M.monticola Rep 843

Another mistake worth highlighting in the seed lists is this one from the Piltz 2009 seed list.
Listed has M.martinezii Rep 843. M.martinezii is refereable to M.supertexta while Rep 843 is down has M.monticola, Punerta las Palmas, 21400m, Pue.



The above seedlings were sown 30-5-09, germinated 6-6-9, which makes them about 1 old and it is clearly not M.supertexta.

I think you are right about the field number being wrong for martinezii, and I can't find that Reppenhagen ever listed a field number under this name. He puts it as a synonym in his books, so it is clear he knew of the name and avoided using it.

The description Reppenhagen gives for M. supertexta includes radial spines 14-22, central spines 2-4, usually 2, 2mm to 12mm long, which might suggest that someone has made a correction, even though my mental image of M. supertexta is that the central spines are very short, and difficult to identify among the radials.

Coming back to Rep 843, given as aff. monticola, it has a location given as Puerta Las Palmas, Puebla, which unfortunately I can't find. However, Rep 842 is from Chiautla and Rep 844 is from Puente Marques, Tehuitzingo, so it is reasonable to assume that Rep 843 is from between these places which are in the far west of Puebla. Certainly M. supertexta does not come from that region of Puebla.

So yes, I'd go with monticola aff., or albilanata ssp oaxacensis according to Hunt.

Hi Tam, Hi Chris,

there is an early fieldlist from REPPENHAGEN witch was published in the year 1985 from the german AfM (Arbeitskreis fuer Mammillarienfreunde). In this list he described his found Rep 843 as M.martinezii from Puerta las Palmas, Puebla. The habitat is at 1410m on a hill with limestone under oaks. Rep 843 was found in the year 1974.

Robby

It would seem that Pilbeam used the 1985 Reppenhagen list when writing his book. I just had a quick look at the Rep field list that is on the AfM web-site and in that list it is listed has M.monticola ?
In Vol 2 of the Reppehagen martinezii is placed under M.supertexta and Rep 843 does not appear at all under either M.supertexta or monticola.
I wii go for M.albilanata oaxacana ( monticola ) Rep 843.

Sorry, I just found another reference to Rep 843. There is a dutch book called 'Mammillaria - Namen en Locatie' from KEES VAN GILS from 1983. Under M.martinezii I found a notice that Rep 843 is a form of M.albilanata.

That seems to confirm it then. It nice to know that even back then the Dutch were just has enlighten as David Hunt.

Hi Robby, just to let you know that there is one of these seedlings in the box that is on the way to you at this very moment.

Mark.

I sowed repp783 aff. monticola in 2001 (Piltz seeds) and rep783 martinezii in 2007 (Piltz seeds)

in 2010
monticola

martinezii

Two very different plants, with the same supplier of seed an dthe same fiel dnumber - something has ot be wrong here. Why is martinezii being broight back?

if martinezii is really synonomous with supertexta, as Reppenhagen and Hunt both say - unusual agreements!! - then Rep 783 is something else, and that looks more like a haageana than an albilanata, definietly not a supertexta..

Hi Ento,

Many thanks for the pictures, they are very useful.
Looking at the spination of the bottom picture, if the axils were just has wooly I could imgine it being to same has the one above.
The top photo does look like monticloa ML 052 has well.
Has regards Supertexta, I can not see it being any different from M.alblianata except in the shape of the plant body.

Immagini senza fiori
martinezii rep783


monticola rep783




monticola ML052

I mistakenly wrote martinezi Rep 783, but my plant is labeled martinezi Rep 843.
Sorry.