The CoL has finally caught up with the latest changes to Mammillaria, resulting in some reshuffling.

Some but not all Mammillarias are being moved to Cochemiea. This genus has been resurrected based on DNA studies. So Mammillaria dioica is now Cochemiea dioica, but M. elongata is still M. elongata.

I imagine the database changes will require some detailed parsing of which plants belong to which group, but this is a broad overview which hopefully will simplify the task.

Searching for Cochemiea in the database currently returns a small group of plants

https://garden.org/plants/sear...

representing the "original" Cochemiea, sensu stricto, which was recently lumped with Mammillaria. The "new and improved" Cochemiea will include all these plants but also many others.

==

Also, while I'm at it, it appears that Escobaria has been absorbed into Pelecyphora. I don't know all the details there but a search for the old name still recovers these plants from the database (as it should, based on the synonym)

https://garden.org/plants/sear...

however there appear to be 2 residual cacti that were not moved to the new name.

Pelecyphora
Escobaria (Pelecyphora 'Trish')

Should these be moved to Pelecyphora as well?

Ugh! Especially since I just call a bunch by either Mammillaria or Escobaria and have to look up the specific one. How did they arrive at changing them to Pelecyphora? Was that name already used and Escobarias fit in genetically with that group? This old dog's memory is resistant to discarding something already learned. Long term memory just sticks more than short term.

needrain said: How did they arrive at changing them to Pelecyphora? Was that name already used and Escobarias fit in genetically with that group?

That is my understanding.

I'm taking care of the Pelecyphoras now.

Looks like I have a bunch of comments to revise. Well, I started on Pelecyphora tonight. It was a much smaller genus than Escobaria but about 85 years older.

Thanks, Zuzu.