ToddO,

That is actually Mammillaria gracilis f. monstruosa.

Jordi

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:493713}}

ToddO,

That is actually Mammillaria gracilis f. monstruosa.

Jordi

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:493713}}

So good they named it twice!

Here's mine, labelled as Mammillaria gracilis 'Arizona Snowcap', a couple of weeks ago. Its still flowering. M. fragilis is an obsolete synonym of M. gracilis. The most recent lumping has it as M. vetula ssp gracilis.

{{gwi:478180}}

Thanks for the ID fellas, I'm starting to understand why all the name lumping ruffles some people's feathers.

That plant in Jordi's link is nuts.

ToddO

Whatever "lump" it falls in, it is indeed striking!!! Gotta want one!!
Bill in SC

Hey Bill, Taxonomists always take a hit when it comes to plant names. People often make them out to be demons that go around renaming plants willy-nilly. Taxonomists donÂt just name plants - they classify them. The grower, collector or dealer doesnÂt need to classify their plants - they need a name that describes the plant or separates it from others that look different but are actually the same species. Taxonomists use a 2 or 3 name system. The 3rd name can be a variety (v. or var.) or a subspecies (ssp.). Taxonomists do not use the Latin term forma (f. or fa.), trademark names (® or TM), cultivar names (cv. Âname in single quotesÂ), monstrose (monstrosa), new species (sp. nov. or nova.), new variety (v. nov. or v. nova.), affinity (aff.) or unnamed (n.n. or nomen nudum) These are called descriptive names and have nothing to do with the classification or taxonomy of the plant. There can be many different Âkinds of plants although they are all the same species. e.g. there are many different Âkinds of dogs but they are all the same species. When a taxonomist changes the name/classification of a plant he/she must publish a scientific paper showing evidence for the change. The change must then be approved by an international nomenclature committee made up of people that specialize in those species. WS

I believe that rulings are only made by the relevant committee under certain specific cirumstances described in the code, and even then must be proposed to the committee for a ruling. Beyond that the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is intended to be precise enough that published names are either valid or invalid without the need for a central body to decide. That does leave the field open for species names to be changed on a inconveniently frequent basis. This is recognised by The International Botanical Congress, which has said amongst other things "the XV International Botanical Congress urges plant taxonomists, while such work continues, to avoid displacing well established names for purely nomenclatural reasons, whether by change in their application of by resurrection of long-forgotten names". Note that if a taxonomist chooses to ignore the advice, a validly published name change for such trivial reasons is still a valid name change.

To some extent, CITES has become a central repository for species names but it only includes species "protected by CITES against over-exploitation through international trade". This happens to include a fairly complete (100% complete?) list of Cactaceae.

SnB, Unfortunately, when we write emails to post on the forum, text that would normally take pages to explain has to be shrunk to a single sentence. IÂve posted many times on this and several other forums trying to explain the difference between scientific names and horticultural names. Mixing these 2 quite different schemes does not work well and is a constant source of confusion and debate among cactophiles. Demonizing taxonomists for ignoring all the forms created in cultivation or ridiculing horticulturists for their never ending name embellishments is not the way to solve this problem. We must try to recognize and understand the relationships between these 2 systems of naming our plants. WS

I neither agreed nor disagreed with your explanations of plant names, WS. I simply commented that, in my understanding, there is no central committee vetting new botanical names, changed names, lumped or split names. You said The change must then be approved by an international nomenclature committee made up of people that specialize in those species and I don't think that's true. Publish it, in an appropriate journal and following the rules, and that's the name.

The whole process is so vague for me to understand, even to the point of disagreements between folks trying to describe it.. Soooo.. I won't try and figure it out, but simply enjoy my cacti by their common names. After all, I am neither a botonist, nor taxonomist, and do not plan to creat any new hybrids or lump or separate any species!! :-) Peace, joy, and love to all!! HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!
Bill in SC

Right-on Bill, I always seem to hit the hot buttons. Names, soil mix, pesticides. About names; my Mammillaria sp. 04 has been blooming all month - it has a family tree something like BillyÂs, the pup we rescued last month. WS
Two rescues, Kokopelie & Billy say Merry Christmas to everybody out there.
{{gwi:493721}}

That is an exceptional photo!

randy

As I understand it this name confusion may have happened due to pressure by the growers of the plant. I have a grower friend that has been growing the normal form of the plant for more than 30 years. In fact it was M. fragilis. The name hurt sales so in time it was changed to M. grascilis

The name Mammillaria gracilis was published first, in 1838 by NE Pfeiffer. Then a plant was described as Mammillaria fragilis in aboout 1850, apparently by Prince Joseph Maria Franz Anton Hubert Ignaz Fürst zu Salm-Reifferscheidt-Dyck! It appears that the two species were first described as synonomous in 1929 by Berger, although M. fragilis continued to be used long after that and you still see it for sale today. In 1997, Hunt relegated M. gracilis to M. vetula ssp gracilis, a name which you won't see very often on labels.

Great pic WS!!!! I set it as wallpaper for my computer screen for a while!!
Bill in SC