StrUktO wrote:when I looked up e. bulbocalyx on the guide one of the synonyms was p. bulbocalyx, adding the marayensis to that would come closer, yes?
I don't get it. What are you trying to get closer to? I have to correct the spelling. It should be "marayesensis", found at Marayes in Argentina.
The only definitely positively valid name with this word in it is Pyrrhocactus umadeave var marayesensis. Unfortunately this plant simply isn't the same species as Pyrrhocactus umadeave so I think you should throw out that name. There is a Neoporteria umadeave and possibly N. umadeave var marayesensis, but even if valid that name is even more misleading so ignore that too.
Then there is Pyrrhocactus marayesensis, possibly invalid but at least published and not misleading. To this day some people would prefer to keep this plant as a separate species because the general appearance is so different from E. bulbocalyx. However it is worth bearing in mind that this is merely one form selected out of a very varied population which includes plants just like E. bulbocalyx from any other location as well as a number of different flower colours, body colours, and types of spines. Before you get any ideas about them being hybrids, this is hundred of miles from where E. umadeave is found.
The NCL would include your plant as E. bulbocalyx but then it doesn't list varieties anyway. So far as I can see E. bulbocalyx var marayesensis and E. bulbocalyx var marayesensis have never been published so I wouldn't be a fan of putting those on the label. My seeds came labelled as Eriosyce bulbocalyx "marayensis" (sic!) FK709, and that is as good a name as any. Or Pyrrhocactus bulbocalyx "marayesensis" if you want to split.
I think the seedlings look every bit like other E. bulbocalyx seedlings and not like E. umadeave. I don't have a photo of E. umadeave at exactly the same size but here is one just a bit older.
I think I will leave it grafted and try to root one of the pups
Pyrrhocactus don't do pups! Maybe it will on a graft.