M. lindsayi Lau 1135

could any one tell where Lau collected Lau 1135. The location is given as Barranca de Cobre, Chihuahiua but that is a big area. If anyone could be more specific and narrow it down i would be very grateful.
Tam

Hello Mark,
Lau collected L 1134 and L 1135 in the Sierra Tarahamara or Tarahumara, Barranca del Cobre. What he thought it was lindsayi is in fact a new specie, now described by Linzen and Schumacher under M. sinforosensis v. cobrensis (1134) and M. sinforosensis v. cobrensis fa rubriflora (1135).
Pictures of L1134 and 1135:

http://hugo3.myjalbum.net/Mammillaria%20N-Z/slides/M%20spec%20Cobre%20PN%20312%20Areponapuchi%20%20Barranca%20del%20Cobre%20Chihuahua%20Foto%20W%20Plein.html

http://hugo3.myjalbum.net/Mammillaria%20N-Z/slides/M%20spec%20Cobre1%20El%20Divisadero%20Barrancas%20del%20Cobre%20Chihuahua.html

This is my plant of Lau 1135. It is an offset from a habitat plant. For the first time it is just starting to produce its flowers. There are 7 buds which are red. Another UK mamm society members has this plant and his flowers red as well.

Your plant is what we know as lindsayi v. cobrensis (L 1135). Linzen and Schumacher has proven that this plant and the L 1134 have nothing in common with lindsayi. Lau has made a mistake, thinking he found lindsayi, but it was in fact a new specie, and this mistake was picked up by most of us during the past years. The real Lindsayi was refound a few years back. Linzen and Schumacher have given these two Lau numbers a description and new name: M. sinforosensis v. cobrensis (L1134) and M. sinforosensis v. cobrensis fa rubriflora.

Has TL and R found Lau's 1134 and 1135 at the same location or does their M.sinforosensis come from another location and if so how far apart are they ?
Lau did not collect that many members of series Mammillaria and so might not have been aware of the wide variation within the series. Lau collected 1134 and 1135 from the same population on 20-10-77 at 2000m, Lau 1134 having short, slim spines. We can assume that the plants with red flowers were not in flower at the time, else he would have noted it, also he could not have flowered in his collection for the same reason. The plants with yellows flower could have been in flower helping him believe that they were lindsayi.
Do we know when TL and R found thier plants and do the red and yellow sinforoensis flower at the same time ?

Hello Mark,
I have the information you ask in a copy of an article. I will send it to you if you want, but it's written in German.
I have no permission to publish it here. The article was published in KUAS, the journal of a German Cactus and Succulent Society (september 2007).

Thanks for the article. It certainly seems that the plants from Areponanpuchi, El Divisadero and Sinforosa Canyon are the same species, including Lau's two collections. Althought I think the Schumacher's are mistaken went they say that Lau's plants come from Areponapuchi.
Lau 1135 is red flowering yet neihter have they or ROG and PN found red flowering plants at this location, only yellow flowering, Rog642 and PN312. But at El Divisadero they have found red plants, ROG641 and PN311. More importantly Hils, when descrilbing the M.lindsayi var's stated the Type Locality for var rubriflora has El Divisadero. It is possible that Lau collected L1134 from Areponapuchi.
Finnialy, I do not understand why TL and R have described the plant from the Sinforosa Canyon has a new species. Hils has already described the species in AfM 1993, lodged herbarium material and gave a type locatily. All TL nad R have done is redescribed the same species. I would of thought all they would need to do was to rename the original plant described by Hils based on new information and cite the location in the Sinforosa Canyon.

Hello Tam,

What Tomas Linzen and Rudi Schumacher have done is only give the correct name to a plant that was seen as lindsayi.
Off course they redescribed the same specie. The description was already done by Hils who thought that it was a lindsayi.
In the same area they found the "new" specie sinforosensis and sinforosensis ssp.marionae which were undiscovered. Now they cleared up some things from the past and all the plants from the Barranca Sinforensis are named correctly.

(This message was from Wolfgang on the previous Forum)

Hello Mark,
In fact Lau has collected his LAU1134 near Areponapuchi, but his fieldnumber 1135 is not defined as being from the same location, so I assume that it is from El Divisadero. There is no red flowering plant at Areponapuchi but there are red, orange, and yellow flowering plants at El Divisadero. The plants from this area are definitely not M. lindsayi, but they aren't M sinforosensis ssp. cobrensis, either. My understanding with M. Hils is that these plants still have to be described correctly, i.e. as a species of its own in the evolutionary follow up of M craigii.Its name could be M. cobrensis in honour of Manfred Hils who described the "variety" from Areponapuchi.
There's much to do in this area; let us work on it.
Wolfgang

Wolfgang,
Thank you for your coments. I assumed there could be orange flowering plants along with the yellow and red ones. Would you know how the colours are mixed within the population at El Divisadero, is there a dominant colour. I would have thought that El Divisadero is the main center of population and that seed from a yellow flowering plant has been transported to Areponapuchi at some point in the pass.
There was an interesting coment from H.Rogozinki to Bill Maddams (AfM 31, 1, 2007, page41) ''His specimen of M.lindsayi bearing red flowers some of whose progeny from seed also have red flower whereas others are yellow''
I imagine there are a number of new species and varieties in the Barranca del Cobre just waitting to be found and it will be interesting to see how they fit together.
Mark.

An update for those who are interested. I have been able to get a photocopy of Lau's original data card for his collection of Lau 1134. He identifies the plant has M.lindsayi form, the location is given has Divisadero. Lalitude 27/30 N, Longitude 107/55 W. Altitude 2200m.
In the descirption of habitat it states the following '' Large granite rock formations in whose cracks in humus collections the plants grow. This form has much larger and more robust spines than the forms near Rio Urique further down. From this vintage point the whole Barrana del Cobre is visible.''
I assume that when he is talking about the forms 'near Rio Urique' he is refering to Lau 1135. There is no specifc mention of Areponapuchi.
The only mamm's that grow in and around the Barranca de Urique is M.craigii. Could L1135 be M.craigii ? I have asked Bob Standyi to compare his plant with Lindsay's original description and will post his reply.
Mark.