When one travels long distances on horse with the possibility to stop any moment, one can follow 

 step by step the transitions from one type to the other; these are sometimes so subtle, that one is 

 persuaded to think that one always sees the same plant. But if one has picked a specimen and if 

 during a long days march one picks a different one and compares it to the previous one, one thinks 

 that one has made a mistake. 



You know well how much has been said of the species Echinocactus strenogony. It will certainly be 

 easy to choose from our collection more than ten types, that when examined comparatively, do not 

 seem to have the slightest resemblance among each other and seem to be totally different 

 species. Some have foliacious thorns, others rigid and strong ones.Some are very short and some are 

 remarkable because of their length. Some are white and others are yellow, red brown or black.The 

 flowers can be white, yellow purple or can have a variety of colors. When I travelled from Mexico to 

 Saltillo I saw nearly every day Echinocactus stenogonil saw some very close to Mexico and when 

 comparing the descriptions of Salm and others, they seem to have the same characteristics as the 

 Echinocactus anfractuosus. After a few days it semed as if I were always looking at the same plants, 

 that did not resemble those that I had seen a few before. 



From transition to transition I arrived at the conclusion that I have before me the plants that respond 

 to the name Echinocactus phillacanthus, without being able to say that the region of the 

 Echinocactus anfractuosus reached a certain distance and that the Echinocactus phyllacanthus 

 began in another. All the variations that I saw succesively made me believe that is was always the 

 same species that I was looking at, and I do believe that this is the case. 



I never saw in the same place two distinct types of Stenogoni. While these have great variations 

 according to their locality, their terrain, their exposure to the south or the north their altitude and the 

 distance from each other which was sometimes very short. From Mexico to Saltillo I succesively 

 saw all the species described by Salm in his 3 primary subdivisions.The Echinocactus stenogoni 

 costis membranacea compressis ( I did not see on this journey the the variety ofarrigens, 

 Wippermanni, acifer, etc. Even if I tried in vane to reach other comclusions, I do believe that I 

 always had the same species under my eyes. It is true that I saw only very few plants with flowers 

 and not a Single one with fruits; this certainly is a large gap, but what I saw was sufficient to make 

 me believe, that all the group of the Stenogoni, constitute but one subspecies.If the European 

 cactographers had difficulties distinguishing one from the other, it is for a very simple reason: there 

 was nothing by which they could be distinguished. 



Other species that vary consistently are for example, the Mamillaria cornifera, the M.acantos 

 and a species of our collection that I had never seen in Mexico, the M. spinosissima.The Echh 

 pectinatus also varies considerably, just like all the Cereus, of the group Echinocoxml have b 

 to believe that all the species of the Echinocereus are reduced to a small number of genuine s 

 the Cereus pectinatus and caespitosare most certainly synonymus.The Cereus enneacanthus 

 nothing but a Variation of the Cereus Deppei (Cereus einer ascens DC) etc. 



A circumstance to which we have to pay attention to, when wanting to determine a species, is 

 more or less complete age of development of the models that one studies. Within the Europea 

 collections we forget this circumstance and duplicate models have been used.in this way for e 

 a species that in Mexico seems to vary considerably, because it is found in a vast ringe, is the 

 Echinocactus ingens. It reaches collosal dimensions (2-3 meters in height and to 1 irieter ii 



