6 Notes on Cacte@. [ZOE 
Krausei Hildm. (name only) described by Karl Hirscht in M. f. 
K. vii. 107. Both &. Krausei and the type of £. erectocentrus 
came from the vicinity of Benson, Arizona. £. Krausez of Schu- 
mann’s monograph may not belong to the same species. Dr. 
Weber’s plant from Coahuila, included by Dr. Coulter in his 
type, is unknown to me. Dr. Weber, in Bois Dict. 466, 1893, 
under £. horripilus em., says: “L’ E. h. Erectocentrus Web. 
(Syn.: E&. Beguinit Web. Mamillaria Beguinit Hort.) est une 
forme A tige toujours simple et aiguillons plus nombreux, é€rigés.”’ 
I think all must agree that this is not a valid description, and 
Dr. Coulter’s has priority over all the others that are not nomina 
nuda. 
A very gorgeously colored chromo-lithograph of this species 
(and Cereus pectinatus rigidissimus), under the name of Mamil- 
laria Childsi, was issued some time ago as an advertisement by 
A. Blanc of Philadelphia, aud was reissued in F. A. Walton’s 
Cactus Journal for June, 1899. Names like this should not be 
interjected into botanical nomenclature, and the only reason for 
mentioning it here is that Dr. Schumann comments upon it in 
M. f. K. ix. 117, as a species unknown to him. 
MAMILLARIA SCHEERII Muhipf. Professor Schumann in- 
cludes this species in his division ‘‘No red or yellow glands in 
axil or groove’, and gives as synonyms, J7. Salm-Dyckiana, M. 
robustispina and Echinocactus Poselgerianus. 
In describing var. valida of M. Scheerit, Dr. Engelmann ex- 
pressly states that there are from 1-5 red glands in the groove, 
so also runs the original description of JZ. Scheeriz, and so it is 
found in my specimens. J. robustispina, to which and not to 
M. macromeris, as Dr. Schumann refers it, certainly belongs 
M. Brownii 'Tuomey, collected in the same locality, shows only 
occasionally a single gland just back of the spines, and the 
central spine is often hooked. All these mamillarias have yellow 
flowers, yet Dr. Schumann describes the flower as ‘‘bright rose- 
red (according to Weber, also yellow)’’. The flower of his 
description must therefore come from Lchinocactus Poselgerianus. 
In the original description of this latter, the flower was lacking, 
but the plant was compared to £. hexedrophorus Lem. 
