The Mammillaria Handbook
Author: Robert T. Craig D.D.S.
Pages: 390
Year: 1945 reprinted in 1963, 1965, 1973.
B/W photos: 304
Language: English
Size (cm): 16.5 x 24.0
Size (inches): 6 1/2 x 9 1/2
ISBN: 0384100902
Binding: hardbound
The Mammillaria Handbook was originally published in 1945 and has been reprinted at least three times. I’ve seen references to Dr. Craig in various publications and knew that his published work is referenced many newer books. I find these older books interesting for the juxtaposition between what they knew then compared to what we know now. Even in the 1940’s the cactus naming world was still in flux. Cactus exploration has always been hampered by a lack of roads or transportation options and political situations that make large parts of cactus habitat inaccessible.
The forward states that this book is the first full treatment of the Mammillaria genus since “The Cactaceae” by Britton and Rose in 1923. The author draws upon “The Cactaceae” as well as “…a survey of the literature that has been published between 1676 and 1943”. Much of this literature had to be translated into English before use. The author also undertook over 10 years of field work to supplement and refine the existing information.
He essentially took all published descriptions and justifies them all, combining or splitting as he saw necessary. His goal was to be fair and even-handed in making these decisions. At the time when the book was researched and authored there was still enormous parts of the Mammillaria range that had not been extensively explored and documented.
Some of the entries have extremely long lists of synonyms, which indicate the haphazard methods employed in defining and naming cactus species over the years. Different specimens of the same species got different names from each of the “discoverers”. Making sense of this enormous pile of information must have been a chore.
I found the “Names To Be Excluded” list quite interesting. It is a clear statement separating several genera which had been under Mammillaria into new or existing genera. It provides an interesting snapshot of the state of the Mammillaria species in the 1940’s. Plants from Astrophytum, Ariocarpus, Escobaria, Coryphantha, Dolichothele, Cochemia and Lophophora were separated out into their own specific genera. It’s hard to get ones brain around the idea of Ariocarpus being in the Mammillaria genera, but it had to start somewhere I guess. One particularly interesting entry was for moving what was then called Mammillaria latispina to Ferocactus latispinus.
The Introduction had an interesting discussion of variation of characteristics within species as well as which characteristics are appropriate for use as “separation factors” when determining the difference between individual specimens. He states that number, color and size of spines are not a reliable characteristic for separation due to the many environmental factors that can influence these characteristics and the degree of variation that is observed in known populations. The fact that seed-grown cultivated plants often look markedly different than their wild counterparts supports this assertion, in my opinion. The primary separation factor characteristic cited is sap (milky, non-milky, and semi-milky). This is a reliable factor for separation with a few notable exceptions. He goes on to state that flower and seed characteristics may be a better indicator of species, but there was not a reliable database of information available at the time. Seed characteristics are not necessarily visible or obvious to casual growers.
It’s an interesting book that gives a historical perspective on how Mammillaria has been understood and documented.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |