162 THE CACTACEAE. 
“A cactus quite plentiful among rocks in exposed places. Three flowers of a pink color and three 
red fruits were collected. The specimens of the plants collected were cut off close to the ground; 
they are a fair sample of plants of the average height and diameter, but in drying they shrink to 
three-fourths their original dimensions.” 
Figure 179 is from a photograph of a plant from the type collection; figure 179a is 
from a photograph of the plants referred to above, sent by Mr. Aguirre. 
144. Neomammillaria fasciculata (Engelmann). 
Mammillaria fasciculata Engelmann in Emory, Mil. Reconn. 157. 1848. 
Cactus fasciculatus Kuntze, Rev. Gen. Pl. 1: 259. 1891. 
Mammillaria thornbert Orcutt, West Amer. Sci. 12: 161. 1902. 
Forming clumps, often containing many plants (as many as 110 have been noted), slender- 
cylindric, usually 5 to 8 cm., but sometimes 30 cm. high; axils of tubercles naked; radial spines 13 
to 20, slender, 5 to 7 mm. long, white, with dark brown or nearly black tips; central spine usually 
1, sometimes 2 or 3, often much elongated and 18 mm. long, brownish or black, one (sometimes all) 
strongly hooked; flowers broadly funnel-shaped, purplish; inner perianth-segments broad, acute; 
fruit short-clavate, scarlet, 8 mm. long; seeds black. 
Fic. 180.—Neomammillaria fasciculata. Fic. 181.—Neomammiillaria longiflora. 
Type locality: Along the Gila River. 
Distribution: Southern Arizona. 
This plant was found by Emory, October 20, 1846, on the Gila River, 3,000 or 4,000 
feet above the sea, and was afterwards described by Engelmann from the sketch made in 
the field; for more that 50 years afterwards the plant remained otherwise unknown. 
About 1902 it was rediscovered by Professor Thornber and Mr. Orcutt near Tucson. On 
this latter collection Mr. Orcutt based Mammillaria thornberi, but he afterwards referred 
it to M. fasciculata; he is now inclined to question this reduction and thinks that /. 
fasciculata may be a species of Echinocereus. Engelmann, however, pointed out, when 
he described this species, that the spines were not arranged in vertical ribs as in Echinoce- 
reus. While we have not been able to prove beyond doubt the identity of the two names, 
as there is only one plant of this habit known from southeastern Arizona, we have 
admitted only one species and have used for it the older name: if a second species is 
afterwards found it may then be necessary to revise our conclusions. The plant has been 
collected several times since 1902 but it is still rare. 
