92 THE CACTACEAE. 
top of the plant; flower 2.4 to 2.6 cm. long, a little broader when fully expanded, white; fruit nearly 
naked, globular, 4 to 6 mm. in diameter, thin-walled ; Seeds large, 2 to 2.5 mm. broad, somewhat 
pointed at base, angled on the back; hilum large, sub-basal. 
Type locality: Between the lower hills near Santa Fé, New Mexico. 
Distribution: Rare in isolated localities in northern New Mexico; reported from 
California by Watson (Cact. Journ. 1: 43), probably erroneously. . 
This is a remarkable plant whose generic position has been uncertain. Engelmann, 
who first described it as a Mammillaria and afterwards as an Echinocactus, associates it 
with Echinocactus simpsonii, that is, Pediocactus simpsonti, as representing a small group 
of Echinocactus ‘‘with the appearance of Mammiillaria.”’ . 
It has been reported only a few times and the fruit has not heretofore been described. 
Fendler reported it growing in loose red sandy fertile soil. 
In 1893 (Zoe 3: 301) Mr. M. E. Jones published a note on this species and, on the basis 
of it, the plant has been admitted into the flora of Utah. He writes as follows: 
_ _. The flowers are an inch long, opening but little; stigma cleft a line deep into 6 anther-like 
divisions, papillose on the sides and upper surface; filaments 6 lines long; style almost as long as the 
petals, 14 a line thick, linear; the flowers open in the morning, and close in the afternoon, but appar- 
ently are not affected by cloudy weather. ‘This grows in alkaline soil, and blooms in May. It is 
scarce everywhere.” 
He wrote in a letter (March 18, 1918) from Salt Lake City: 
“The material that I thought was this species came from the desert west of here, towards Mount 
Ibapah. I remember very distinctly the appearances of the specimen but I did not collect it and I 
now have some doubts about its identity. The spines were papery. I have never seen it since, 
though I have hunted for it.” 
We have found a similar plant in the herbarium of the Philadelphia Academy of 
Sciences, collected by Siler in Utah, but it certainly is not the true FE. papyracanthus. This, 
however, is only a slice from the plant and is without flowers or fruit; it may be described 
as follows: 
Covered by a mass of spines; ribs numerous, low, tubercled; areoles close together, circular, 
white-felted when young; radial spines 10 to 12, white, about 10 mm. long, weak; central spines 
3 to 5, weak and flexible, more or less twisted, 2 to 3 cm. long; some of them more or less flattened, 
pale or dark brown, one more or less hooked. A. L. Siler’s note is as follows: ‘‘Only a few specimens 
have ever been found. Flowers of this were pink, not white, as described by Engelmann. Southern 
tah, 1888.” 
Illustration: Cact. Journ. 1: pl. v, as Echinocactus papyracanthus. 
(6 g) 7. EPITHELANTHA* Weber. 
Plant globular, very small, the surface divided into numerous tubercles arranged in spiraled 
rows, mostly hidden by the numerous small spines; flowers very small, from near the center of the 
plant, arising from upper part of the spine-areole on the young tubercles; outer perianth-segments 
3 to 5; inner perianth-segments few, often only 5; stamens few, usually 10, included; fruit small, 
clavate, red, few-seeded; seeds black, shining, rather large, with a large depressed hilum. 
Type species: Mammnillaria micromeris Engelmann. 
We recognize one species, from western Texas and northern Mexico. 
The generic name is from éri on, @n\q nipple, and 4v6os flower, indicating that 
the flower is borne on the tubercle. 
This genus has heretofore been associated with the so-called Mammillaria, some of the 
species of which it resembles in its globose shape and small clavate red fruits. On account 
; *The name Epithelantha was given by Weber (Dict. Hort. Bois 804. 1898) as a synonym of Mammillaria 
micromerts and therefore was not formally published by him. 
