MAXONII Rose, 1909
Series Nudae
Type : Maxon 3406, Guatemala, Dept. Quetzaltenango, Chuacús, between Salamá and Las Canoas, January 22, 1905. (US 473390)
Etymology : Named for William R. Maxon, who had collected the plant.
Distribution : Guatemala (Dept. Quetzaltenango, San Marcos, Sololá, Zacapa, El Progreso, Totonicapán); Honduras (Dept. Francesco Morazán) according to Kimnach in IHSP, 2003.
First Description by Rose in Contributions from the US National Herbarium 12: 395. 1909 :
Stems glabrous, frutescent, at first erect, becoming decumbent, 60 - 80 cm long, naked below, very leafy near tips.
Leaves on young or slowly growing plants massed near the top but in vigorous shoots rather distant, standing at right angles to the stem, 3 - 10 cm long, spatulate, narrowed at base into a more or less definite petiole, rounded below, decidedly trowel-shaped above, obtuse or acutish, green on the under surface, not at all glaucous, the margins more or less purplish.
Inflorescence an equilateral raceme or sometimes becoming a narrow panicle, peduncle elongate, 20 - 30 cm long, leafy (in our herbarium specimens often naked).
Flowers : Sepals distinct, semiterete, acute, glaucous, unequal, spreading with age, petals distinct nearly to the base, erect except the tips, these spreading, salmon-pink in color, stamens 10, scales white.
Cytology : n = 28, acc. to Uhl in Haseltonia 10, 2004, not as indicated n = 26 in Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants, 2003
Note :
1. Walther's re-description of E. maxonii is "based on living plants from Dr. Rose, presumably clonotypes" - however he describes the leaves as "minutely papillose" - a feature not indicated in the protologue -, does not mention "more or less purplish margins" and "more or less definite petioles". So the identity of Walther's plants is doubtful and his re-description is useless. Accordingly also the text by Kimnach in IHSP, 2003, based on Walther, is of no use. The same applies to the text in Fora Mesoamericana by F.R: Barrie, also based on Walther, 1972.
2. Pilbeam, The genus Echeveria, p. 168, 2008, shows a scan by M. Kimnach of E. maxonii. Fig. 211 on the preceding page, a photo by W. Weightman, shows an entirely different plant which Pilbeam does not hesitate to call E. maxonii, too. Cleary an imposter.
3. In the context of Flora Mesoamericana a great many specimens of echeverias growing in Central America have been wrongly determined by F.R. Barrie, the author of genus Echeveria in the respective Flora :
Missouri Bot. Garden 2260157 was determined as E. maxonii – in spite of the fact that the chromosome number n = 62 unmistakebly refers to E. pittieri.
Field Museum 1048238 is E. pittieri, not E. maxonii.
Two fairly similar specimens from Honduras, both accessible online, clearly representing the same species, have been determined by F.R. Barrie differently :
- Rodriguez 3585, Zamorano, Dept. Morazán (this is near Tegucigalpa) as E. guatemalensis and
- A.Molina 725 / Field Museum 1374759, 5 km SW of Tegucigalpa, obviously the same region as the former, as E. australis.
However both specimens represent E. maxonii. If herbarium specimens available online are correctly identified, they do not provide evidence that either E. guatemalensis or E. australis are present in Honduras.
What concerns Rodriguez 3585 : the coordinates added by the author of Flora Mesoamericana are completely wrong. This applies to several other specimens listed in Flora Mesoamericana. They seem to have been added randomly.
Field Museum 1651541 represents E. maxonii, not E. montana.
Skutch 798 is E. guatemalensis, not E. maxonii.