Mammillaria Classification - New Cactus Lexicon

I would like to draw your attention to the new Classification list that has just been put on the website of the UK Mammillaria Society - UK Mammillaria Society
It has been produced using the New Cactus Lexicon (2006) as the source, and includes the species and subspecies as recognised, either fully or provisionally, in that Reference Source.
The document, which is a downloadable pdf, also says where a species or subspecies was placed in the previous classification (that docuented in Cites Cactaceae Checklist V2.
I know that for many, this classification will show an even greater tendency to lump recognisable species or subsepcies together. It perhaps is more of a botanists classification than an amateur collector's classification, but all classifications represent a particular point of view, and there is little point in being dogmatic about such things.
However, if you have feedback that might inform future assessment sof species, or general feedback, please do post your views here.

I am no botanist so I am limited to the comments I am able to make on this Classification but one thing I would pick up is in Subgenus Krainzia. Here we have two Series, Longiflora and Herrerae+Pectinifera were the seed/fruit can be found in a number of different positions, buried within the plant body, half buried and the friut either between the plant body and the spines or above the spines.
Perhaps there could be a case for spilting Herrerae and Pectinifera to give us 3 Series and rearraging the plants but I do believe that M.saboae and M.theresae should be in the same group has M.sanchez-mejoradae.

Tam.

I don't understand the reasons for the structure of all these Series, now in subgenus Krainzia.
I have to assume that to extend Krainzia to include the saboe/theresae complex and the former Herrerae and Lasiacantae species that there is some fundamental characteristic of the original definition of the Genus Krainzia that is found to a greater or lesser extent in those species.
But I wonder what that was?

According to Backeburg's Cactus Lexicon, 1966 st edition, Krainzia contained just two species, longiflora and guelzowiana, both from Durango, both large flowered and hooked spined.

The next bit of information comes from the Classification of Jonas Luthy 1995 where he resurrects Krainzia as a Section of subgenus Cochemiea, and it contains 2 Series, Herrerae and Longiflorae, but omitting the other species such as guelzowiana, which is in another series, Phellosperma, along with tetrancistra and barbata.

There's obviously been a lot of mixing and matching along the way of Hunt's 1987 and Luthy 1995 to create the Classification implicit in the NCL. Let's hope that it is botanically correct and not a political expedient of bridging views.

At least to understand the Herrerae+Pectinifera series in subgenus Krainzia I'd have to find the original Luthy details...more searching in my Journals, I suspect. I hope he explains why!

Another point for consideration is the placing of M.lenta into series herrerae+Pectiniferea. To me lenta is more close to lasiacantha in appearance and location than to any of the others in that group. I suggest it would be better placed in Subgenus Mammillaria, Series Lasiacanthae.

Tam.

I think that appearances can be deceptive. There are many examples across the plant kingdon of similar looking plants which belong to many different families.
If you compare the flowers of lenta to any of the lasiacantae, the seed pods, in shape, strucrure or timing of flowering / seed pod production, I think there will be enough differences to suggest that a simple appearance is not enough to go on.
But I'm sure a botanist would have many other reasons for differentiating, maybe internal structure, or even chemistry. Look at the crinita complex and the fact that they all have a particular chemistry.
This is why I wish that the botanists would recognise that the plants they pronouce upon are grown by a wide range of amateurs, and that they need to justify to us what they are proposing and not just to other botanists.