1 62 



THE CACTACEAE. 



"A cactus quite plentiful among rocks in exposed places. Three flowers of a pink color and three 

 red fruits were collected. The specimens of the plants collected were cut off close to the ground; 

 they are a fair sample of plants of the average height and diameter, but in drying they shrink to 

 three-fourths their original dimensions." 



Figure 179 is from a photograph of a plant from the type collection; figure 179a is 

 from a photograph of the plants referred to above, sent by Mr. Aguirre. 



144. Neomammillaria fasciculata (Engelmann). 



Mainmillaria fasciculata Engelmann in Emory, Mil. Reconn. 157. 1848. 

 Cactus fasciculatus Kuntze, Rev. Gen. PI. i: 259. 1S91. 

 Mammillaria thornberi Orcutt, West Amer. Sci. 12: i5i. 1902. 



Forming clumps, often containing many plants (as many as no have been noted), slender- 

 cylindric, usually 5 to 8 cm., but sometimes 30 cm. high; axils of tubercles naked; radial spines 13 

 to 20, slender, 5 to 7 mm. long, white, with dark brown or nearly black tips ; central spine usually 

 I, sometimes 2 or 3, often much elongated and 18 mm. long, brownish or black, one (sometimes all) 

 strongly hooked; flowers broadly funnel-shaped, purplish; inner perianth-segments broad, acute; 

 fruit short-clavate, scarlet, 8 mm. long; seeds black. 



Fig. 180. — Neomammillaria fasciculata 



Uaria longiflora. 



Type locality: Along the Gila River. 



Distribution: Southern Arizona. 



This plant was found by Emory, October 20, 1846, on the Gila River, 3,000 or 4,000 

 feet above the sea, and was afterwards described by Engelmann from the sketch made in 

 the field; for more that 50 years afterwards the plant remained otherwise unknown. 

 About 1902 it was rediscovered by Professor Thomber and Mr. Orcutt near Tucson. On 

 this latter collection Mr. Orcutt based Mammillaria thornberi, but he afterwards referred 

 it to M. fasciculata; he is now inclined to question this reduction and thinks that M. 

 fasciculata may be a species of Echinocereus. Engelmann, however, pointed out, when 

 he described this species, that the spines were not arranged in vertical ribs as in Echinoce- 

 reus. While we have not been able to prove beyond doubt the identity of the two names, 

 as there is only one plant of this habit known from southeastern Arizona, we have 

 admitted only one species and have used for it the older name; if a second species is 

 afterwards found it may then be necessary to revise our conclusions. The plant has been 

 collected several times since 1902 but it is still rare. 



