NEOMAMMILLARIA. 113 
According to Salm-Dyck, Mammillaria celsiana differs from M. rutila in its columnar 
stem and in its spines. 
Schumann refers Mammillaria perringii to M. celsiana, while Hildmann claims that it 
is possible that the two may be distinct, but we do not have the material at hand to 
decide definitely. 
Mammiullaria lantfera Haworth (Phil. Mag. 63: 41. 1824; Cactus lanifer Kuntze, 
Rev. Gen. Pl. 1: 260. 1891) is referred here by Schumann; it is probably different but, if 
not, the name has priority over M. celsiana. To M. lanifera De Candolle (Prodr. 3: 459. 
1828) refers Cactus canescens Mocifio and Sessé. M. geminispina monacantha Lemaire 
(Cact. Gen. Nov. Sp. 100. 1839) was supposed to be the same as M. lanifera. Mammillaria 
polycephala Mithlenpfordt (Allg. Gartenz. 13: 347. 1845; Cactus polycephalus Kuntze, Rev. 
Gen. Pl. 1: 261. 1891) was referred by Schumann to M. elegans, but it was described with 
4 central spines. It seems to be related to VW. crucigera, which we have tentatively referred 
to M. celsiana, which has yellow central spines, while both 7. polycephala and M. elegans 
have white centrals. 
Fics. 117 and 1 18.—Neomammillaria aureiceps. 
Mammillaria supertexta dichotoma (Salm-Dyck, Cact. Hort. Dyck. 1849. 9. 1850) is 
based on M. polycephala. - 
\~ Mammnillaria crucigera Martius (Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. 16: 340. pl. 25, f.2.1 8323 Cacits 
cruciger Kuntze, Rev. Gen. Pl. 1: 260. 1891) is related to this species, judging rom he 
description, but the illustration suggests that it isa distinct species. It was comlecte y 
Karwinsky in Mexico, but he does not give a definite locality. It was unknown to 
Schumann. ; a : 
Illustrations: Gartenwelt 10: 250; Mdllers Deutsche Gart. Zeit. 25 4 5: f * No 28 
as Mammillaria celsiana; Gartenwelt 10: 250, as Mammillaria perringi, in om. us i ; 
Nat. Paris 17: pl. 4, as Mammillaria lantfera; ? Martius, Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. 10: pl. 25, I. 
2, as Mammillaria crucigera. 
Plate xu, figure 6, shows a plant in t 
October 16, rg11. Figure 116 is from a p 
zatti in 1920. 
he New York Botanical Garden which flowered 
hotograph of two plants sent by Professor Con- 
