow up you rphoto to 250%, I can see that there isn't a central spine, just radials, one or two of which are quite long, which are tipped brown.

You might well have cracked it! I'm happy with nejapensis as the ID.

Phew...these are not easy are they!

I made a picture of:
polythele ssp. obconella
karwinskiana ssp. nejapensis
Which are in my collection



URL=https://s534.photobucket.com/user/Faustbelg/media/cactus018_zps9c8bd2d6.jpg.html][/URL]

Frederik

Nice photos Frederik, have a look at my pages...

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Um-canto-com-espinhos/373910952727340

or

http://umcantocomespinhos.blogspot.pt/

Thkx