he 
ECHINOCACTUS. 169 
Type locality: Mexico. 
Distribution: Mexico. 
We refer here the plant collected at Ixmiquilpan by Dr. Rose in 1905 but we have seen 
no authentic material. The original description is based upon small juvenile plants but, 
according to Karwinsky, it is a very large plant fully 2 meters high. Pfeiffer’s illustration 
of the flower, doubtless of the type, indicates that it is a true Echinocactus, but the narrow, 
entire, obtuse perianth-segments are very unlike those of any specieswe know. Schumann has 
referred here numerousnames assynonyms, some of which may belong here while others donot. 
Echinocactus karwinskii Zuccarini (Pfeiffer, Enum. Cact. 50. 1837) is referred here by 
Schumann. It is doubtless of this relationship. It is described as only 20 cm. high, with 
13 to 20 ribs. Its very woolly apex would suggest this relationship. The species came 
from Pachuca. If it were identical with Echinocactus ingens, it would replace it as it has 
page priority. E. karwinskianus (Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 1: 126. 1891) is undoubtedly 
the same. Melocactus ingens Karwinsky (Pfeiffer, Enum. Cact. 54. 1837) is given as a 
synonym, but never published, Echinocactus macracanthus De Vriese (Tijdschr. Natuurl. 
Geschild. 6: 49. pl. 2. 1839) is referred here also by Schumann. It, too, has been described 
from a juvenile plant. From the illustration we would judge that it was of this relationship, 
Fics. 185 and 186.—Echinocactus ingens. 
but certainly a different species. Echinocactus minax Lemaire (Cact. Aliq. Nov. 18. 1838) 
is referred by Schumann to E. ingens. Its spotted stem suggests a young Pp an o E. 
grandis. It is indeed a small plant, being only 5 inches high and is doubtless on y a ius e- 
nile. It is described as globose, depressed, subumbilicate, green, with 13 5 ‘ty . 
flowers were unknown and it is impossible to identify it definitely. Echinocactus p at y ceras 
Lemaire (Cact. Alig. Nov. 19. 1838; Echinofossulocactus Pp latyceras Lawrence et t that 
Gard. Mag. 17: 318. 1841) is also described from a juvenile plant, but Lemaire ‘ ate a 
it and E. minax are sometimes 6 and even To feet high. Fr om his illustrations (Labouret 
it is evidently related to E. grandis and E. ingens. E. minax lacwior Lemaire 6) a 
Monogr. Cact. 192. 1853), &. platyceras laevior (Forster, Handb. tb 3 irerent Hames 
E. platyceras minax Salm-Dyck (Forster, Handb. Cact. 324- 184 6) must oe 1829: E. ingens 
for this plant. Echinocactus helophorus Lemaire (Cact. Gen. Nov. »P: 12; ti oO evi or and 
helophorus Schumann, Gesamtb. Kakteen 317- 1898) and its ‘le the same as E minax 
longifossulatus Lemaire (Cact. Gen. Nov. Sp. 13. 1839) are poss! Eb lacogonus Lemaire 
but all are without flowers and without definite habitat. 4. a a Gen Nov. S 
(Cact. Gen. Nov. Sp. 14. 1839) and the variety diacopaulax Lemaire (Cact. ; . Sp. 
