strombocactus seidelii ?

[cefalophone]

Is this a valid species? I've recently become interested in the strombocactus genus and looking on the main page I saw this listed under disciformis as a subspecies. In the xerophilia article the author, whose name eludes me at the moment, said that it is invalid and is merely a locality type. Has anyone grown seeds listed under this name and do they differ from the rest of the genus?

[iann]

I think it was named var seidelii, not ssp although I've seen it called a subspecies by some sellers. They are from a particular locality, not really any different from S. disciformis but supposedly smaller. Except the habitat photos I've seen are still pretty impressive plants

[cefalophone]

Do you have any links to pictures of them in habitat? The only pictures I've seen are from the xerophilia article. I always love seeing habitat pics

Are they as small as jarmilae or an intermediate size between the standard and jarmilae? This kind of thing kind of irks me because the sellers misrepresent what it is they are selling. Much in the way that lophophora localities are sold as varieties despot being indistinguishable from each other for the most part. But I prefer location numbers attached to the plants I buy rather than having a "rare" variety and I guess not all cacti collectors think the same as I. Except for monstrose and critate varieties. I'm a sucker for those haha

[DaveW]

I also got some seed of it this year, along with some of S. corregidorae.

Looks as if it the new combination (Crkal in Repert. Pl. Succ. (I.O.S.) 34: 8 (1985):. 1983 and Lovec Kaktusu: 401 (1983) under S. disciformis was made based on a 1924 publication as Strombocactus turbiniformis v. seidelii of A, V, Fric. S. turbiniformis Pfeiffer 1838 was later considered a synonym for S. disciformis Britton & Rose 1922, but why the Br. & R. name took precedence over the earlier one I do not know?

http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACT ... ._seidelii" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This subject was raised on the BCSS Forum along with pictures a while ago, which saves me posting it twice.

http://www.bcss.org.uk/foruma/viewtopic ... 1&t=153791" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also got this small plant as Strombocactus disciformis v. minimus, but it flowered small therefore whether it is distinct form remains to be seen since some consider it to be a synonym of S. disciformis ssp. jarmilae:-

http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACT ... f._minimus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mimimus.jpg (99.95 KiB) Viewed 2062 times

An article here on Strombocactus, but you will have to use an online translator and decipher the jumbled English that results!

http://cact.cz/noviny/2013/05/Ariocarpus_13.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bing's online translator basically says, modified to read better by me:-

"In the Czechoslovakian horticultural fact sheets from Fric in 1924 he writes not only about Strombocactus turbiniformis, but at the same time describes the variety of seidelii, differing from the type by the length of the petals."

There is also a piece on S. corregidorae in Cactus Explorer 2, p 11-13.

[cefalophone]

Thank you Dave for that wealth of information.

I have on more question if you do not mind. Also one xerophilia article the author reported a variety of strombocactus with a purple hue to it. Are you aware of this variety being available in cultivation yet?

[DaveW]

You mean pages 23-30 of Xerophilia link below, (note that the pictures are not duplicated in the different language versions, but are additional images):-

http://xerophilia.ro/wp-content/uploads ... .12.12.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No not aware it has been introduced to cultivation. He calls it "Strombocactus disciformis ssp. disciformis ‘Morados’", and goes on to say:-

"I think that its hue is caused by some micro-climatic factors; however, I regard it as normal Strombocactus disciformis ssp. disciformis, but with that extra feature."

It may be simply a result of habitat stress and disappear in cultivation unless it has other distinguishing features. The following link may possibly be an explanation since many succulents develop stress colours in either cold or dry and hot periods:-

http://lophophora.blogspot.co.uk/2013/0 ... -cold.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He also comments on siedelii, illustrating it as figure 4:-

"In the area near Peñamiller, unlike in other populations, the strombocacti are of a smaller size, and therefore in Europe this form is named Strombocactus disciformis ssp. seidelii – an invalid name. There are not so many plants left as access is also easy to this population, which can found on the banks of the river; grows together with Thelocactus leucacanthus ssp. schmolli and Echinocactus platyacanthus."

Can't find other illustrations of seidelii in cultivation except this juvenile:-

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/CactusJ ... 7.jpg.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unfortunately I don't have access to Fric's original descriptions of turbiniformis and seidelii to see what he considers are the differences between them.

[Aiko]

I think it was named var seidelii, not ssp although I've seen it called a subspecies by some sellers.

For instance up here: http://www.cactusstore.com/category_277 ... cactus.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. From Pena Blanca Queretaro in Mexico apparently.

[DaveW]

The plant was originally published as a variety by Fric and the later combination under disciformis retained varietal status for it (Strombocactus disciformis var. seidelii (Fric) Crkal 1983). Any change in botanical classification or status has to be formally published and as far as I can discover, since most modern classifications regard it as simply a synonym of S. disciformis, nobody has bothered to make the formal transfer from variety (var.) to subspecies (ssp.), therefore it is still seemingly legally a variety.

Subspecies seems to be a modern trend botany has borrowed from zoology for subspecific taxa, though I believe variety and forma are still available under the "Code". However nurserymen and authors often arbitrarily and "illegally" change var. to ssp. to seem more modern, often assuming such a transfer has been made. But I am afraid until the transfer is legally made it is still a variety.

http://faculty.washington.edu/reichard/ ... ichard.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.cites.org/eng/com/pc/11/E-PC ... Attach.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[promethean_spark]

I have a pot of seedlings about 3 or 4 years old and about 1cm at the largest in diameter. They grow about as fast as regular strombocactus. They are a brighter shade of green from all my other strombo seedlings, and are much larger than v. jarmilae of the same age.