CactiGuide.com

LLIFLE says:
" All the 60 species of genus Weingartia have been transferred to synonymy status under the genus Rebutia; about 45 or so of them as synonyms of two species, Rebutia canigueralii and Rebutia neocumingii."

So probably calling this plant "Rebutia neocumingii" would be a good guess, right?

What other name would you use for this plant? Weingartia what?

Thanks for any help

This plant is always Weingartia neocumingii for me.
I used to call these plants separately Rebutia, Aylostera, Sulcorebutia, Mediolobivia, Weingartia.
All classifications are incomplete and transient, no need to waste time. If you're very young you'll hardly understand those who begun in "Curt Backeberg - Walther Haage's times"

Thank you anttisepp

Yes... it is weird to call it a Rebutia... but I dont have any arguments beyond the overall look... Usually when I dont have arguments I follow the "mainstream" (ex. check in the Tropicos Database for names and synonims). But I think I will not manage to call it a Rebutia.

Agreed, not what I would think of as a Rebutia.

I try to follow naming based on molecular phylogeny, so according to this 2011 study, https://www.pakbs.org/pjbot/PDFs/43(6)/21.pdf, Weingartia should not be be clumped with Rebutia. I do find it odd that some of these older studies aren't taken into account in some botanical databases. Kew, for instance, still lists your plant as Rebutia neocumingii, but lists 13 accepted species under Cochemiea, as proposed by the 2021 Breslin et. al. study. Strangely enough, not all the proposed new combinations in that study are listed.

Here is also a website that lists accepted species in Aylostera, Rebutia, and Weingartia according to recent studies.
https://www.rebutia.org.uk/

I do not agree with their combining of Sulcorebutia and Cintia into Weingartia because even the authors of the 2011 study (which the website references, amongst another older study) did not propose new combinations in that clade, citing future analysis needed to resolve it.

I for one do agree with combining Weingartia and Sulcorebutia since they do not belong in Hunt's "Lumped" Rebutia. Hunt's classification was based on morphology not DNA Sequencing which has shown many of Hunt's "Lumped" genera are polyphyletic (= "a group of organisms) derived from more than one common ev0lutionary ancestor or ancestral group and therefore not suitable for placing in the same taxon").

These days monophyletic genera are therefore preferred with all arising from a single ancestral line. As to Kew,'s listings, Hunt was one of their own so they are still tending to cling to some of his outdated "Lumpings" that have been proved wrong by the "chemists", therefore probably they don't like these upstart "chemists DNA Sequencing" invading their conventional botany.

The general consensus now based on DNA is Weingartia being the oldest name takes priority and Sulcorebutia is now reduced to synonymy below it. The line between Weingartia and Sulcoprebutia became very blurred with more recent discoveries when it was rather hard to assign some new plants to either Weingartia or Sulcorebutia, proving that either Weingartias's were large bodied Sulcorebutia's or Sulcorebutia's usually smaller boded Weingartias. As to Cintia I am quite happy to leave it in Cintia for the moment.

Plants like Weingartia jarmilae and Sulcorebutia purpurea have rather blurred the division between Sulcorebutia and Weingartia.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxserp=0

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxserp=0

One other study here:-

http://ssk-kaktus.org/en/projekt2005.php