Neoporteria nidus or N. villosa or another

[jerrytheplater]

So I have been starting back into the hobby after letting my plants coast/slide/die for too many years. I have this one plant which has flowered for me first in 2008 and 2010, but I don't have many photo's in between and I don't remember it flowering. Could I really have been neglecting my plants that long? Its looking like I've left it at my work over winter since 2014 and that means it did not get a cool winter rest. Previously I was able to store my cacti at a commercial greenhouse kept just above freezing to keep the pipes from breaking. That friend now owns his own greenhouse, rather than working at one, so I know I can use his and may need to look into this.

Anyway, I was just looking through Cacti The Illustrated Dictionary and it looks like I may have a Neoporteria nidus or N. villosa, or something else I have not seen. Can anyone add any light here?

Here are photos of the plant as it was and as it is now.

2008-3-14 with flower buds:

rsz 2008-3-14 tall unknown 1.jpg (91 KiB) Viewed 1635 times

rsz 2008-3-14 tall unknown 2.jpg (150.57 KiB) Viewed 1635 times

2008-3-21 Side view of the flower:

rsz 2008-3-21 Side view flower.jpg (113.84 KiB) Viewed 1635 times

2010-4-21 top view of flower:

2010-4-21 flowering Tall unknown.JPG (104.3 KiB) Viewed 1635 times

2014-10-2 At my home before going back to work. Top and side view:

rsz 2014-10-2 1.jpg (140.07 KiB) Viewed 1635 times

rsz 2014-10-2 2.jpg (137.3 KiB) Viewed 1635 times

2021-4-3 Bare root after drying for about 3 days.

rsz 2021-4-3 Tall 1.jpg (70.25 KiB) Viewed 1635 times

2021-4-3 45 degree view. Notice there is an offset/branch forming along the side. First for this plant.

rsz 2021-4-3 Tall 2.jpg (137.55 KiB) Viewed 1635 times

2021-4-3 Top view with plant lying on its side.

rsz 2021-4-3 Tall 3.jpg (163.64 KiB) Viewed 1635 times

[mikethecactusguy]

Can I ask what is the purpose of completely unrooting a plant and letting it dry out?

[jerrytheplater]

I have not repotted it for at least a decade. I don't want to let it go any longer. Why wash all the soil off? So I don't get a drastic textural difference between what is on the roots and the new potting mix. I just made up a new mix and it is almost all mineral with very little organic. I'm using the last of my Dry Stall, very coarse sand, and #3 aquarium gravel with maybe 20% peat moss. All sieved through window screen after mixing to remove all fines.

Plus, the big surprise I found was the very beginning of a root mealy bug infestation. Saw them under one of the plants as I was preparing to bring it and others home from work. I washed them all in 2% Ivory Liquid Soap and rinsed in fresh water after rinsing off all of the media. I plan on using a systemic on all of my plants as they wake up.

[7george]

I think this is Neoporteria nidus (or Eriosyce senilis}.

[DaveW]

As George says one of the N. senilis complex and certainly not N. villosa. These as George implies have now all been lumped under senilis, including N. nidus and N. multicolour since they form a gradually changing cline in habitat. Also spination can vary in a single population. This is so called N. multicolour in habitat with black and white spined forms growing together.

Roger Ferryman photograph.

multicolor.jpg (274.65 KiB) Viewed 1598 times

[anttisepp]

We called them Neoporteria gerocephala...

[DaveW]

They are all the same thing Anttisepp = N. senilis.

N. gerocephala was an invalid Yoshito Ito name for N. senilis in 1957, published in an unexpected publication few botanists had access to if I remember correctly = "Bulletin of the Takarazuka Insectarium", therefore was not picked up for a while. Kattermann' s Eriosyce book claims Philippi's Echinocactus senilis of 1886 was also an invalid name, but Curt Backeberg validly published it as Neoporteria senilis in 1935. This also predates Ritter's N. multicolor in 1963, therefore being the oldest name available takes priority if all are "lumped".

Kattermann lumps Neoporteria into Eriosyce, but recognises two senilis subspecies = E. senilis subsp. coimasensis (= N. coimasensis Ritter 1963) and E. senilis subsp. elquiensis Kattermann 1994.

Personally I don't think Eriosyce sensu stricto belongs with the others so still prefer to call them Neoporteria, as in the Donald & Rowley "Reunion of Neoporteria" in 1966. This was virtually Fred Kattermann's "Eriosyce", but excluding Eriosyce sensu stricto.

[7george]

BTW, E. vilosa can look very alike but is not so spread in collections and has numerous thin radial spines...

Neoporteria villosa

Eriosyce_villosa_2.jpg (195.25 KiB) Viewed 1568 times

Eriosyce_villosa 5.jpg (201.42 KiB) Viewed 1568 times

[jerrytheplater]

Thanks guys. Now if I could only remember where I bought it!! Quite possibly from the CT Cactus and Succulent Society at a Spring Show. There was a gentleman there that had an extraordinary collection of Chilean cacti and I do remember him selling some at a show I was at. I forget his name, but I know the goal was to sell/give them to someone who would keep the collection intact.

[jerrytheplater]

DaveW, you mentioned Fred Katterman. I just Googled him and that is the gentleman from CCSS that was selling the Chilean cacti. I was at a slide show/talk he gave on one of his trips to Chile.

So the consensus for my ID is Neoporteria senilis.

[DaveW]

Hi Jerry.

Fred got rid of most of his Chilean plant collection to the desert Botanical garden some time ago.

https://dbg.org/fred-katterman/

In past years he used to produce seed for SuccSeed, but I think they now also produce seed from plants grown from Fred's seed.

https://www.succseed.com/en/seeds-cacti/eriosyce/

Fred published a book submerging this Chilean group of plants under Eriosyce, the oldest valid name available, This was virtually Donald and Rowley's 1966 "Reunion of Neoporteria" where they lumped everything under Neoporteria, but left out Eriosyce sensu stricto, which Fred later incorporated in his book. Unfortunately as the genus Eriosyce was the older name and published before Neoporteria it took priority, meaning many name changes under Eriosyce.

https://flickriver.com/photos/succulent ... 421114598/

If you do happen to have a collection number on your plant we could probably find details for you.

[jerrytheplater]

Hi Jerry.

Fred got rid of most of his Chilean plant collection to the desert Botanical garden some time ago.

https://dbg.org/fred-katterman/

In past years he used to produce seed for SuccSeed, but I think they now also produce seed from plants grown from Fred's seed.

https://www.succseed.com/en/seeds-cacti/eriosyce/

Fred published a book submerging this Chilean group of plants under Eriosyce, the oldest valid name available, This was virtually Donald and Rowley's 1966 "Reunion of Neoporteria" where they lumped everything under Neoporteria, but left out Eriosyce sensu stricto, which Fred later incorporated in his book. Unfortunately as the genus Eriosyce was the older name and published before Neoporteria it took priority, meaning many name changes under Eriosyce.

https://flickriver.com/photos/succulent ... 421114598/

If you do happen to have a collection number on your plant we could probably find details for you.

Thanks for the information Dave. Sorry, but no collection number. No tag.

So now I guess I am really a little confused, should I be calling this cactus Eriosyce senilis? Or N. senilis?

And one more question about this plant, not ID, but cultivation. I hope I can put this in here. In the top view of the cacti you can see several rows of aeroles and spines at the top which are much thinner and whiter than the ones below. I really did ignore my plants for 5 to 8 years, maybe more. I kept them at work year round in a very sunny window but with poor air circulation. I very seldom fertilized (maybe once or twice in the summer) and usually watered with Deionized Water when I thought of it. I'm thinking those spines are reflecting that period of time. Do you, or anyone else, think they will remain white as the plant grows, or do you think they will darken as they age?

[DaveW]

Both Eriosyce and Neoporteria are validly published for that species Jerry so you can choose to use which you want. You are not required to follow the latest classification since there will always be a new one coming along in due course because classification is never static in the Cactuceae.

For those that must follow the latest classification that is not David Hunt's but Joel Lode's which is supposedly based more on DNA whereas the Hunt classification was largely a morphological one just being based on a plants appearance.

The only thing the "Rules" require is you use a validly published name and not that you must use the latest classification. DNA Sequencing showed a lot of genera Hunt lumped, such as Rebutia for instance, sprang from different ev0lutionary roots and therefore should never be placed in the same genus. Their similarity being mainly convergence through occupying similar habitats. Lode' has now split some of these up again and restored many of the old well known genera again.

https://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy_o ... e_ENG.html

Joel Lode' is also intending to publish another two volumes to go with the first two eventually! The third volume Hunt was intending to produce of his "Lexicon" now will never happen after his death and also due to DNA Sequencing data that has come out since it would need so much revision.

http://cactus-aventures.com/Taxonomy/Td ... ctENG.html

Probably as with Backeberg and Britton & Rose the "splitting" classification will be more widely adopted on the Continent and the "lumping" version of Hunt in the English speaking world. Maybe the truth is somewhere between the two?