Now that's what I call great ID piccies. Not M. parkinsonii. Let me go look at some other species ...

How do you feel about M. columbiana? I can't recall seeing one of these in the flesh but it matches from pictures. One of the caribbean species.

Thanks for the research, SnB. When I initially searched for columbiana as per your suggestion, I thought 'no way'. But the more pictures I scrutinized, the more I find that are better matches. We're both familiar with species variability and you just might have the answer.

Muchas gracias.

Al

Nice pic Al, what kind of camara do you use. I still have a hard time with focus. Jim

Hmm, spination is very close to Mamm ruestii, which is now also a form of columbiana, but I'm not convinced... I don't have any other suggestions to offer at this stage though, when it flowers, you'll get a better idea, because in all the forms of columbiana the flowers are quite tiny, barely protruding from the wool.

CP

Thanks, Cp for your input. I made a card for this plant and will await flowering for a more studious determination.

Jamesfe - my camera is a Nikon coolpix 8700. Thanks for the kind words on the picture. It's taking me a lot more time to learn the ins and outs of the instrument. And i am a long way from mastering all the buttons.

Al

We're getting closer, cactophiles, to a M. nejapensis with this nice picture. Right shape and fuzziness just the spines don't match. So we are certainly looking at, I am hoping, a cross of M. nejapensis and perhaps M. haniana or M. polyedra. I think cactuspolecat had a similar pic. on his Australia web site a couple months ago. What name did you give that one CP? The day I see a true to species M. nejapensis shall be a day of jubilation and revelation.

Actually Joe, now that you mention it, one of the plants I compared it with, (which was my immediate thought) is Mamm karwinskyana ssp collinsii, and it looks very close... but the karwinskyana's have bristles in the axils as well as wool, this one lacks the bristles, and it also has radials that are absent on karwinskyana ssp collinsii. The plant I had on the Aussie site still bears the name "sp" as I haven;t settled on a name for it (I reckon it's a hybrid??)

CP

Huh? Karwinskiana? Nejapensis??? There are crucial features of the M. karwinskiana complex that just aren't present in this plant. I'm hard-pressed to see any real features that are present. I don't consider "overall fuzziness" to be a valuable identification feature :)

I'm not sure why you would want to suggest even a hybrid when the plant already closely matches a common species. If it is a hybrid, other than a minor variation on a recognised species, then you have no hope of identifying it. You can't simply say a plant has the tubercles of M. polythele and the spines of M. hahniana, therefore it is a hybrid of those two.

Check for latex and you'll have a valuable indicator. Also, it would be helpful to know the overall size and shape, possible age, and whether it appears to have ever flowered. The flowers and fruits would, as always, be the clincher, but when a plant is within the normal range of variation for a species then I see no need to invent a more complex explanation.