Help with the M. chionocephala Rog s.n. Sierra Paila, Coah.

Good evening,

Wolter and delandmo recognized that this plant is not a M. chionocephala, so maybe we can give the plants a name that fits.
I recieved my 2 plants from the collection Rogozinski 2 years ago, the label was written by the seller not of Rogozinski himself.
I had some wrong labelled plants from the seller in the past, maybe because he is specialized in Lithops   This makes me suspect that the location isn't correct either.
There have been at least 5 larger plants of this type sold on eBay. So I tried to find a picture in the web, but I only found this, maybe it helps.

Thanks in advance

I suggest the smaller no. 2 plant on the right is more likely to be from the m. hahniana group,eg woodsii and could also be the same for no. 1.

Thank you delandmo! That is the right direction, Mam. woodsii seems pretty close.

I wrote a Mail to Mr. Rogozinski, he told me in that age of growth its hard to tell what kind of species that is, but defently not chionocephala. He assumes that it could be his M. saetigera - Rog 586 from El Sabinito, SLP. He was a bit angry, because the labels were mixed up during the transport of his Collection to the seller.

M. saetigera has been doubted for some time, especially from Reppenhagen who insists it is synonymy with m. hahniana. In the uk we relate it to m. woodsii.

Plein and Rogozinski published a series are articles in the AfM journal relating to the plants in the Leucocephalae. They concluded that the plant known as M. hahniana is related to M. klissingiana because of tubercle size, shape and length and not to M. woodsii. They named the plants from Queretaro as M. saetigera, and stated that they believed that they were closely related to M. woodsii, and wondered if in fact there was room for two names given the variability of the plants.

The main UK authority, Dr D. Hunt, disagrees with their proposal, and although the original photographed M. hahniana has never been found since its description, maintains M. hahniana as the right name for the very hairy plants.

I think its almost impossible without detail DNA and other biological data being available to make a fact based decision, because both the sources mentioned base their views mainly on observations and inferences. For example, M. hahniana is without specific locality, and examples such as shown in the photo that backs up the description have not been found. M. woodsii often has axillary wool which in some cases is significantly long, and it could be argued that these are the characteristic of M. hahniana. But then M. klissingiana also has long axillary hair in some forms.........

There's no point in choosing one name against the other, just know that the names exist for the above reasons, and use which you prefer.

Thank you Chris for all the background information and very nicely said. I rember a M. klissingiana form from Palmillas, Tam., that looked almost like the classic M. hahniana. Perhaps the technolgy of the future will bring some light into the dark. Since my collection was so supported by the two gentlemen Plein & Rogozinski I will prefer the Name M. saetigera until then.