Mammillaria guerreronis

In flower today 26-5-08.

I did have my doubts when I first got this so I did check with the grower. This plant is suppose to be any offset from Lau 1096 which is from Mezcala, Guerrero. The description of the spination fits that in Pilbeam. The only different is the flower colour and has we know this should not be taken to literary.
If you don't think it is M.guereronis any suggestions and if anyone has a plant of M.guerreronis could you post a picture to compare.

Here is my guerreonis L1096, from Bill Greenaway. It has 5 flower buds coming, you can see one or two in the photo.

Very similar in spination. I know mind has had a hard life early on but I think we need to see it in flower first.

Yes, I think the flowers will be significant. According to Pilbeam, they are hard to flower, but his book shows a plant with a full ring. I hadn't expected any until I went into the greenhouse to take the photo and saw 5 smallish flower buds. They seem to be a bit lower on the body than on your plant, don't know how significant that is. Your plant appears to have 4 centrals, as has mine at least on the new areoles, and matching the description of the lower being longer.
I'll post again in a week or two when the flowers show their colour, which again according to the description is small and red with brown-red outer petals.
Did your plant come from anyone that might have had dealings with Bill Greenaway - now that he's left the UK I don't know how to check, always assuming that he has retained records.

My plant came from the P-M's before they sold off their collection and has I say it has had a hard life. I did show a photo of the plant to Bill Maddams who said it was not M.guerreronis, but then said it was hard to tell from a photograph. I have oftered to take the plant to the Oxford show in July for some expert advice. Perhaps if you bring your has well.

Here's my L1096 again, and at last the flowers are opening, just the one at this time. So what do you all think - is it right?



They certainly are darker than those shown on your plant, Mark, and even in the bright sun this afternoon didn't open wide. But I wouldn;t say that they are as dark as the description in Pilbeam would suggest. I think it might be a bit difficult to trace back the source of each of our plants to the actual seed source, but maybe the description was based upon plants from one collection only and there might be some variability in colour as well as appearnce.

I am more than happy with the name M.guerreronis and see no reason to change it as I believe it fits the description. I would be interested to see plants from other field collections for comparsion. I cannot understand why it is not more common in collections. The few habitat pictures I have seen show very large / huge clumps and it does not seem to be any more difficult to grow than many others. The photo in Pilbeam, I would suggest, has under gone a bit of photographic licence.

This is my Mammillaria guerreronis.

That certainly is more typical of guerreronis, Marco. The L1096 is different for sure, but how much I wonder?