Mammillaria sp. Lau 1132

Again a Lau number: this time L 1132 from tlacotepec. Should be supertexta form. For me this is more an elegans form

Hugo, Mesa Garden list L1132 as a haageana, as does Aymeric de Barmon, from Tonala. The list in Pilbeam suggests it is supertexta from east of Tlacotepec, Oaxaca. So who is right?
The picture of L1132 from Aymeric on Mammillarias.net, however doesn't look like you rplant to my eyes at least.
So all in all, a confusion!!

Thanks for pointing this Chris. Now I'm very confused about this plant, If Aymeric or MG is right. Pilbeam suggestion that it's a supertexta is wrong, my idea, even he has saw a MG plant or one like mine. In the future I'm gonna be extra carefull reading the labels before buying a plant.
The question is who is right? It is a big mistake from on one side Pilbeam or on the other side MG (Aymeric).

Chris,
Has you know series supertextae is one of those groups where, if you were a lumper, could make a case that all the species/plants in group are pretty much the same and have possilbe derive from a single ancestor. Hunt, in the New Cactus Lexion, page 148, belives that M.albilanata and its four subspecies could be better treated as a varible subspecies of M.supertexta. It would be interesting to see what any DNA work would show up.

Yes, Mark, I know that he thinks that way. It is interesting that when he comes to describe M. supertexta itself, it is initially described without location, with no floral description, and that in 1977 Hunt himself designated a lectotype for this otherwise somewhat incompletely described and therefore uncertain species.
Mamillaria albilanata presumably was properly described in 1939, although the oldest name for a member of this species group actually is M. ignota in 1839, post-dating supertexta by 2 years. The fact that Hunt ignored ignota as a name when he brought together albilanata and its 4 subspecies in 1977 might suggest some problems with that name as well.
It is quite possible that all the supertextae descended from a common ancestor, but that isn't a reason for lumping all of these species together. There are distinct features, but as there are no real rules as to what degree of significance these have, and where the line should be drawn, it seems it is anyone's right to give a plant a name, whether others accept or not. Common acceptance by peer group tends to cement in one set of names rather than another, but ther ewill always be dissenters.
It may be a while before DNA analysis gets to the level of sophistication of being able to separate subspecies. There will need to be agreement about what parts of the DNA are proper and consistent for analysis. Some parts might show up differences, others not so. What is significant about the differences will be the subject of as much discussion as taxonomic approaches. My personal view is that we will end up with a combination of DNA evidence and taxonomic evidence and this will improve our understanding, but because there are no absolutes, there will still be debate.
But as this example shows, if we can't trust Field Numbers, then where are we!! It still is the best way to collect them, and you can give the plant whatever name you like! You'll be more likely to be "correct" this way, even if there are a small proportion of errors in field lists.