Eriosyce senilis starting full bloom

This individual has a dark maroon body—about 3 inches wide—which contrasts strongly with the long, white spines. Frilly shocking-magenta flowers emerge like trumpets.

Eriosyce senilis flower closeup

In early February, the most active cacti and succulents are plants from regions with winter rainfall (or fog), typically near western coasts. Copiapoa tenuissima follows this general rule since it comes from around Chile’s Pacific Ocean (western) port city of Antofagasta.

Look at the 10 or 11 new heads branching off from the central body. These can be re-rooted and grown as new plants, though it takes a while for a detached head to grow new roots.

The currently accepted name is Copiapoa humilis subspecies tenuissima, since the original description of Copiapoa tenuissima was invalid. I’m mildly dissatisfied with this classification for sentimental reasons: Copiapoa humilis is a rough and lumpy species which grows fast and messy. By contrast, this Copiapoa tenuissima seems to be rather elegant.

See Also

Hunt, David. 2006. The New Cactus Lexicon. dh books. The Manse, Chapel Lane, Milborne Port, Sherborne DT9 5DL, England.

Succulents mesmerize us with their their otherworldly shapes and colors. Euphorbia obesa is a very familiar shape… familiar, that is, in a beach ball or balloon! This oblate spheroid is not a common shape in the world of plants.

This UFO-shaped plant is dioecious (unisexual). I think the plant pictured is male, but I’m not completely sure. On my to-learn list is better positive identification of the sex of euphorbia blooms (called cyathia).

With any luck, I’ll have a breeding pair of these choice succulents from southern Africa. Here’s my second plant. Look at the cute second body! This kind of branching is quite unusual in this species:

Euphorbia obesa grows wild in the Graaff-Reinet district in the Eastern Cape. The form pictured here (subspecies symmetrica) is found in the Willowmore district, where it’s protected voluntarily by some farmers, partly with the effort of enthusiasts from the Euphorbia Study Group of Warrington, England.

The subspecies symmetrica is distinguished from the base type by a rather technical distinction: it produces multiple peduncles from single flowering eyes. Amateur growers and fans of this plant also know that Euphorbia symmetrica stays compact, rather than elongating and growing tall like the species type, Euphorbia obesa.
–
See Also
Euphorbia obesa ssp symmetrica at Cactus-Art.Biz

Mammillaria

Mammillaria is a large genus with about 140–180 species, depending on who’s listing them. So if you’re stuck on that hypothetical desert island, you won’t be limiting your options very much.

Pilbeam (1999) recognizes 181 Mammillaria species and of these Hunt (1999) accepts 145. Any way you split this genus, it is one of the most varied in the Cactaceae, and it also has wide distribution: southward as far as Colombia and Venezuela and northward extending into the American Southwest. The greatest richness and diversity of Mammillaria varieties is in Mexico.

Mammillaria carmenae is native to Tamaulipas, Mexico.

Mammillaria carmenae, a particularly blonde and pink-flowered individual cared for and photographed by Mr Sentient Meat. Spines can vary from yellow to white. Flowers can be white, pink or pink-tinged white.

Mammillaria is a very diverse group; however none of these cacti are giant trees. They are all small-to-medium-size “globular” (roundish) cacti. Some are solitary; others grow into large clumps. They all have distinctive bumps which remind scientists of breasts enough to earn the name mammillae—thus the genus name (or as they say in the lingo, the generic epithet).

Mammillaria carmenae, same plant, different angle

The plant pictured is fully grown at around 3 inches tall and 2 inches in diameter. This species is known to grow in clusters, so it’s probably time for me to move it to a larger pot where it can spread out and grow more bodies.

Mammillaria carmenae has pale yellow to white spines, and each areole (at the tip of each mammilla) has over 100 spines, obscuring the surface of the plant almost entirely. It reminds me a bit of Mammillaria candida (profiled recently) or Mammillaria lasiacantha (in the collection but not profiled yet). Surprisingly, these similar-looking cousins are not its closest relatives.

Instead, according to molecular studies by Butterworth and Wallace (2002), Mammillaria carmenae is most closely related to M pectinifera, a bizarre subminiature which is about to bloom in my yard. I hope to profile it soon. You’d never guess these two are so closely related. M pectinifera (means “comb-bearing”) resembles a strange, round top with spine-beds (areoles) like tiny, multilegged creatures. You’ll see!

See Also

ANDERSON, E. F. 2001. The cactus family. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, USA.

HUNT, D. 1999. CITES Cactaceae checklist. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, UK.

BUTTERWORTH, C.;  WALLACE, R.  2002. “Phylogenetic studies of Mammillaria (Cactaceae)—Insights from chloroplast sequence variation and hyptothesis testing using the parametric bootstrap”. American Journal of Botany 91(7): 1086–1098. 2004.

PILBEAM, J. 1999. Mammillaria. Nuffield Press, Oxford, UK.

Also… coming soon, Mr Sentient Meat, chief plant profiler for Succulent Sunday, is very excited to be upgrading his library with the top, current, go-to reference for cactus:

HUNT, D. 2006. New cactus lexicon. dh books. Sherborne, England, UK.

[I can practically feel your excitement from here. —Mr S M]

I confess a personal weakness. I cannot resist the wildlife of Madagascar. Lemurs, aloes, bryophyllums, kalanchoes… This may be exoticism, orientalism, or some other unhealthy fascination. Probably the only cure—as with the phobias—is to confront the object of my obsession and see Madagascar in person. Soon, baby, soon.

Kalanchoe eriophylla grown & photographed by Mr Sentient Meat

The genus Kalanchoe is found in almost all of Madagascar’s many regions and climates, except the central plains. Kalanchoe comprises about 100 species, of which 60 are endemic to Madagascar.

Many species of Kalanchoe have adapted a woolly or fuzzy tomentum: fibrous, protective leaf covering. Of these, Kalanchoe eriophylla (from Greek words for woolly and leaves) may be the woolliest of all. Its covering is even denser than that of the more common “Panda Plant” Kalanchoe tomentosa.

E.J. Lucas reports this wool is Kalanchoe eriophylla‘s adaptation to high montane Madagascar—moderate temperatures but punishing ultraviolet. Whatever the cause, Kalanchoe eriophylla is highly attractive and extremely pettable. In person, it’s almost irresistible. What’s more, it is adapted to a scrambling existence on mountainsides, so its stems can re-root along their length. This makes it fairly easy to propagate, though too much water or heat can kill it quickly.

Kalanchoe eriophylla pale-pink flower borne on long stalks with fuzzy sepals, photo by Pilar at Infojardin

Kalanchoe eriophylla was originally described (the word botanists prefer over discovered) in 1857 from a plant collected by Bojer on Mt Antogona, Imerina province. Reference specimens have been collected for herbariums from the central Madagascar Ankaratra massif, and the areas surrounding Tananarive, Imerina province. As recently as 1995, the species was reported “very abundant”. Pieces are sold in markets and worn by Malagasy people as a good-luck charm, particularly good luck in business or acquiring riches.

One of several common Malagasy names for Kalanchoe eriophylla is “Felatanantsifoana”, meaning “palm of the hand never empty”.

Kalanchoe eriophylla flower closeup, photo Creative Commons copyright 2009 Zoya Akulova

See Also

Lucas, E. J. (2002), Plate 452. Kalanchoe Eriophylla Crassulaceae. Curtis’s Botanical Magazine, 19: 232–236. doi: 10.1111/1467-8748.00354

Kalanchoe eriophylla at Encyclopedia of Life

Adromischus marianiae forma herrei, a seductive form reportedly found in the Kourkammaberg mountain range, 30 miles S of Maerport

The genus Adromischus is part of the Crassulaceae (stonecrop or orpine family) found growing with other leaf succulents in dry areas all over southern Africa. Adromischus is closely related to other southern Africa Crassulaceae: Tylecodon, Cotyledon—and it’s not far from Kalanchoe. Adromischus (known as “adros” by afficionados) are found in every province of S Africa and in southern Namibia. Like this plant, they are all subshrubs or smaller. Luckily they do not seem to be in serious danger of extinction, though habitat loss can always threaten to wipe out specific forms occurring in tiny areas.

This species A marianiae forma herrei and its close relatives are found in westerly parts of Western Cape and Northern Cape.

The same plant from a different angle, grown and photographed by Mr Sentient Meat and twice a 3rd prize winner

I raised this plant from a tiny individual of 3 small leaves to the 14-leaf specimen you see here. It’s still just over 3 inches from tip to tip. Although it has won a couple awards, I can’t claim any great skill with this drop-dead gorgeous plant. I do watch it carefully, but I’m guessing that my Los Angeles climate and my rather negligent hand with the watering bucket just happen to favor it.

Adromischus marianiae is a large and complex species with many different subspecies or forms stretching hundreds of miles north-south in western South Africa. The size, shape and color of the succulent leaves varies widely, even within the “herrei” form. Some have leaves of a pale bluish green with maroon spots, others have red leaves, still others are nearly black. They grow rather slowly; they are small; some of them are rather difficult to grow well unless the climate is just right. Many of these forms are highly desirable and sometimes difficult to find.

The outstanding red-brown population of A. marianiae “herrei”, in the Harras area, W. Steinkopf. Photo at Adromischus Displayed, http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/adrodisp/marianiae-herrei.htm , copyright Derek Tribble

See Also

Pilbeam, J.;  Rodgerson, C.; Tribble, D. 1998. Adromischus. Cirio Publishing Services Ltd. Southampton. ISBN: 0 9520382 4 8.

Adromischus marianiae forma herrei at Adromischus Displayed, by Derek Tribble

Its habitat stretches across several states in northeastern Mexico: Coahuila, Nuevo León, San Luis Potosí, and Tamaulipas.

Mammillaria candida grown and photographed by Sentient Meat

Unlike some puffball-like mammillaria, Mammillaria candida has spines which really mean business. I thought it looked soft and friendly so I started to repot it without gloves. I thought if I moved slowly and gently I could just turn it upside down with one hand and rest it ever-so-lightly in my other hand. Big mistake! After trying this maneuver gingerly a couple times, I gave up. I can try again in the spring. With gloves.

Mammillaria candida (syn M. ortizrubiona) ML 656 - Photo : Michel Lacoste at Mammillarias.net

M candida is sometimes separated from the rest of Mammillaria into its own genus, Mammilloydia, because its seeds are not pitted and lack the perisperm found in all other mammillaria. Recent molecular studies, however, place M. candida squarely within Mammillaria, a huge genus which includes many cacti much more distantly related than Mammillaria candida.

Mammillaria candida - Photo : Willy at Mammillarias.net

See Also

Mammillarias.net gallery of species starting with C

Dog tag showing ATHEIST

The most common misconception about atheism is that it is a religion. This strikes me as so incongruous that I’m not quite sure whether to be offended or laugh out loud. I’m perplexed… I bristle at being called a purple panda when I am actually a chestnut horse.

I am curious why this idea persists. I have 3 possible explanations:

1. Atheism takes a stand on religious questions so it’s sorta… you know… religious in scope. This strikes me as rather weak.
2. Believers want to drag atheism into their arena, where they can rip it apart with their theological or metaphysical pickaxes.
3. Believers are used to defending their particular religion from competing religions. They feel strongly any opposing views must also be religions.

I don’t know which of these is the main reason people keep selling this baloney. If you’ll pardon the expression, God knows I’m not a mind-reader.

I do confess labels change. With time, words do shift in their meaning. Maybe people used to mean something else when they called themselves atheist or agnostic. But for today… for our current moment, I really like Penn Jillette’s short, sharp story of why you can be both an atheist and agnostic. Here’s my version.

Atheist. I don’t believe in god. Believe is a verb, and I don’t do that verb with most people’s concept of God. Or if you like, belief is a kind of confidence, a sort of mental wager or opinion about some infinite being who typically:

• Answers prayers
• Demands tribute or worship
• Exacts vengeance or judgment
• New! Favors one religion over others, or over no religion

I say no to this wager. I think it’s a bad idea. I refuse it, I negate it. I withhold belief in it. I abstain from believing in god, praying to Him, or living my life in perpetual fear of His judgment. This abstention is enough to call myself an atheist. I don’t need faith in His nonexistence. That’s silly.

I’m not sure I’m right, but I’m pretty sure. I’ve evaluated all the reasons people give for believing in God—I believed in God for 20+ years, so you may be sure my evaluation was very thorough. I’ve had many, many spiritual experiences, but I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t need God to explain these. Neuroscience, physics and other disciplines are enough. Science doesn’t have all the answers, but God doesn’t offer any better ones. If not science itself, then the assumptions behind science are enough for me to frame all the stories I ever care to invest in with that wager called belief.

Agnostic. I think agnosticism is a bit more technical than atheism. I am not wishy-washy about whether God exists or not. Most concepts of God strike me as nonsensical or silly. But suppose you ask these rather technical questions. Then here are my answers.

1. Does God exist?
   Probably not.
2. Can you know the answer to this question?
   No. But don’t read too much into that—I also can’t “know” whether we’re being watched by multicolor cosmic unicorns.
3. Is it reasonable to even ask this question?
   I doubt it.

For the sake of argument, I limit myself to concepts of God exceptional enough to be called theism, which excludes “God is Love.”

I do believe in Love.

Notes

Theodore M. Drange tries to be consistent with his definitions in “Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism” (1998)

Suppose you are to answer the following two questions:

(1) Does the sentence “God exists” express a proposition?
(2) If so, then is that proposition true or false?If you say no to the first question, then you may be classified as a noncognitivist with regard to God-talk. If you say yes to it, thereby allowing that the given sentence does express a proposition, then you are a cognitivist with regard to God-talk. (Let us henceforth abbreviate these expressions, simply using the terms “cognitivist” and “noncognitivist”.) All theists, atheists, and agnostics are cognitivists, so the second question applies to them: is the proposition that God exists true or false? You are a theist if and only if you say that the proposition is true or probably true, you are an atheist if and only if you say that it is false or probably false, and you are an agnostic if and only if you understand what the proposition is, but resist giving either answer, and support your resistance by saying, “The evidence is insufficient” (or words to that effect).

I don’t think this close parsing is necessary outside a philosophy class. I don’t think human thinking is limited to “propositions”. Among other problems, formal propositions omit any time component and pretend to be almost mathematical in their abstraction. This technical machinery is overkill. It doesn’t reflect normal human cognition, even cognition about beliefs. In everyday educated culture it’s not terribly useful.

So if you want to get technical, I’m probably a theological noncognitivist. But come now! I am already tired of explaining atheist and agnostic. Do you really want me to go around saying theological noncognitivist in everyday conversations whenever the topic of metaphysics arises? That’s silly.

Paramecium

At Pharyngula, K Davidson on “Why I am an atheist”—Davidson writes that Religion may be dear to people and give them comfort, but…

The problem comes when those with power believe in a false cause and effect. That is dangerous, that is anti-social and needs to be stamped out for the betterment of people.

There are two obvious problems with false cause and effect. The first is quite obvious. If a child is sick with infection and her adult care-taker believes that doing three cartwheels down a particular road in Katmandu will cure her, but antibiotics won’t, that empowered caretaker will cause unnecessary suffering, and possibly death. We can extrapolate that across society. If people with power believe that giving HPV vaccinations will lead to retaliations from a vengeful god, those empowered people will cause unnecessary suffering, and possibly death. There are so many examples of this affecting OUR shared society. Psychological torture of gays, miseducation of our children, stunting the potential of young girls by refusing them access to information about birth control, shooting wars with other cultures… ad infinitum.

That is completely unacceptable. We cannot allow the hard won bounty of human endeavor, i.e., knowledge and information, to be squandered at the expense of real, live humans who have the right to the best possible lives we as a society can offer each other. We have come together throughout history to benefit from our collective knowledge and works. Those who would stand in opposition to this knowledge reap its benefits every day. They flush toilets and watch television and eat cheap food. In my view, there is no difference in avoiding cholera by means of sewage systems and avoiding the pain of ostracism by means of admitting that it’s the only downside to homosexuality.

In short, I believe that failing to proceed with the best possible information about cause and effect is a crime.

The second problem with religious adherence is more subtle, but possibly more dangerous. On an individual level, believing that there is a set of specific desires held by some higher power leads to a population of people “just following orders.” It removes all ethical and moral agency from the individual, which is, in my view, distinctly unethical and immoral. One hears the tired argument, “How can anyone who doesn’t believe in God’s retribution know right from wrong?” The absurdity of this is obvious to anyone with a deeply personal and evolved set of principles. I know it is wrong to hurt people for my own gratification and I suffer emotionally in the here and now for it. I am not so disconnected from the rest of humanity that I forget the value of other humans. I am not so mercenary that without threat to my own personage I would harm others. I am a fully formed, typical human in that way.

That’s not all. Davidson leads with the most basic problem: the burden of proof is on God-promoters. Outlandish claims require extraordinary evidence. A warm feeling of self-confirmation is not sufficient.

This does not indict every kind of God-centered belief. Not all theologies are attached with false notions of cause and effect in the real world. But it’s worth a second look to make sure that our leaders are not creating policy from mistaken beliefs about the physical world.

Rather it’s that the word faith conjures up herds of images and assumptions that repel me. The idea that we should positively esteem popular notions of faith, that we should actively seek to increase our beliefs in unprovable claims, particularly claims which bear on our lives or on the physical world—this strikes me as obviously foolish and harmful. I think we humans already operate with too much certainty about nonsense, not to mention actual falsehoods. We don’t suffer from a lack of faith.

But the Mormon testimony, ah! now that’s a special breed of faith. I wonder if mainstream Christians would recognize this exotic creature as a brother to their thing-called-faith. Or would they see it like I do, as a kind of fetish? The LDS faithful venerate and… yes, cherish… what they call their testimony in a unique set of rituals and practices. If you want to understand members (what they call themselves) of The Church (as members refer to their religion), you must appreciate the contours of the Mormon Testimony.

View from a Mormon pulpit, where members stand to say "I know The Church is true!" Photo at Wheat & Tares: If I Were In Charge: Make “I Believe” As Valid As “I Know” In Testimonies By: Mike S May 24, 2011

I look back on my 20-plus years of Mormon testimony without real bitterness, but with a measure of fondness and rue. It’s like reminiscing about a great love which ended badly. You know how it goes. It’s tempting to blame myself or tell myself I knew better all along, but in reality I bought the whole thing. I was like other Mormons. That “testimony” was more precious to me than most other things in life.¹

Most of my friends in high school weren’t Mormon. Sure, we talked about beliefs a lot, but they were bemused at best by my “testimony”. My best friend in high school practically dared me: if something that special had happened to me… if I possessed that kind of special knowledge, why didn’t I share it with the world? Why didn’t I talk about it even more than I did.

Here’s the thing. Mormons aren’t content to believe. Notice that verb, believe? They aren’t happy with a mere verb. They aren’t even content with a relatively tame noun: faith. Faith is to Mormon “testimony” what coca leaves are to pure cocaine. Mormons have concentrated faith to its most concentrated form, refined it into an intoxicating drug… to the hottest, most extreme form of belief I have ever witnessed in person. That is the Mormon testimony.

Witness the Mormon Fast and Testimony Meeting. Members of The Church gather once a month. They are instructed to attend this meeting in a state of fasting, forgoing food but not water for up to 24 hours, except children and infirm. The usual worship service, Sacrament Meeting, is suspended so that members can participate in this monthly ritual.

Members of The Church take turns rising to the pulpit, or in some cases standing in place and accepting a portable microphone from an usher. They begin a heartfelt recitation of the reasons they “know The Church is true”. This testimony is extemporaneous, but it is almost always built out of a few set phrases. Children are taught the accepted mode of this performance from a very young age, primarily by example.

Before I tell you the words which make up the typical Mormon “testimony”, let me emphasize that heartfelt again is too weak a word. How often in daily life do we share tear-soaked stories of what we hold “most precious”? How often do we gentiles (as Mormons call us non-members) get to publicly expose the most tender, intimate feelings of our heart? To express in fervent tones how “absolutely CERTAIN” we are that “Joseph Smith was a prophet of God”?

View of 1934 pulpit from http://ldsarchitecture.wordpress.com/

Here are some more of the tried-and-true phrases from Mormon “testimonies”. These words give you a small taste of the Mormon “testimony”, but you must remember that just knowing the phraseology is not enough. You have to imagine your friends and neighbors reciting these clichés every month: their heads, hands and voices shaking in fervent belief, their faces streaming with tears of sincerity… swelling with the desire to make you believe as they do.

• I promised myself I wouldn’t cry. [Yes. They. Say. This.]
• Jesus is The Christ.
• Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.
• The other day my ___ [puppy] was almost ___ [caught in a table saw]. When it miraculously ___ [went my way], I knew that ___. [The Church was True, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, Jesus was The Savior, etc.]
• I Know The Church Is True.
• … Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt. [!!]
• I don’t just believe, I KNOW it! I know it!
• At funerals, the deceased are praised for the sweetness or strength of their “testimony”. How powerful it was.
• Members repeatedly refer to their “testimony” as their most prized possession, precious above anything else except their family… and sometimes even more so.

All of this has terrific impact. You cannot help but be affected by the sheer emotional power of Mormon members’ personal conviction. For most of us, quotidian life drones along with trouble and uncertainty. At monthly Fast And Testimony Meeting, Mormons receive a bear-tranquilizer dose of complete certainty—high emotions and bodily fluids dished out like freshly cut nerves on a platter.

I am not writing to ridicule this ritual, although any deep sentiment is vulnerable to ridicule. (In my daily post-Mormon life, I’m as deeply sentimental as the next guy, and I don’t believe in taking cheap shots.) Instead, I’m trying to explore how unique, how singular is this thing Mormons call their “testimony”.

Here’s the strangest part. Sometimes they will talk about their past selves, but they will identify more strongly with their testimony than with their actual self. They’ll say, “I went through a period where my testimony was severely tested.” See the difference? They don’t say, “Sometimes I believe less strongly, but now I believe very, very strongly.” In effect they are saying,

“This ‘testimony’ is my real, true self. The rest of me—that part of me which would ever question this “testimony”—is like a foreign object. It is an intruder and I reject it.”

What more can I tell you? Mormons obsess about the influence of The Adversary, The Devil, The Evil One, The Father of Lies. (2) This is another way they split their mind. The good part is themselves, their “testimony” or “The Spirit”. The bad part is “The Adversary”.

God help them if members of The Church ever find themselves questioning! This is as dangerous a word as you can find in the Mormon vocabulary. It brings up dark, shadowy feelings of eternal peril—paranoia about an Adversary who is “cunning” and never-tiring in his efforts to deceive “yea! even the very elect!” (the special ones who are Chosen of The Lord)

True, Mormons believe that Judgment Day will be even more dire for “apostates” or “sons of Perdition”—those who once “knew the truth” and now “actively fight against it”. But I would argue that greater psychological paranoia swirls around members who are questioning, because apostates are by definition lost causes, whereas members who are questioning stand in a liminal state. On the one hand, safety. On the other, hellfire… losing any chance at exaltation and eternal life. Total loss.

This part is reminiscent of North Korea. With the passing of Kim Jong-Il, you may have heard that North Koreans conceive of themselves as a uniquely pure and paradoxically vulnerable race. Mormons are somewhat similar. Because The Evil One has singled them out, he targets even those who were “most valiant in the Pre-Existence”… “that he may deceive, yea!, even the very elect”. Mormons refer to themselves figuratively as Israel and to Utah as Zion.

This is another manifestations of Mormons’ “Chosen People” status, their spiritual narcissism… one more side of Mormon religious chauvinism.

¹ Like most Mormons, I did share my “testimony” pretty often. But even in my teens I could see both sides of the issue. I could see that my mainstream Christian and nonbelieving friends had logically consistent positions. And besides even Mormons—who repeat the slogan, “every member a missionary!”—don’t want to crash a party when they’re not invited. Like most people, I was abashed at sharing my testimony where I feared it was unwanted or subject to ridicule.

² Yes, Mormons believe in a personal Devil as well as a personal Savior. The LDS leadership frowns upon dwelling too long on The Adversary. But many a “testimony” has meandered into a confessional blow-by-blow about the coarse charms of The Evil One. These poorly received “testimonies” are more like 12-step confessionals of personal sin. In my experience, they only happened every few months, maybe once a year.

Mike S writes If I Were In Charge: Make “I Believe” As Valid As “I Know” In Testimonies at Wheat & Tares Blog.