Which mammillaria?

I have posted on several forums throughout the net and have not been able to acquire a consensus on the ID of this one. Several IDs have been given which seem reasonable after seeing photos on the net. Someone finally pointed me to this site which seems promissing.




Anyone know which Mammillaria this might be?
Thanks

Richard

A part of haageana family I suppose...

That is how I have it temporarily IDed but I am concerned that it does not have the wool tufts at the apex as the descriptions all allude to.


Richard

I would think it would be haageana subsp. haageana, outside chance that it might be haageana subsp. schmollii, because of the offsetting. Unless that is two separate plants.

Derek.

delandmo wrote:

I would think it would be haageana subsp. haageana, outside chance that it might be haageana subsp. schmollii, because of the offsetting. Unless that is two separate plants.

Derek.

It appears that APGIV has lumped all of the subs together under one specie, namely M. Haageana with the synonyms listed as
Mammillaria albidula
Mammillaria collina
Mammillaria conspicua
Mammillaria donatii
Mammillaria haageana ssp acultzingensis
Mammillaria haageana ssp. conspicua
Mammillaria haageana ssp elegans
Mammillaria haageana ssp haageana
Mammillaria haageana ssp san-angelensis
Mammillaria haageana var schmollii
Mammillaria meissneri
Mammillaria sanangelensis
Mammillaria vaupelii
Mammillaria collina
Mammillaria haageana var collina
Neomammillaria collina
Thank you

Richard

I still refer to Hunt.

Yes, most of these names are now combined into one species, M. haageana. It makes it easy to name your plant! I think acultzingensis is still a valid subspecies. I believe that san-angelensis comes from a rather separate geographic area, so might have developed sufficiently to be genetically separate.
I suspect that it will need DNA analysis to be certain of the affinity of them. I can only go back to the one visit I paid to Puebla and Oaxaca during which I saw a lot of M. haageana plants. I saw plants that cold be called elegans growing side by side with plants that could be called conspicua, and in a different place, plants that would be called schmollii. The variation in forms was significant. I'd personally be surprised if they were actually different.

Chris43 wrote:

Yes, most of these names are now combined into one species, M. haageana. It makes it easy to name your plant! I think acultzingensis is still a valid subspecies. I believe that san-angelensis comes from a rather separate geographic area, so might have developed sufficiently to be genetically separate.
I suspect that it will need DNA analysis to be certain of the affinity of them. I can only go back to the one visit I paid to Puebla and Oaxaca during which I saw a lot of M. haageana plants. I saw plants that cold be called elegans growing side by side with plants that could be called conspicua, and in a different place, plants that would be called schmollii. The variation in forms was significant. I'd personally be surprised if they were actually different.

I am usually in agreement with the AGPIV changes, though they are inconvenient. I was accustomed to and confortable with Alfred Graff's view of toxonomy when everything started changing, families disappeared while others appeared from nowhere. Cacti no longer existed in tribes and plants hopped from one genera to another. I am starting to get a hold of things by now and the changes, in most part, make sense to me though I suspect that more surprises are in store as micron microscope time becomes cheaper and we can economically group by chromosome alignment.

Richard