M. supertexta Lau1116 - a follow on from an earlier thread - is it??

Some while ago, Hugo started a thread about M. lanata L1116. I said I'd post some of my photos, of my L1116. I wasn't very efficient, and I have just remebered it again, after spending some tim ewith my pllants and again being surprised at this one.
I bought it a number of years ago as M. sp. Lau 1116. As we know, this collection number is supposed to be M. supertexta (lanata). The wool /tiny bristles at the tip of the areoles are quite orange -yellow, rather than white as is normal with supertexta. The spines are short as they should be, and there are few if any central spines, so that all seems right, but they are all quite glassy and also not really white. It looks quite a yellow plant because of this and rather different from my other supertexta plants, which however don't have field collection nunbers.
I would welcome views on this plant...



and a closer look at the coloured areoles and glassy spines...

That's a nice plant Chris but not M.supertaxta as we know it. Lau collected L1116 West of Cuicatlan on the Rio obos, Oaxaca on the 8-4-1977 (30 years ago). At the time it was described has Mammillaria Sp. It was later place under supertexta.
Lau operated by collecting habitat seed and selling it to individuals and commerical sources. This seed was grown and became the mother plants for most of the Lau seed we buy today. But some of the plants being used as mother plants can be 1st or 2nd generation on since the original seed from Lau. We must also bear in mind that much of this seed is being produced in culivation and the chances of hybridization must be great and I would suggest that this plant could be of hybrid original, what with ?, something in Series Supertaxta, but they all look so similar it could be hard to tell.

Thanks Mark, I didn't know that Lau didn't name this initially. I have another L1116 which is very much like the supertexta that we know, and which Hugo posted earlier.
I find in my records that I bought this possible cuckoo at a Garden Centre in 1993, so there can't be too many generations from Lau's original collection. As you say, it could be of hybrid origin, but also it could have been wrongly labelled. If it is the first, then that's OK, I can just label it as such. If it were a hybrid, I guess it would have to be something fairly close, still in the Supertextae.
But if it were the second - quite a likely possibility knowing how Garden Centres work - what might it be? My thought has always been that it looks closer to crucigera ssp tlalocii or grandinosa than supertexta, although the brownish bristles on the areoles actually suggests the type to a greater extent.
Anyone with anything similar in their collections??

My first thought, when I saw it, was M.huitzilopoctlii, but yes, it could be M.crucigera. Since you have had it since 1993 I take it it has flowered ? Were about do the flowers come from, also it look's small for a plant of 14 years.
Hugo also posted a plant of M.supertaxta Lau 1132. That was first collected on 11/5/1977 from East of Tlacotepec and was original described has M.supertaxta fma. Hunt belived that Lau's collection from Quiotopec, Cuicatlan, Oaxaca (Lau1158) was the nearest to the original description of M.supertaxta. One of the locations of M.albilanata ssp oaxacana is Quiotopec. If you were to mix up some of the forms of M.albilanata and M.supertaxta you would be hard pressed to tell the different.