ECHINOCEREUS. 
43 
Echinocereus sp. 
A cylindric white-spined plant of this genus is illustrated by a photograph of Pro¬ 
fessor Lloyd’s No. 27, collected by him in the Quijotoa Mountains, Arizona, in August 
1906; neither flowers nor fruits were seen. 
Figure 55 a is reproduced from this photograph. 
Echinocereus sp. 
In March 1910, in the mountain above Alamos, Sonora, a specimen of this genus 
was collected by Rose, Standley, and Russell, which we have not been able to identify 
(No. 13123); living plants have been under observation since, but no flowers have yet been 
produced. It may be described as follows: 
Densely cespitose, usually 1, sometimes 2-jointed, dark green; ribs 7 or 8, low but distinct, the 
margin nearly straight; areoles approximate, 2 to 3 mm. apart; areoles minute, circular, white-felted; 
spines acicular, at first yellowish, often with brownish tips but soon whitish, less than 1 cm. long; 
radial spines about 10; central spines 3 or 4; flowers and fruit unknown. 
It resembles E. scheeri but has slenderer joints and more delicate spines, and is of more 
western range. 
Echinocereus pleiogonus (Labouret) Croucher, Garden 13: 290. 1878. 
Cereus pleiogonus Labouret, Monogr. Cact. 317. 1853. 
Short-cylindric, 5 to 13 cm. high; ribs 9 or 10; spines stiff, yellow, reflexed, 8 to 12, about 1 cm. 
long; flowers pinkish red, as long or longer than the plant itself; inner perianth-segments serrate. 
It was introduced into France by M. Cels but its native country is not known. The 
illustrations cited below seem to represent some species of Echinocereus but we are not able 
to identify them. For further remarks on this species see Echinocereus leeanus, p. 9. 
Illustrations: Diet. Gard. Nicholson 1: 299. f. 409; Watson, Cact. Cult. 82. f. 26, as 
Cereus pleiogonus; Garden 13: 291. 
UNCERTAIN OR UNDESCRIBED SPECIES. 
The following names have not been published or the plants have been so briefly or 
poorly described that they have not been identified: 
Cereus MACRACANTHUS Linke (Allg. Gartenz. 25: 239. 1857) is said to be related to Cereus eburneus, 
but Schumann thinks it is an Echinocereus. 
Echinocereus barcena Rebut (Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 6: 127. 1896) is a garden name, but has 
never been described. 
Echinocereus bicolor Galeotti (Wiener Illustr. Gartenz. 83. 1893, fide Index Kewensis 
Suppl. x: 149) is not found at the place or in the work cited above. The name intended 
was probably Eehinocactus bicolor Galeotti. 
Echinocereus boliviensis Poselger (Schumann, Gesamtb. Kakteen 290. 1898) does not belong 
to this genus. 
Echinocereus claviformis (Haage, Preis-Verz. Cact. 22. fide Index Kewensis) is, so far as we know, 
unpublished. It is doubtless based on Cereus ( Echinocereus) claviformis Regel and Klein 
(Ind. Sem. Hort. Petrop. 46. i860). 
Echinocereus galtieri (Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 5: 124. 1895) is only a garden name. 
Echinocereus grahamii (Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 20:47. 1910) is doubtless intended for Mam- 
millaria grahamii. 
Echinocereus havERMANSII Rebut (Schumann, Gesamtb. Kakteen 290. 1898 and Monatsschr. 
Kakteenk. 17: 64. 1907) is only a name. 
Echinocereus malibranii Rebut seems to be only a catalogue name. 
Echinocereus mamillosus (Riimpler in Forster, Handb. Cact. ed. 2. 787. 1885), undescribed, is 
supposed to be a hybrid. 
Echinocereus SCHLiNi, is a horticultural name, but supposed to be a misspelling of E. scheeri. 
Echinocereus thurberi (Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 3:153. 1893) may have been intended for 
Cereus thurberi. 
