Rog 095 m. melispina.

Hi maurillio,

Pilbeam's- Collector's Guide.

M. melispina Werderm., notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin 12:226(1934); MSJ 12:57(1972)
Reffered to M. winterae. Reppenhagen uses this name for a distinctive, pale flowered species.

Derek.

Thank you Derek.
What you write is correct.
Maybe ROG 95 is a formosa and has nothing to do with melispina.
I added some notes written by Chris on ROG 95 so that i would leave the post as well.

I too thought that your plant looked nearer to m. formosa than perhaps m. winterae.

From the Rogozinski field list (booklet published by the AfM about a month ago):
Rog 095 Mamm. spec. north of La Escondida
Nl 61, north of La Escondida in the forest large chalk plates. Between these chalk plates M. spec., altitude 1900 meters.

I do not find the Rogozinski notes of Rog 94 - 98 very helpful. Rog 094 is from Entronque San Roberto, and in his notes he writes: San Roberto - La Escondida - Aramberri - Matehuala.
Rog 96 and 97 are from San Juanito de Solis, which is a little north of La Ascension, i.e. between San Roberto and La Escondida. Rog 98 is from Aramberri. One would then expect that the location of Rog 95 would be between Rog 94 and 96, i.e. north of La Ascension (OK, that is north of La Escondida, but quite far north of it).
North of La Ascension one can indeed find a M. spec. which might be similar to Rog 95, e.g. SB 1566 (MG 968.03). I have found somewhat similar plants north of La Ascension around the year 2000 (old slides).
A little north of La Escondida (no forest yet, that is further north) I have found M. formosa, they look like very normal formosas. Altitude there is 1500 meters. About 10 km north of La Escondida the 1900 m level is reached.
Because the exact location of Rog 095 is not known, it will remain somewhat of a mystery.

Wolter ten Hoeve.

Here a picture of my M. melispina Rog 095, I got two of them but sadly just one of them has flowered the last years.. I also think they stand close to M. formosa.

I have no idea why Rogozinski called his Rog 095 M. melispina, the more so because Reppenhagen states that M. melispina was reported from Tamaulipas, i.e. quite far from the Rog 095 location. For me, your plant of Rog 095 is simply M. formosa.

Wolter ten Hoeve.

mammillariamaniac wrote:

Here a picture of my M. melispina Rog 095, I got two of them but sadly just one of them has flowered the last years.. I also think they stand close to M. formosa.

Is it another label mistake?

I agree that this is something formosa, but I am very sure that this is what Rogozinski collected under this fielldnumber, maybe I can ask him for some Habitat pictures. Here I found a photo from the collection Plein, how M. melispina has to look like how Reppenhagen described it.

https://mammillaria.forumotion.net/t155-mammillaria-melispina

In his 2-volume book, Reppenhagen says on p. 628 that he believed to have found M. melispina in the plains west of Jaumave, but that these plants appeared to be M. roseoalba (I have found M. roseoalba north and east of Jaumave). Reppenhagen then writes: "Until now, I haven't seen M. melispina, neither in nature, nor in cultivation". I have no idea why Rogozinski called his Rog 095 M. melispina.

Wolter.