ECHINOCACTUS. 
179 
In the spinescent scales of the ovary and flower-tube and in the mass of wool at the 
base of the style it is similar to the two anomalous species which we have referred to 
Lobivia, viz., L. thionanthus and L. chionanthus. We have seen flowers in the herbarium 
of the Instituto de Botanica y Farmacologia collected by Dr. A. Dominguez on Cerro de 
Macha which probably belong to Echinocactus spiniflorus or to a closely related species. 
Unfortunately, we know nothing about the plant body from which these flowers come. 
A very similar plant was collected by Dr. C. Spegazzini at Jujuy, Argentina. This we 
know only from a photograph which is labeled Echinocactus hylainacanthus. 
Echinocactus spinosissimus Forbes, Journ. Hort. Tour Germ. 152. 1837. 
Ribs 14 or 15; spines numerous; radial spines white; central spines 7 or 8, reddish brown, 
elongated. 
The above description is compiled from Forbes’s abbreviations and while it can not be 
definitely identified we suspect it refers to the so-called Mammillaria spinosissima. 
Forbes did not have much knowledge of the cacti. He was the gardener of the Duke 
of Bedford who sent him to the Continent of Europe in 1835 where he obtained many 
cacti and on his return to England published a list of them, sometimes with brief descriptions. 
The names had been given to him by Pfeiffer and others who were studying this family. 
As he published his list very promptly, many names appear there first or in the same year as 
in Pfeiffer’s lists. Mammillaria spinosissima must have been in cultivation at the time of 
Forbes’s visit, for it was published in 1838. 
The following are mostly names which have been printed, but were unaccompanied by 
descriptions or, when described, so poorly or briefly characterized that no one has been able 
to identify them: 
Echinocactus acutispinus Hildmann is only a catalogue name which Schumann (Monats- 
schr. Kakteenk. 5: 44. 1895) lists without description of any kind. 
Echinocactus castaniensis (Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 5: 75. 1895) is only a name said to 
have come from Riinge’s Catalogue. 
Echinocactus cerebriformis Macloskie (Rep. Princeton Univ. Exped. Patagonia 8: 
593. 1905) we do not know. Specimens could not be found in the Herbarium of Prince¬ 
ton University. It was described briefly as follows: A monstrosity, the ribs greatly con¬ 
torted, and the spines short. It comes from the Rio Negro, northern Patagonia. 
Echinocactus confertus, a garden name, appeared (Forster, Handb. Cact. 346. 1846) 
without description. 
Echinocactus corrugatus Steudel (Nom. ed. 2. 1: 536. 1840) was based on Cactus corru- 
gatus Loudon (Hort. Brit. 194. 1830) and is said to have come from Chile. Schumann did 
not know it. It was described originally as simply “corrugated.” It may be referable to 
Opuntia corrugata (Cactaceae 1: 95). 
Echinocactus dadakii Fric, we do not know, but it is said to come from South America. 
We find it offered for sale by Johnsens of Odesse, Denmark, in “Succulenta” for November 
1920. It is stated (Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 31: 15. 1921) that the plant is small with few 
spines. The flowers are unknown. 
Echinocactus flavicoma (Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 19: 139. 1909) is only mentioned in 
the place here cited. It is also advertised for sale by Frantz de Laet, but we have seen no 
description. 
Echinocactus foliosus Steudel (Nom. ed. 2. 1: 536. 1840) is based on Cactus foliosus 
Gillies (G. Don in Loudon, Hort. Brit. 194. 1830. Not Willdenow, 1813). Schumann did 
not know it. It is said to come from Chile. If leafy, as described, it may be Opuntia 
subulata. 
Echinocactus gigas Pfeiffer is only a name listed by Forster (Handb. Cact. 347. 1846). 
