I think the first one is M. albata which is now considered a form of M. geminispina.

The second one is slightly wooly so I don't think it is M. matudae. How about M. elegans, or a related M. haageana.

Hi S&B, both plants don't have the sappy latex. So I guess that rules out the geminispina. The haageana's call for 1-4 centrals but usually 2 are normal. Could the second plant be a M. conspicua (haageana)? Could the first one be that also? Thanks for your help.

Dawn

You can see those spines pointing up in Mammillaria huitzilopochtli ?? and M. haageana for the first could be OK
Alfonso

The second one could be M. huitz..., its related to M. haageana. Or they might both be M. haageana ssp something, ssp conspicua is as good as any. Look at the shape of the tubercles, M. huitz... are rounded all the way to the bottom, often not tapered so they are like little cylinders stuck to the side of the plant, but they may also be cone-shaped. M. haageana tubercles are difficult to see, they are quite small and well hidden by the radials, but they are rounded near the top and become square (or diamond-shaped if you like, because the squares are arranged with the corners pointing up, down, and to each side) at the bottom so that they all fit together neatly. I took this shot, contrast enhanced, to show how M. haageana tubercles look. It's not even easy to photograph them! This is a very small plant, so the tubercles are really quite small.

{{gwi:462609}}

This is a close-up of the 1st plant. I did find some that had 2 centrals. This plant has wool from top to bottom, Thicker amounts at the top half.
{{gwi:462610}}
{{gwi:462611}}

This is a close-up of plant #2. This plant has 1 central and they are longer. The wool is only at the top half of the plant.
{{gwi:462612}}
{{gwi:462613}}

These close-ups are as good as I can get. My macro feature doesn't work. Are these clear enough? Both plants appear to have squarish tubercles. Are both these plants the same thing? Looking at these 2 side by side I can see slight difference.

Dawn

I think Alfonso got the second one. Look at that central spine towards the top of an elongated areole. The tubercles look round to me, do you see edges on them?

I'm still not happy about the first one. Those flowers are quite distinctive but not right for the species we are talking about. I'll have to go do some reading :)

I didn't think that #2 could be a Mammillaria huitzilopochtli.Thanks Alfonso. I don't know about you S&B but #1 is driving me crazy. It's got to be a haageana of some sort. Thanks for all your help.

Dawn

I just thought of something, with Mammillaria huitzilopochtli the wool only grows where the flowers will come in. Now with #2 plant the wool is all over but mostly on the top half. M. huitz. flowers are at the bottom half. Is this correct?

Dawn

Look at this image on the Norm Dennis gallery
http://www.tucsoncactus.org/cgi-bin/MySQLdb/GraphView.php?keyId=304

Here is a link that might be useful: M. huitz

And this other one in mammillaria.de
http://www.mammillarias.net/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=H&id=Mammillaria_huitzilopochtli_120603

and this Haggeana ssp elegans
http://www.mammillarias.net/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=H&id=Mammillaria_elegans_lupina_ML_33_ML_98_Dz1

Maybe it helps

Here is a link that might be useful: M huitz

All Mammillaria flower more or less on the previous season's growth. On young fast-growing plants this may cause flowers to appear on the lower half of the stem, while on older plants the flowers can appear to be in a tiny crown at the top. Its all relative and I wouldn't read too much into it.

I don't have any better suggestions than the ones I already made. The close-up pics are excellent and to me they show (on the first plant) two centrals on each areole, but the lower one is almost completely white and not easy to distinguish from the radials. If you look where the spine emerges from the areole you can usually distinguish between centrals and radials even when they look alike. The lower central in particular appears shorter than the radials but that might just be foreshortening.

Ok,I am convinced now that the #2 plant is a M. huitzilopochtli. I'm going to stick with the haageana name for the first plant. It's the only thing I (we) can come up with that will fit the bill. I think adding the ssp. elegans is closest like Alfonso suggested. Thank you guys so much for putting up with me. You guys have helped me alot.

Have fun,
Dawn