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. Pf eiffer'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 species we know. Schumann has 

 referred here numerous names as synonyms, some of which may belong here while others do not . 



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. pi. 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, 



Figs. 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 plant of E. 

 grandis. It is indeed a small plant, being only 5 inches high and is doubtless only a juve- 

 nile. It is described as globose, depressed, subumbilicate, green, with 13 ribs. The 

 flowers were unknown and it is impossible to identify it definitely. Echinocactus platyceras 

 Lemaire (Cact. Aliq. Nov. 19. 1838; Echinofossulocactus platyceras Lawrence in Loudon, 

 Card. Mag. 17: 318. 1841) is also described from a juvenile plant, but Lemaire states that 

 it and E. minax are sometimes 6 and even 10 feet high. From his illustrations (f. 3 and 4) 

 it is evidently related to E. grandis and E. ingens. E. minax laevior Lemaire (Labouret, 

 Monogr. Cact. 192. 1853), E. platyceras laevior (Forster, Handb. Cact. 325. 1846), and 

 E. platyceras minax Salm-Dyck (Forster, Handb. Cact. 324. 1846) must be different names 

 for this plant. Echinocactus helophorus Lemaire (Cact. Gen. Nov. Sp. 12. 1839; E. ingens 

 helophorus Schumann, Gesamtb. Kakteen 317. 1898) and its two varieties laevior and 

 longifossulatus Lemaire (Cact. Gen. Nov. Sp. 13. 1839) are possibly the same as E. minax 

 but all are without flowers and without definite habitat. E. aulacogonus Lemaire 

 (Cact. Gen. Nov. Sp. 14. 1839) and the variety diacopaulax Lemaire (Cact. Gen. Nov. Sp. 



