The North American Species of Cactus, Anhalonium, and Lophophora | Page 6

none): ovaries immersed:
seeds small, yellow and rugulose: simple.
5.Cactus heyderi (Muhlenpf.) Kuntze, Rev. Gen. Pl. 260 (1891).
Mamillaria heyderi Muhlenpf. Allg. Gart. Zeit. xvi. 20(1848).
Mamillaria declivis Dietr. Allg. Gart. Zeit. xviii. 235 (1850).
Mamillaria applanata Engelm. Pl. Lindh 198 (1850). Mamillaria
texensis Labouret, Monogr. Cact. 89 (1858).
Depressed, globose, usually with depressed vertex, 8 to 12 cm. broad,
2.5 to 5 cm. high: tubercles elongated: radial spines 10 to 22, whitish, 5
to 12 mm. long, the lower usually the longer, stouter, and often darker;
central spine 4 to 8 mm. long, light yellowish-brown, stout, straight,
and porrect: flowers 2 to 2.5 cm. long, reddish-white: fruit incurved,

1.5 to 3 cm. long. (Ill. Cact. Mex. Bound. t. 9. figs. 4-14). Type
unknown.
From the Guadalupe River, Texas, to the mouth of the Rio Grande, and
westward to Arizona and Sonora. Fl. April, May.
Specimens examined: Texas (Lindheimer of 1845, 1847, 1853; Wright
226, also collections of 1849, 1852, 1853, 1855, 1856; Bigelow of 1853;
Trelease of 1892; Nealley of 1892): New Mexico (Wright 311;
Bigelow of 1853, Evans of 1891): Arizona (Pringle of 1881): also
growing in Mo. Bot. Gard. 1893; and in the World's Fair collection of
Mrs. Nickels.
The radial spines are somewhat variable in relative length, often
becoming almost equal, while sometimes the upper radials are very
much reduced. The figure referred to in Cact. Mex. Bound. is not
satisfactory as to the general habit of the plant, which is flat-topped
rather than hemispherical.
6.Cactus heyderi hemisphaericus (Engelm.).
Mamillaria hemisphaerica Engelm. Pl. Lindh. 198 (1850).
Differs in being hemispherical instead of flat-topped, in its fewer (9 to
12) and shorter (4 to 8 mm.) radial spines, and much smaller less rough
and lighter-colored seeds. (Ill. Cact. Mex. Bound. t. 9. figs. 15-17)
Type, the "Goebel's Garden" plants in Herb. Mo. Bot. Gard.
Throughout southern Texas and southern New Mexico, and southward;
not extending so far north or west as the species, and apparently not so
abundant within the United States. Fl. May.
Specimens examined: Texas(Schott 322, 614): New Mexico (Evans of
1891): also specimens cultivated in the Goebel Garden, St. Louis, in
1847, brought from "below Matamoras on the Rio Grande" by the St.
Louis Volunteers, in 1816.
On account of its convex top the variety becomes somewhat higher
than the species (5 to 7.5 cm.), and the flowers are sometimes slightly
longer (2 to 3 cm.).
7.Cactus meiacanthus (Engelm.) Kuntze, Rev. Gen. Pl. 260 (1891).
Mamillaria meiacantha Engelm. Syn. Cact. 263 (1856)
Hemispherical or with depressed vertex, 7.5 to 12.5 cm. in diameter,
with a broad top-shaped base: tubercles compressed, 14 to 18 mm. long:
radial spines 5 to 9 (usually about 6), stout and strongly subulate, 6 to
10 mm. long, straight or somewhat curved, whitish or yellowish, the

lower mostly a little longer, the upper one sometimes wanting; central
spine shorter and stout, darker, straight, and porrect, turned upwards
among the radials, or rarely wanting: flowers 2.5 to 3 cm. long,
reddish-white: fruit incurved, 2 to 3 cm. long. (Ill. Cact. Mex. Bound. t.
9, figs. 1-3). Type specimens are those of the collections of 1847, 1851,
1852, and 1853, from which the original description was drawn and all
of which are in Herb. Mo. Bot. Gard.
From the Guadalupe River, Texas, to the "Great Bend" of the Rio
Grande, westward through western Texas and New Mexico; also
northern Mexico (Hemsley); Fl. May, June.
Specimens examined: Texas (Wright of 1851, 1852; Bigelow of 1853):
New Mexico ("Missouri Volunteers" of 1847; unknown collector in
1880); also specimens cultivated in St. Louis in 1853, and others
growing in Mo. Bot. Gard. 1893.
Dr. Engelmann regarded this species as possibly only a variety of C.
heyderi, to which it is certainly very closely allied through var.
hemisphaerica, but the different tubercles and fewer stouter spines
serve so well to distinguish it that it seems best to retain its specific
rank.
In reference to the citation of the original description an explanation
seems necessary, which will apply to numerous similar cases. The Pacif.
R. Rep. iv. 27 (1856), Syn. Cact. 263 (1858), and Cact. Mex. Bound. 9
(1859), have each been cited as the original publication. The confusion
has arisen from the fact that in both the publications of 1856 the
description in the Rep. Mex. Bound. is referred to, and in that report the
plant is fully described as "sp. nov." However, the publication of the
Boundary Report was long delayed on account of the preparation of the
plates, and in the meantime both the publications of 1856 had appeared,
in each one of which the species is distinctly characterized and
reference made to the description in the forthcoming Boundary Report.
As between the two publications of 1856 the Syn. Cact. (Proc. Amer.
Acad. iii. 259) was