Mystery echinocerus

[Carondelet75]

Hi All,
I am new to this forum and would be glad for any assistance in identifying the species of echinocereus in the attached photos. Unfortunately it has not yet flowered. I grew it from a batch of seeds that were echinocereus rigidissimus var. rubispinus. However, all the other plants from that batch went on to display the characteristic bands of purplish spines. I am wondering if this could possibly be the cultivar "albiflorus" which apparently has cream coloured spines( not a heap of photos online).The spines curve back towards the stem like rubispinus but completely lack any of the colour, even on the apex, which is rather flat and not rounded. I can't find any other photos of echinocereus species with spination like this. Any help would be much appreciated!

[teo]

A 'normal' rigidissimus or a reichenbachii maybe ?

[Carondelet75]

I had a look at some photos of a reichenbachii and thought the spines looked a bit different.

Might be a regular rigidissimus. Most of the photos online show them with the purple spines and the cactus-art website describes them as having bands of colour but they did have one photo of a plant with pure white spines. I would think it would be more likely to be a regular rigidissimus than an albiflorus, although that would be a nice surprise

[DaveW]

Plants are variable, even within a single population in habitat. Many in cultivation are clones selected for their particular spination colour.

Any plants grown from seeds can vary due to dominant or recessive genes. In the past people used to love giving different names to every minor variation. As to rubispinus being variable from seed see the links below, but we tend to pick the reddest spined given a choice on the sales bench. However your plant is still a juvenile and may develop redder spination later.

Click on picture in link to enlarge.

https://www.floraccess.com/en/v/35504/j ... ubispinus/

https://depositphotos.com/194100476/sto ... simus.html

One of the diagnostic features of Echinocereus is the green stigma lobes, but rubispinus is one of the few Echinocereus that can have either greenish or reddish stigma lobes:-

rubispinus.jpg (61.55 KiB) Viewed 836 times

See one with green stigma lobes in small pictures in link below:-

https://rareplant.me/more-succ/echinoce ... s-10-seeds

[tumamoc]

A 'normal' rigidissimus or a reichenbachii maybe ?

I think this is exactly right. It's very hard to ID these immature forms with pectinate spines. In addition, reichenbachii has a lot of different varieties.

[CactusInteruptus]

Is it "rubispinus" or "rubrispinus"? I'm confused.

[Carondelet75]

Thanks so much for the info guys. Your information has been very helpful.

I have seen spelling of both rubispinus and rubrispinus online. It is a tad confusing

[DaveW]

The correct name is rubispinus, since it was originally published as Echinocereus pectinatus var. rubispinus G.Frank & A.B.Lau. Later it was transferred to a variety of Echinocereus rigidissimus, as Echinocereus rigidissimus var. rubispinus by Nigel Taylor.

People get confused since for many cacti the more common spelling rubrispinus has been used. However the authors original spelling rubispinus is the valid one in this case. Though as you say you will see it spelt both ways on the Web. Spelling mistakes can be corrected under the Botanical Code for Nomenclature, but this is not considered a spelling mistake, being the intentional spelling by the original authors therefore stands.

http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACT ... rubispinus

[Carondelet75]

The correct name is rubispinus, since it was originally published as Echinocereus pectinatus var. rubispinus G.Frank & A.B.Lau. Later it was transferred to a variety of Echinocereus rigidissimus, as Echinocereus rigidissimus var. rubispinus by Nigel Taylor.

People get confused since for many cacti the more common spelling rubrispinus has been used. However the authors original spelling rubispinus is the valid one in this case. Though as you say you will see it spelt both ways on the Web. Spelling mistakes can be corrected under the Botanical Code for Nomenclature, but this is not considered a spelling mistake, being the intentional spelling by the original authors therefore stands.

http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACT ... rubispinus

Glad to have that spelling explained. I have been wondering about that for years.