Hey,Patris...thanks for the additional inspiring photos,just when we Northeasterner's need them the most. (very cold,snow,wind...yech!) Excellent pics,and nice photography. Where are these plants coming from for your new GH ? They sure are beauties. I too very much like that Bromelia one.I've always had a weak spot for the odd looking or rare, hard to find broms. Even if they are hard to grow,like high altitude types,I've enjoyed the challenge,and the time spent here,tho they don't always make it. But when they adapt and prosper,bloom and pup,its a good feeling of accomplishment. Thanks for the post. Bob

Thanks,Stephania I think texensis(scariosa) too. I've been looking at photos of hechtia from as many sources as I could find,and I would argue that some of them are surely ID'd incorrectly. Some hechtias that look so very different from one another,are just not likely to be the same species. And too,I'd bet that some are natural hybrids,sharing common characteristics that make them hard to pin a species name on. But whoever first collects them from the wild,just picks a species name based on their knowledge,and thats what it gets called,right or wrong. A collector of plants from Mexico,Guy Wrinkle, [Rare Exotics] at least just names them 'Hechtia sp.'(and a #)and lets it go at that. A more honest way of doing it,when you have no sure ID of a habitat collected plant. Anyway,it all makes for some interesting conversation,and makes you hit the books to learn all you can. Bob

Lisa: Perhaps. I'm wondering whether the entire lot of plants may have derived from mixed WC seed...if so, this would explain the variation. The bad rep that b-m has may derived from it having been grown thus far in the 'States from a formerly small sample that may or may not be maladapted. This occurs quite frequently in other plant groups where an initially limited genetic offering has led people to conclude that X species is painfully slow/hard-to-grow/impossible/ugly, ad. nauseum. If you have the Venzuelan Brom society's growers guide, there are several so-so pics of b-m in cultivation, as well as albos, variegated navioides, etc. One of the pics in that publication bears a strong resemblance to your plant, altho' def. not as concolorously red. At the same time, I distinctly remember seeing a photo of a putative b-m that was awarded by a U.S. society somewhere on the web that was even redder overall than yours. I think that we are all used to seeing the same (hard to grow?) powdery-gray form with the vivid red heart that we balk at accepting any other ecotypes as being the same critter. In any event, I think your particular plant is extremely handsome/desireable even if it is a hybrid - which I think we both hope it is not. Cheers, J

Chris. Regards to the 'original question',I'm going with the opinion that you have D.ursina there instead of D.encholirioides.Your pic does show the leaves in a mostly upright position,as in ursina,and the fuzzy brown sepals are very convincing. How such a scarce plant got to England is a good question. Some other opinions: Looking closely at the D.chaguar pic,I see white verticle lines on the leaf underside,and think it may have some D.brevifolia in it,or be a variety of it,tho it seems to be larger than the normal D.brevifolia. I'm still confused by the 'chaguar'name,as hdd pointed out,is a 'group of related' plants. I visualize some tour guide in SA,refering to a mixture of 'spiney' plants as being all'chaguars',his term for plants with spines.And thats how any spine plant from that local area got named,no matter what it really was.You never know. #2- I have a feeling that H.scariosa is different enough from H.texensis to not have its named changed.[see hdd's post on being the same plant]. H.texensis spines are smaller,and pointed directly out,and seldom red,if at all.Whereas D.scariosa spines are larger,and hooked shaped,and very red. I'd keep it ID'd as D.scariosa...it even sounds better for such a 'bloody'plant. Bob