A handful of Mammillaria IDs

Hello Mammillaria friends.  I have a few new IDs for your expertise:

#1



#2




#3



#4


#5



#6
Confirming this is M. perbella, correct?


#7
Any ideas on what this could be?  The owner of Cactus King in Houston, TX asked for some help on this one ...




Regards,
Dustin
http://cactguy.tumblr.com

# 1 - could be Mammillaria papasquiarensis and
# 2         ''        Mammillaria muehlenpfordtii
# 3         ''           Mammillaria hahniana
# 4         ''          Mammillaria columbiana
# 5         ''             Mammillaria chionocephala
# 6 '' Mammillaria perbella

1. The spines seem too long to be M. grusonii (synonym of your suggestion)
2. Looks right to me
3. I haven't seen a M. hahniana look like this, especially with the height and shape. Perhaps a lighter M. muehlenpfordtii?
5. This Mamm. has a blackish look to it - is that characteristic of M. chionocephala?

Hi Cactguy,

1. Is not necessarily papasguiarensis but sure that it is grusonii, which can have much longer spines.
6. Certain is chionocephala.

2. Could be muehlenpfordtii, but as plant 3, both appear to have been in poor light for a lot of their growing life and only now starting to develop properly. 2 should eventually grow dichotomously and have smallish red flowers.


3. As mentioned in 2 this plant has not grown properly until now, and you may also expect to see more hair on a hahniana, but again this can vary from quite hirsute to almost naked. As a possible second choice I think it could maybe turn out to be albarta. If it's hahniana the flowers will be for the type, largest red/ dark red blooms.Whereas, albarta smaller similar coloured flowers.

Other two plants I agree as named.

I'll pitch in with some thoughts...

1. could be papsquiarensis (grusonii) but could also be wagneriana.
2. muehlenpfortdtii has yellow centrals, these are cream tipped brown, so not too sure, maybe a haageana or albilanata form, but difficult to be sure, as the plant has obviously had a troubled past!
3. I can't place at the moment, though it looks familiar. I have a memory of a plant that I bought years ago from Mesa Garden, which looked like this, I think. It was supposed to be M. pettersonii, but I didn't think that was right.
4. probably columbiana
5. yes, chionocephala is my guess too.
6. yes, perbella, you can see the dichotomous division starting on one of the heads.

Now to 7. I do not think I have ever seen such a plant before. My first thought was, not a Mamm but a Coryphantha, but then I can't see any groove. The spination looks weird. What do the flowers come out like? Clearly they are well old enough to be showing any change in spines which sometimes happens with Corys. My suggestion would be that it is some monstrose form of a Coryphantha, a bit like the Un Pico form of M. spinosissima, but I'd like to see the flowers to try to get a better handle on either the species or a parent. From the buds, it would seem that it might have a longish pale pink flower, which could suggest a sport of C. ramillosa, But that really is just pure speculation

Thanks for the input guys. I am going to call 4-6 as "named". Chris, I'll check with Cactus King to see if he has any shots of the flowers (but my guess is no).

Hello Cactguy.
Plant No. 7 is one of the garden forms of Mammillaria schumannii. Our friend brought the same a few years ago from the U.S.A. My husband, also a lover of cacti just grafted a little scion. In our climate this Mammillaria grows relatively slowly. But several times already bloomed. The flowers are typical of M.schumannii.