CACTUS. 
237 
A living plant was sent to Dr. Rose by Professor C. Conzatti in October 1913 (No. 
151a), from Salina Cruz, Oaxaca, and it has been reported by Dr. C. A. Purpus from San 
Geronimo. Dr. Purpus has written to us as follows: 
“The M elocactus from San Geronimo 
is indeed a most interesting and remark¬ 
able cactus. When I saw the cactus, I 
mean to say without a crown, very few 
specimens ever having one, I thought it 
was an Echinocactus, but of course it is 
undoubtedly a small Melocactus, the 
smallest which I ever saw. Later I found 
some specimens with a woolly crown and 
with it flower and fruit. The flower and 
fruit resemble flower and fruit of a 
Mammillaria." 
Here may belong Melocactus 
curvispinus Pfeiffer (Enum. Cact. 46. 
1837) and M. delessertianus Lemaire 
(Hort. Univ. 1: 225'. 1839). 
Figure 249 shows a barren plant 
by C. Conzatti, referred to above. 
DESCRIBED SPECIES, PERHAPS OF THIS GENUS. 
Cactus heptagonus Linnaeus, Sp. PL 466. 1753. 
Cereus heptagonus Miller, Gard. Diet. ed. 8. No. 6. 1768. 
The name has not been definitely associated with any known cactus by authors sub¬ 
sequent to Miller. Linnaeus indicates that the plant was of American origin and states 
(Hort. Cliff. 161) that “it is exactly ovate, with 7 angles deeply sculptured; some say they 
have seen the same thing 1 or 2 feet high, but our plant did not change its shape in growth.” 
Miller's account of it is not more satisfactory; he indicates that he received it, among other 
kinds of Cereus from the British Islands of America and that it has 7 or 8 ribs and several 
very long white spines. He also says: “Upright, thickest torch thistle, having many 
angles, several very long white spines and yellow down.” There may be doubt whether 
Miller’s plant was the same as that of Linnaeus. 
Cactus heterogonus (De Candolle, Prodr. 3 : 470. 1828) is a misspelling for C. heptagonus. 
Cactus parvispinus Haworth, Suppl. PI. Succ. 73. 1819. 
Echinocactus parvispinus De Candolle, Prodr. 3: 463. 182S. 
Ribs about 12; spines 6 to 8 mm. long, white with brownish tips; flowers unknown. 
This plant was in cultivation in England in 1815 and is said to have come from the 
West Indies. It was probably a young plant and is doubtless of this alliance. Melocactus 
parvispinus Haworth (De Candolle, Prodr. 3: 463. 1828) was given only as a synonym. 
Melocactus ExcavaTus Forbes, Journ. Hort. Tour Germ. 151. 1837. 
This plant is said to come from Mexico and is probably not of this relationship. 
Forbes briefly described it as hollow, crowned with 13 ribs; radial spines 7 or 8; central 
spine solitary, reddish yellow. 
Melocactus hystrix Parmentier in Miquel, Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. 18: Suppl. 1. 13S. 1841. 
The origin of this plant is unknown and it has never been definitely referred to any of 
the described species. 
Melocactus monvillEanus Miquel, Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. 18: Suppl. 1. 133. pi. 5. 1841. 
This species can not be identified and its origin is unknown. The illustration shows a 
barren plant which does not suggest any of the species of Cactus known to us, but rather some 
stubby Cereus relative such as Cereus lormata. 
