LOBIVIA. 
59 
long, probably white; scales on ovary and flower-tube ovate, io to 12 mm. long, narrowly ovate, 
acute, their axils filled with long black silky hairs. 
Collected by J. A. Shafer on a cliff, at an altitude of 2,400 meters, between Andalgala 
and Concepcion, Argentina, December 28, 1916 (No. 25, type). Dr. Shafer’s No. 23 
collected at the same locality is similar, but the flowers are much smaller, being only 
about 3 cm. long, and the plant is much larger, up to 12 dm. high. This plant is 
referred to this genus with hesitancy; it is much larger than any of the other species. 
Figure 78 is from a photograph of the plant collected by Dr. Shafer; figure 76 shows 
its flower. 
20. Lobivia cumingii (Hopffer). 
Echinocactus cumingii Hopffer, Allg. Gartenz. 11; 225. 1843. 
Plants small, 5 to 6 cm. in diameter, simple, 
globular, bluish green, tubercled; tubercles arranged 
in about 18 spiraled rows; radial spines about 20, 
straight, 10 mm. long; central spines 2 to 8, 11 mm. 
long; flowers from the upper part of the plant but 
not central, orange-colored (sometimes shown as 
lemon-yellow), narrow, 2.5 cm. long; inner perianth- 
segments oblong, acute; scales on the ovary small, 
described as naked in their axils. 
Type locality: Mountains of Peru. 
Distribution: Bolivia and Peru. 
The first two illustrations cited below are 
so different in the shape of the tubercles and in 
the color and form of the flowers that we sus¬ 
pect that they may belong to different species. 
The one from the Botanical Magazine has 
lemon-yellow flowers, while the other has deep- 
orange or brick-red flowers. 
We have not studied living plants of this 
species. 
Schumann refers Echinocactus rostratus 
Jacobi (Allg. Gartenz. 24: 108. 1856) here; but it was based on specimens from Valparaiso, 
Chile, and is probably to be referred to E. subgibbosus, now taken up in another genus 
(see page 97). 
Although this species was described by Hopffer in 1843, Salm-Dyck* much later 
(Cact. Hort. Dyck. 1849. 174. 1850) published it as a new species of his own. In his 
description he makes the significant remark that it is similar to Echinocactus cinnabarinus 
which confirms our conclusion that it is probably a Lobivia. In i860 Regel and Klein 
(Ind. Sem. Hort. Petrop. 48. i860) described also as a new species, Echinocactus cumingii. 
They say it was brought by Cuming from Chile and, if so, is doubtless different from our 
plant. They state that it was referred to Echinocactus cinerascens, a plant occurring in 
Chile, but it is certainly not that species. It may be a species of Neoporteria, but in 
any case the name is a homonym and its exact identification is not of much importance. 
The type was collected by Thomas Bridges, but the plant was named for Hugh Cum¬ 
ing (1791-1865). 
Echinocactus cumingii flavispinus (Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 14: 77. 1904) is a form. 
Illustrations: (?) Curtis’s Bot. Mag. 100: pi. 6097; (?)Bliihende Kakteen 1: pi. 19, as 
Echinocactus cumingii. 
Figure 79 is a reproduction of the second illustration cited above. 
His original was cummingii. 
