M. prolifera ID.

Ok... I had seen this plant a while back and was so.... taken (?) by it, I really had to have one. But after MUCH searching, I was only able to find a larger type with heads up to about an inch across... so that's what I got.
Then the other day, I found an even Larger type.... But I didn't buy it I should have ... Heads were about 2 inches.
I've been assuming the tiny type is from South-western Texas and neighboring Mexico, the medium size (like I have) from South-eastern Texas and neighboring Mexico and the really large type being from the Caribbean.
Anyone that familiar with this plant?

Here's pics of the tiny one and I now have a few heads coming

No one knows much about M. prolifera? I was hoping for some info.
Does anyone have any M. prolifera from a known location? We can start with that

Hi Paul,
I'm sorry but I must have missed your earlier post.

I have several forms of M. prolifera:

Mammillaria prolifera multiceps ML122 prolifera La Reforma Tamaulipas
Mammillaria prolifera texana FO-057 Moctezuma Hidalgo
Mammillaria prolifera texana Rep1430 sw. La Reforma, La Reja, 850-1200m, Tamaulipas
Mammillaria prolifera texana SB713 Sabinas Hidalgo, Nuevo Leon
Mammillaria prolifera JL1281
Mammillaria prolifera K 234 Sierra La Paila, Coahuila
Mammillaria prolifera Vilardebo, Punta Leyana , Cuba

As you can see I don't actually have any from Texas itself. None of my plants have heads as small as you show, nor are as columnar. I see differences in spination between the various forms, and I have a M. prolifera arachnoidea but without field data. All form closely packed heads of about 1" or so across, my largest has maybe 40 or 50 heads.

Where have your plants been grown? Have they had enough light? I was wondering if they were growing this way because of light problems. But I wouldn;t have expected this to be so in your part f the world, unless it had been grown indoors in a darkish part.

If you'd like to see some photos, I'll get into the greenhouse with my camera over the next few days. Letme know.

Hey Chris,

That's not actually mine... yet
I'm going to be getting a few heads from that plant. The guy who owns it lives in Orlando and grows it outdoors, so it gets plenty of sun. Where he got it I don't know yet... but I'll find out. He said it grows very fast and that he has "filled flats with it in the past".
But as for Plants from Texas, We'll change that

I'll post any location information I can as I get it.

Paul

Oh yeah... And thanks

I have a number of plants from document sources but have never seen a form like this. Of all the 15 diferent collections I have, none come from the states. The only field number I know from the states is SB 856, Cameron Co, Teaxas.

Hmmm... Well, Hopefully I can get the pieces being sent to me to bloom next year and can share some seeds.
I'll also take more pictures when i get mine.

Oh yeah.... And that's quite a collection of M. prolifera you have there Tam . What can you show us are some the differences between them all? It's difficult to see them from your photo.
But.... The bottom Right one looks to have a darker flesh color... not even green and darker centrals.
The middle one in the styrofoam cups in the back looks to have a yellower spine color.
Are they Much different in person?
I suppose they shouldn't be if they're all M. prolifera
Are they all pretty much the same size?
From what I've read, I get the impression the form from the Caribbean is Quite Large. Bensons "The Cacti of the United States and Canada" states M. prolifera var. prolifera has heads from 2.5-6 cm in Diameter.
The M. prolifera var texana it states are only 1.2-2.5 cm.
So, the Largest heads on M. p. texana is the smallest size of the heads on M. p. prolifera!!!
Now... Apparently I misread this before... (or remembered incorrectly) Because I thought I remembered Three varieties being described... Western and Eastern Texas and the Caribbean.
The Tiny one I posted appears to be as large as the smallest head size for M. p. texana! I'm Hoping to find out where this guy got his from and hopefully can tell me a collection location.
Fingers Crossed.

Hi Paul,

leave it with me and I will post some pictures of certain collections. It will not be unitil Thursday until I am back up at the glasshouse.

Tam.

Hi Paul and Tam,

I'd done some research into this species from various books, and this is what I had found:

According to the books, Mammillaria prolifera is very widespread, and not surprisingly the authorities don’t fully agree.

We know that there are a number of geographical races, and these have been shown to follow a polyploid series. Polyploidy is where there are a different number of chromosome pairs, and the West Indian varieties,( var. prolifera and var. haitensis, are hexaploid (6x), but I also read that the Cuban form is apparently tetraploid; var. texana is tetraploid (x4); and the East Mexican var. arachnoidea is diploid (x2). The main differences that arise from these variations are in the colour and strength of the spines.

Pilbeam documents three varieties –
Var. prolifera which is the West Indian form and has white radials and pale yellow central spines. [However, I have a form from Cuba which has white centrals as well.]

Var. arachnoidea is form from southern Tamaulipas and has small heads, with very fine central spines almost the same as the radials.

Var. texana isn’t limited to Texas but extends South into Queretaro, and has typically brown tipped central spines. However he goes on to say that Weniger found a yellow spined variant in Coahuila which he thinks should have a separate name.

Reppenhagen uses the name M. prolifera for the West Indies form and M. multiceps for the mainland forms. Apart from the geographical separation, he distinguishes them by flower shape, M. prolifera having tubular flowers, and M. multiceps having wide open flowers.

His description for M. multiceps allows variation in central spines from pale yellow to brown. He doesn’t think that var. texana is significant, though he did describe a var. humilis from Queretaro with small heads, difficult to detach, and slow growing.

Is there some approach that unifies all of this? Only really to lump them. And that is why I grow a number of forms, without real concern as to naming, so long as I know where they come from.

When Tam posts closer up photos, it will be interesting to compare them to the attempts at description above!

I still don't understand the whole Diploid, Triploid, Tetraploid, etc. Thing. But that's ok for now.
As for Confusion... I live on the East Coast of the US and if you want to see confusion, look into O. humifusa. And I understand there's LOTS of different forms and confusion with O. fragilis and O. polyacantha as well!

Well anyway... It will be nice to see the differences.
Maybe this little headed plant that I've (hopefully) got coming is a Var. arachnoidea or var. humilis. When they said "small" heads, did Pilbeam or Reppenhagen give any measurements?

The description (by Hunt) in the book by Pilbeam says to 4.5cm wide and to 9cm tall. As the plants clump up, the central heads grow to this sor tof size, surrounded by smaller offsets. In the descriptions of v. prolifera he says to 7cm wide, and for v. texana 5-7cm wide.
Reppenhagen says 1.5 to 8 cm tall and 2-6cm wide for M. prolifera; for multiceps he says 1.5 to 6cm tall and 1.5 to 3cm wide. His multiceps v. humilis is described as 1-2cm wide, slow growing and rather difficult in culture.

I'm not quite sure what to make of these measurements as you can see they aren't exactly in synch!

Here are a few collections of prolifera...ssp texana SB 713, Sabinas, Hgo



ssp texana SB 856, Cameron Co, Tex



ssp texana FO- 057



ssp texana. This is the yellow spined form that Chris mentions above and it goes by the name of forma pusila.



The next plant is sometimes treated has a species but I place it under prolifera...spp zublerae WM 8710, near Ocampo, Tula, Tamaulipas.



I will post a few more tomorrow afternoon. Tam.

A few more for today.

prolifera ssp prolifera. An undocumentd plant that came from Kew Gardens.



prolifera ssp arachnoidea RS ( Roman Stanik ) 510, Santo Domingo, SLP.



prolifera sp prolifera Rog 112a, San Ciero, SLP.



prolifera ssp prolifera H.O. ( Heins Otto ) 483. Very flat.



prolifera ssp prolifera WK 303, la Crucita, NL.

Hey Tam,

I like the one you "place under spp zublerae WM 8710, near Ocampo, Tula, Tamaulipas". After all the other images, it's much brighter. I like the lighter colored flowers and spines!
The undocumenetd plant from Kew Gardens is also very nice! I Like how small the heads look!
But the Flat one, ssp prolifera H.O. ( Heins Otto ) 483 is Really great! That is so interesting!
You really can see the differences between all of them! I'm going to have to take a picture of mine and try to compare. Maybe I can ID it. I'm refering to a plant I purchased a few months back... not the tiny one I'm expecting.
I'm also waiting on some of those plants collected in Texas. The rancher was building on his property but decided to save the cactus.... even after bulldozing the area! He allowed my friend to come collect what he could. Some of the seeds are on their way but the plants would be nicer to see. Oh wait.... I have photos from my friend... I'll post them next.

Ok, here's a photo in Habitat that he took and the next is a photo of one of his potted plants. Guess he's a smoker
But after looking at the pictures and comparing them... They look different from yours.
There's similarities to sp prolifera Rog 112a, San Ciero, SLP, ssp texana SB 713, Sabinas, Hgo and maybe even spp zublerae WM 8710, near Ocampo, Tula, Tamaulipas.

What do you guys think?

Yup... Definitely different from your 856 from Cameron County, Texas.

I would say it is prolifera ssp texana, US / Mexico, but that would be has far as you could go, both the habitat range is just to large and the variability is just to great. This is one of the reasons I only grow documented plant material.
Could your mate not tell you were he took the picture. It certainly looks a nice plant.

Paul/Tam,Interesting comparisons aren't they. M. zubleri stands very much out, some say just a subspecies, others give it full species status. Obviously they are related.
The M. prolifera v. arachnoidea RS510 doesn't follow the description by Hunt when he named this plant, in as much as he specifically says there is no apparent difference between the centrals and the radials. This plant shows very distinct differences.
Your friend's plant is certainly what I'd call M. prolifera ssp. texana, and that's as far as I would go as well, Tam.
I'm glad he saved some plants, though it would be even better if he were to replant some offsets somewhere else on his land where they could develop on their own.

In relation to RS 510. I was just looking at Pilbeam's Mammillaria handbook and the location given for ssp arachnoidea is Tamaulipas, 8 km West of Antiguo Morelos on rocks beside Mex-80 and Hidalgo, East of Jacala, Barranca Rio Moctezuna, not San Luis Potosi.
The picture, in the book, of spp arachnoidea H.8057 looks totally different to RS 510. I would suggest that Roman Stanik has made a mistake and that RS 510 is nothing more than a form of prolifera ssp texana.

This is another collection, CC 381. I do not know anything this collection so would be grateful for any information.
I have seen it listed has sanluisensis / prolifrea and pilispina.
In my mind it certainly leans towards prolifera ssp texana.

Yes, I'd agree with you Tam on RS510.
Now CC381 - I bought a plant called snaluisensis CC381 from Il Sole Rarita a couple of years ago. The first thing was obvious - it wasn't sanluisensis, at leats not the form of pilispina that has used this name. I thought it was prolifera and told Carlo so, and he agreed.
But my plant was a totally yellow spined plant, and very different from yours!
I did do some investigation and CC381 isn't a collectors number, it is the seed reference in Christa Cactus's seed catalgue. Christa went out of business some years ago, but I mananged to track down a catalogue from 1988-89 which had CC381 as being "the true" sanluisensis.
The photo of Shurly's original plant in Hunt's New Review... very clearly is of M. pilispina affiliation.
So, Tam, it is interesting that we have the same named and numbered plant, yet totally different, but both forms of prolifera!! I'll try to take a photo tomorrow - it does have small heads though Paul!

Hi Tam and Chris,
The plants in the photos above, that My friend rescued were the ones he collected seeds from that I told you about in the PM. He actually lives in Aransas Pass but the plants are from Papalote, Texas. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&gl=us&hl=en&g=Papalote%2C+TX&q=Papalote%2C+Texas&btnG=Search+Maps

Can either of you explain to me the traits that you are seeing that is making you say one plant is M. prolifera or another is ssp texana or ssp arachnoidea?
Sorry if that's too complicated a question to answer here

As for RS510, What ever it is, I like it's dense spination and distinct centrals. The heads look quite small too, although it's tough to see them through all the radials

How true to form do all your plants grow from seed? Is there too much of risk of cross pollination from all the other plants? Have you ever tried?

Hi Paul,
Mammillaria prolifera ssp. arachnoidea was erected as a name by Dr David Hunt of Kew, partly as a result of chromosome studies, which shows that it was diploid. It has been colleced by Hunt inn Tamulipas and in Hidalgo, which are quite a distance apart.
The other key differentiating characteristic is one that is readily apparent, unlike the chromosomes ( ). The central spines on this form are very fine, almost indistinguishable from the radials. It also has relatively small heads.
I have seen this subspecies in the Kew Reserve collection, and it is very distinctive indeed. But my attempts to grow this from seed bearing this name has produced plants that are ot a match for these fine spines.
The two locations are about 170kms apart, and I am surprised that it hasn't been found elsewhere, given how widely distributed this species is.
I must read more about ploidy, as can a plant which is 4n change through genetic modification to 2n or is it only a one way progression, from 2 to 4 to 6....?

Here's my CC381 for comparison, rather yellow in spination that yours, Tam. But it is perfectly possible that variation within commercial seed is possible - I've sown seed before now and had seeldings with brown and seedlinsg with yellow spines as a result.
It is in a 3.5" (9cm) pot, so you can judge the head size.

Hello I have this like prolifera ssp texana, but I´m not sure what do you think?

Thanks Chris! So, No distinct Centrals should be arachnoidea.
And Your CC381 is nice! Sorry Tam
It actually Looks similar to Tams H.O.483. Both appear rather flat with small heads with darker centrals.

Hey Nacho... I'd say it is... But these guys are the experts It's nice! Very neat looking!

Ok.... I finally took some pictures of my M. prolifera that I bought at a big box store. Can't even remember which one. There was no label with it, but it's obviously M. prolifera. Sorry... there were no flowers open today... not yet anyway. But they're just like all others

What'chya think? I plucked most of the fruit off already. Hopefully I've pollinated enough flowers successfully to have more next year. Not many bees or bugs up on my balcony

Hi Paul,

to pick up on your point ' How true to form do all your plants grow form seed .' The simple answer is, that you do not know. The only seed that should be considered true is seed from habitat.
You can only trust that the seed you receive from either other growers or commerical nurseries has been produced under contolled conditions and is as true has possible.
You can usually tell by looking at the growing seedlings to see if they all look the same or not.

Tam.

Tam wrote:

You can only trust that the seed you receive from either other growers or commerical nurseries has been produced under contolled conditions and is as true has possible.
You can usually tell by looking at the growing seedlings to see if they all look the same or not.

Even then, it's probably difficult to know if you ended up with True seedlings because of natural variations in a population... no?

Well, the seeds I sent were collected in habitat

I'm happy to try any seeds regardless of production conditions *hint*hint*

Oh yeah... And what do you think of my plant? Any comments? Ideas of type? Hybrid maybe? Probably?
All I can say as to Collection location is Home Depot LOL Sorry

Hi Paul,
Its a nice specimen of what I'd call M. prolifera ssp. texana. I don't think it is a hybrid, at least not with another species.

m sanluisensis CC381

prolifera texana sb856

m multiceps GK2705

m multiceps

Thanks Chris.

Ento, Nice plants... In fact, they all look kinda like mine

I'm so confused