I agree with you on the first three and am lost like you on the forth.

I think #4 is M. nivosa, another caribbean species.

S&B, I trust your judgement so unless someone proposes a better match I will go with nivosa, and presume that I got it right for the others.

Some more needing ID...

Any thoughts on this one? My only guess is hildewinteria
{{gwi:463197}}

Two views of this one - I don't even have a clue
{{gwi:463216}} {{gwi:463217}}

I don't know where to start guessing with this one.
{{gwi:463201}}

This I think is a mammillaria.
{{gwi:463203}}

Still more to come later :) Hope you all can help me figure out what these are.

The middle two look like Parodia species... that's as far as I can guess... and remember it is only a guess.

The third one of the last postings looks like an Echinofossulatus. Check to see whether there are thin wavy ribs connecting the areoles - it is difficult to tell from the pic but they appear to be present.

Steve,

The ribs are slightly wavy but not much and not so thin. When I try to get the photo any closer up it just gets blurred, but I will try to post a photo that shows more detail.

Hi jadegarden
#1 is as you guessed, and is now known as Cleistocactus winteri
#2&3 is the yellow spined form of Notocactus succineus ...there is also a white spined form. It is now known as Parodia scopa ssp. succinea.
#4 is a Stenocactus species, possibly vaupelianus. My first thought was Steno. albatus, which has white flowers and is now included as a synonym of Steno. vaupelianus. Vaupelianus has pink or pale pink flowers with darker mid-stripe.
#5 is possibly Mamm. haageana ssp. conspicua.

Cheers CP

I looked at M. conspicua for the last one but I don't think it is. Tubercles too spaced out, tubercles look too round, radials too short, too much wool. For something a little off the wall, check out M. halbingeri.

Echinofosullatus=Stenocactus
Can't keep up with the current names so don't try now!

Thanks CP. I went hunting for information on the internet to see what the differences are, etc.

I gather that Stenocactus is the now accepted name and not Echinofossulocactus (sure is easier to spell!) so at least I am now clearer on that one. And I also know that Notocactus is absorbed into Parodia.

What I don't understand is why we have this ongoing "reclassification" so that the names keep changing - lumpers vs splitters. I mean, if you lump things together, you still need to be able to describe them as different plants, so it seems as though we lump and then still have to split.

Maybe I should start a new thread, but I still need IDs on a few more plants -

What might this be?{{gwi:462417}}

Are these gymnocalyciums?
Two separate plants.{{gwi:463220}} {{gwi:463221}}

And this one?{{gwi:463222}}

Is this Lobivia or Echinopsis?{{gwi:463223}}
Or something else entirely?

Thanks for all the help.

What I don't understand is why we have this ongoing "reclassification" so that the names keep changing

It isn't being done for your convenience. If it ever had a name then it still has a name, providing you want to use it. You could give every plant you ever saw a different number if you like, after all they all have something slightly different about them. In fact, many collectors do just that and give each plant they find a different field collection number.

A binomial species name is intended to group together all plants within a genetically distinct group of interbreeding (or capable of interbreeding) plants, grouped together with plants that are thought to be closely related in a genus. When research offers new information, or the opinion of a plant taxonomist changes, then the binomial classification also changes. Its still the same plant and you can still call it by its old name or retain the field collection number if you wish to differentiate it.

S&B, I'm still looking up the M. halbingeri - found one photo that resembles mine but I still don't know how to look for all those details of spination, tubercule shape, etc.

While looking up all these other plants, I now think the first in my last batch might be Copiapoa, or maybe Turbinicarpus - can anyone confirm? Am I even on the right track?

Your first one looks like a Turb, possibly T. laui. I'm just downloading the other pics.

The two "gymnos" certainly look like Gymnos. I'll not offer a species name but I'm sure someone will.

The next looks like a Notocactus, again I'm sure someone will give a better name.

The last one does look like a Lobivia, perhaps something in the pentlandii group.

P.S. The turb has split. In this country, this tends to happen when it gets too much water right after the winter rest. Your plant is quite plump, no need for more water.

The second to last one is a Melocactus.

Thanks for all the help in identifying these plants. As they grow and flower (hopefully) they will reveal more of themselves.

Just to update, they are all settling in to their new home quite nicely, all except the one shown in the first photo of the last bunch of pics - it rotted away to nothing after I bare-rooted it.

The last one is a Parodia/Notocactus. I have this one myself, which I've also tried to ID. It's not a Lobivia.

I have a photo of mine on my Echinopsis Gallery

http://echinopsis.hobby-site.com (folder "other cacti/unknown")

Metamog,

I got two of these but one had buds/spent flowers from the side, hence my echinopsis assumption. I thought Notocacti flowered from the top/centre of the plant.

This is the other one.

{{gwi:463224}}

You are correct in Notos flowering from the centre. You mention that it had spent flowers on the side as if you bought it in this condition rather than see it flower yourself. Notos will retain spent flowers for years unless you gently pull them off (don't pull too strong as it may damage the plant if they are not ready to come off). I typically leave them on for more than a year until they are ready to pull off, thus it would appear that they have flowered from the side if you saw them at this stage.

Every day I learn something new. Indeed, you are correct about my getting the plant with the spent flowers on the side. But look at its size! I would never have even considered that those might have been at the centre of the plant when they bloomed.

And considering my record with blooms, it might be years before I see another one to confirm an ID : (

For now, it shall remain unlabelled and unidentified, lumped in as a "cactus". Which by the way, is quite acceptable to most people who have managed to not become addicted to pokey plants. So I know I will not be frowned upon by the visitors to my garden for this generalisation.

I might be wrong. I feel very insecure in ID'ing cacti! I've been wrong so many times.

It looks like your first picture of this "lobivia/parodia" has 4 CENTRAL Spines (brown). Could this be a way of excluding Echinopsis?

Morgan

You say you might be wrong, Morgan, but I am thinking that you might be right. I realise that I have another very similar plant labelled as Notocactus roseoluteus - spination seems to be the same.

{{gwi:463225}}

There are 4 brown central spines, but I don't know much about the spination patterns of the different genera and am trying hard to learn so that I can do better at IDing cacti. Hopefully someone else can advise whether these central spines would exclude Echinopsis.