Cuddle up to this soft cactus

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:30 pm

Looks kinda fluffy,like a heap of feathers with a cream flower withing.
And those spines are soft and britttle,like chalk.

Arizona Snowcap mammilaria

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:36 pm

Hi Cyclops, This reminds me of a "I love you" Hallmark card you would pick out for your wife or mother. Soft and fluffy

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:29 am

This is a cultivar, hybrid or monstrose Mammillaria gracilis, but I have never been able to find out which. So far nobody seems to have tracked down where it originally came from? The awl shaped spines are much thicker and stubbier than the normal M. gracilis.

My M. gracilis is flowering quite out of season at the moment due to an exceptionally warm autumn and October/November so far. The early flowering plants seem to think it is 2007 already!

If you want a non spiny pettable Mammillaria get Mammillaria plumosa. That has soft feathery spines but is difficult to flower in the UK as it flowers late on in the year, being a short day length plant, and we are then rather too dull for it. However, due to our warm winter mine is flowering for me for the first time in 25 years this year! The flowers also are nothing to write home about being small and yellow like your 'Arizona Snowcap'.

DaveW

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:43 am

It is a form of Mammilaria vetula subspecies gracilis, form 'Arizona Snowcap'
Dont think its a monstrose form tho.
Here You can see both types:Arizona snowcap alongside the original form(Mamilaria vetula ssp gracilis, often misnamed mamm gracilis)

'Gracilis':
http://www.derby.bcss.org.uk/m.gracilus.JPG

Arizona snowcap
http://www.derby.bcss.org.uk/m_snowcap.JPG

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:36 am

Yes, if you follow David Hunt's nomenclature it is a Mamm vetula subspecies. Botany now seems to be following Zoology in using subspecies at infraspecific rank instead of variety as used to be the case.

As the origins of the plant are not generally known, and as it has received the cultivar name 'Arizona Snowcap', it is either likely to be a sport or a selected clone that is probably not known in the wild. With a name like 'Arizona Smowcap' it obviously arose in the US.

I still tend to use the shorthand Mamm gracilis having been a collector for 45 years, so my first real cactus book was Borg's Cacti in the 1960's and his nomenclature tends to stick as a form of shorthand! I presume therefore you are a collector and a member of the BCSS too?

Incidentally, as you quote the Derby Branch Web site, I was one of the original Nottingham Branch BCSS (then NCSS) members that went over to help found Derby Branch many many years ago!

David Whiteley (AKA DaveW)

Member:- British Cactus & Succulent Society, Cactus & Succulent Society of America, Mammillaria Society, Tephrocactus Study Group and a founder member of The Chileans

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:49 am

DaveW wrote:Yes, if you follow David Hunt's nomenclature it is a Mamm vetula subspecies. Botany now seems to be following Zoology in using subspecies at infraspecific rank instead of variety as used to be the case.

As the origins of the plant are not generally known, and as it has received the cultivar name 'Arizona Snowcap', it is either likely to be a sport or a selected clone that is probably not known in the wild. With a name like 'Arizona Smowcap' it obviously arose in the US.

I still tend to use the shorthand Mamm gracilis having been a collector for 45 years, so my first real cactus book was Borg's Cacti in the 1960's and his nomenclature tends to stick as a form of shorthand! I presume therefore you are a collector and a member of the BCSS too?

David Whiteley (AKA DaveW)

Member:- British Cactus & Succulent Society, Cactus & Succulent Society of America, Mammillaria Society, Tephrocactus Study Group and a founder member of The Chileans

Oh yea i do go to the BCSS site a bit, had a few plants(including that one) from members on there,good kind folk
Oh and of course all cacti originate in the US(Including the Galapagos)

BTW, DaveW rings a bell from somewhere.....

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:42 am

All cacti do not originate in the US, unless the US has now annexed Canada, Mexico and all of South America as well. They are found from Canada right down to Patagonia. Also there are a few species of Rhipsalis found in Africa that were not introduced by man! The question has always been how they got there so far from the main distribution of the family in the Americas?

Only other site I use DaveW on is Macrophotography, I use Dave Whiteley on PlanetNikon. I did see a David W on another site, perhaps that's the one you were thinking of?

DaveW

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:55 am

err, my bad,its on here that i recognise it from.......

As for the cacti origin, what i should have said is that all cacti are american in origin, not US.(Canada,Mexico and Patagonia are considered american countries i believe, dont mean to insult anyone if it isnt-Im just c**p with Geography

)

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:00 am

Afraid from growing cacti I think I know more now about S. American geography than I do about finding my way around the UK!

DaveW

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:04 am

Well, I can get lost just going to town on the bus!

So are you a poster on BCSS?

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:33 am

Never bothered with the web site, but I have had letters in the journal from the 1960's onwards.

The key site for cactus and succulent lovers that links to virtually every cactus and succulent society around the world, plus all the major dealers is:-

http://www.cactus-mall.com/

All the best,

DaveW