OF THE SOUTH- WEST - Free

CACTI 

OF THE 

SOUTH- 

WEST 

TEXAS, NEW MEXICO, 

OKLAHOMA, ARKANSAS, 

AND LOUISIANA 

by Del Weniger

CACTI OF THE SOUTHWEST

NUMBER FOUR 

The Elma Dill Russell Spencer Foundation Series

Echinocereus lloydii.

Cacti of the Southwest 

Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Luosiana 

By D E L W E N I G E R 

U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E X A S P R E S S A U S T I N & L O N D O N

Standard Book Number 292–70000–8 

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 78–104326 

All rights reserved 

Printed by Brüder Hartmann, Berlin, West Germany

To Ellen Schultz Quillin

CONTENTS 

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . x 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 

What Is a Cactus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Key to the Genera of the Cacti . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Genus Echinocereus Engelmann . . . . . . . . . . 10 

Key to the Echinocerei, page 11 

Genus WTzlcoxia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 

Genus Peniocereus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 

Genus Acanthocereus . . . . . . . . . . . . 6o 

Genus Echinocactus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 

Key to the Echinocacti, page 65 

Genus Lophophora . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 

Genus Ariocarpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 

Genus Pediocactus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 

Genus Epithelantha . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 

Genus Mammillaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 

Key to the Mammillarias, page 112 

Genus Opuntia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 

Key to the Opuntias, page 162 

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 

Index of Scientific Names . . . . . . . . . . . 243 

Index of Common Names . . . . . . . . . . . 248

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Support for this study was graciously provided by a grant-inaid 

for research from the Society of the Sigma Xi. Appreciation 

is expressed to Our Lady of the Lake College which granted 

me time for the study and made available certain facilities for 

growing and photographing the plants. 

Gratitude is also expressed to many individuals who contributed 

in various ways to the completion of the present study. 

First among them is Mrs. Roy W. Quillin (Ellen D. Schulz) who 

gave constant encouragement and advice and the use of books 

from her fine library on the Cactaceae. Dr. E. F. Castetter of the 

Biology Department of the University of New Mexico contributed 

valuable information and some specimens from New Mexico. 

He also arranged for the preparation and housing of my 

collection of important specimens gathered in this study. Numbering 

over seven hundred specimens of cacti, this collection is, 

as a result of his interest, permanently deposited in the her- 

barium of the University of New Mexico. 

The cacti of the following herbaria were studied in their entirety, 

thanks to the help of the staffs and especially of the persons 

mentioned here: the United States National Museum of the 

Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Jason R. Swallen and Dr. Velva 

Rudd being particularly helpful; the New York Botanical Garden; 

the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis; The University 

of Texas; Southern Methodist University, with appreciation 

to Dr. Lloyd Shinners; the University of New Mexico and Dr. 

Castetter, as already mentioned; and the University of Colo- 

rado. 

Many others provided valuable information and aid of one 

kind or another. Appreciation goes to Dr. Barton H. Warnock 

of Sul Ross College; Drs. Claude W. Gatewood and Bruce 

Blauch, then of Oklahoma State University; Mr. Charles Polaski 

of Oklahoma City; Mr. Homer Jones and Mr. P. M. Plimmer 

of Alpine, Texas; Mr. Clark Champie of Anthony, New 

Mexico; Mr. Fred Nadolney, Mr.-Prince Pierce, and Mr. and 

Mrs. Earl Newhouse of Albuquerque, New Mexico; Mr. Horst 

Kuenzler and Mr. Dennis Cowper of Belen, New Mexico; Mr. 

L. J. Holland, Mr. and Mrs. S. L. Heacock, and Mrs. Ethel B. 

Karr, all of Colorado; Mr. and Mrs. Walter Hems of Rogers, 

Arkansas; Miss Lorene Martin of the Arkansas State Plant 

Board; Dr. T. M. Howard, Mr. Kim Kuebel, and Mr. H. C. Lawson 

of San Antonio, Texas; Mr. Glenn Spraker of Houston, 

Texas; Sr. Orton Cerna of Rosita, Coahuila, Mexico; and Sr. 

Romo Ruiz of Musquiz, Coahuila, Mexico. 

Mr. Larry Nichols and Mr. Gibbs Milliken aided the writer in 

making some of the photographs. The photograph of Lopho- 

phora williamsii var. echinata was made by Mr. David Smith. 

The chromatographs mentioned in the text were run by my 

students, Misses Vicki Perez, Rosemary Drake, and Ethel Matthews 

in the Biology Department of Our Lady of the Lake College.

INTRODUCTION 

Portrayed among the ancient stone carvings of Mexico, woven 

through the legends of that land, and central in the seal of the 

nation itself is the strange thick stem or the spiny jointed bush 

of the cactus. These plants must have been ever present for the 

people of that land, interesting to them and of some significance 

to their lives as far back as we can know. How strange to realize 

then that this fantastic group of plants had never been 

seen by anyone in the so-called civilized world until after 

Columbus discovered America. Yet this must be true; for, except 

for two or three small, inconspicuous, and very uncactus-like 

species found in places even more unknown to early travelers 

in the jungles of Madagascar and Ceylon, the cacti grow naturally 

only in the Western Hemisphere. They are as American 

as corn, tomatoes, tobacco, or potatoes. 

So they must have been seen—and felt—by the conquistadors 

who drove their horses across America in search of gold. 

No doubt these men paid little attention to the native flora as 

they passed, but the cacti they would have noticed for at least 

two reasons. How could they have failed to see the huge thickets 

of these devilish plants which blocked their paths to the 

envisioned gold and which they had to learn to respect? And 

when, wandering in the arid expanses, they grew hungry 

and had nothing else to eat, they must quickly have learned 

from the Indians to spot the cactus species whose fruits were 

succulent and sweet to the taste. We can imagine the stories they 

told about these outlandish plants of the New World. 

These accounts must have spread very rapidly, for we already 

have in The Herball or Generall Historie of Plantes, by John 

Gerarde, published in London in 1597, the descriptions and 

woodcut illustrations of four cacti. Gerarde names them as follows: 

“The Hedgehogge Thistle,” which is clearly seen from the 

picture to be a Melocactus from the Caribbean area, “The Torch 

or Thornie Euphorbium,” which is easily recognized to be a 

Cereus, “The Thornie Reede of Peru,” another Cereus, and “The 

Indian Fig Tree,” obviously a giant Opuntia. This is already 

an array of cacti from widely separated parts of Central and 

South America. 

Soon there followed explorers who were more directly interested 

in the flora of the New World. These early explorers 

took living specimens of the cacti home to Europe, not only 

because of their uniqueness, but because they would survive the 

long sea voyages when other plants, except in the seed stage, 

would not. They could even be transported all the way without 

the prohibitive weight of soil on their roots. 

Early botanists, beginning to study these plants, faced a problem. 

Since the plants had been totally unknown in the Old 

World until this time, there were no words for them at all in 

classical Greek or Latin. Like John Gerarde, the botanists often 

thought of these plants, because of their spininess, as new sorts 

of thistles, and so the Greek word for thistle, Kaktos, became 

somehow applied to them. This has become our cactus of to- 

day. 

There were soon expeditions of botanists just to study the 

new plants of America. An example was the Ruiz and Paron 

expedition of 1777 to 1787. This expedition to Peru was commissioned 

by the King of Spain and encompassed ten years of 

exploring in most difficult terrain; Spain spent upon the venture 

twenty million pesetas. Thousands of plant specimens were 

sent back, with cacti among them. 

The interest in these strange plants grew and soon amounted 

to a “cactus craze.” The extent of the “craze” is hard for us to 

comprehend today. By 1800 businesses were being set up by 

French, Belgian, and German importers to sell quantities of the 

plants sent by professional collectors maintained in Central and 

South America. Societies and wealthy enthusiasts commissioned 

collectors to travel to America and bring them newer and yet 

more strange species. Extensive collections were soon formed, 

grown at great pains in greenhouses. About 1830 the Duke of

xii cacti of the southwest 

Bedford had such a collection of cacti at Woburn Abbey. Other 

famous collectors in England were the Duke of Devonshire and 

the Reverend Mr. H. Williams of Hendon. 

This cultivation of the cacti must at first have been a very 

expensive, very genteel hobby, open only to the rich; the plants 

had to be expensive after having been shipped all the way from 

the wilds of the Western Hemisphere, and the resources necessary 

to keep them alive in the climate of most of Europe before 

the advent of gas and electric heat must have been great. The 

greenhouse full of cacti may well have been one of the few 

warmed buildings for miles around on freezing winter nights. 

Borg has pointed out that the cultivation of cacti has paralleled 

the cultivation of orchids in many ways, and this is easy to understand, 

since these are two of the most exotic groups of plants 

which can be found. 

But the cultivation of the cacti became the common man’s 

hobby much more easily than did that of the orchids. With 

botanical associations and importers putting out long lists of 

available species, cacti became cheap and available in Europe 

in large numbers. Soon many a humble home had at least a few 

of these peculiar plants in a window somewhere. We like to 

think of this as wonderful and of these cherished cacti as beautiful, 

but we must admit that even then they were not universally 

appreciated. Dickens, for instance, must have had an active 

aversion to them. While attesting to the broadness of the interest 

in cacti, his description of Paul Dombey’s nurse, Mrs. Pipchin, 

reveals his dislike for them, for he wrote of her, “Among her 

failings was a fondness for cactus. In the window of her parlor 

were half a dozen specimens writhing round bits of lath like 

hairy serpents.” 

Perhaps Dickens was sensing something cunning and insidious 

in these cacti, which events proved was there. They were early 

grown in southern Europe, and it was found that they could be 

grown without protection in outdoor gardens in southern Italy, 

Spain, Sicily, and Greece, on the Riviera, and, of course, all 

along the southern shore of the Mediterranean. In these areas 

are still today some of the finest cactus gardens in the world, 

with beautiful, hundred-year-old specimens to be seen. 

But once introduced into the Mediterranean area, certain of 

the Opuntias, the hardiest and most easily spread of cacti, found 

the hot, arid region too much to their liking and so escaped 

from cultivation and established themselves as permanent residents 

of the area. These cacti have now spread through many 

Mediterranean countries. Though the time required to accomplish 

this was actually comparatively short, man’s memory is 

even shorter, for so completely are they already accepted as a 

normal part of the flora that in many areas one finds hardly 

a resident who realizes that his ancestors could not have known 

these immigrants. Sometimes one even sees cacti in pictures and 

movies supposedly reconstructing the time of Christ and the 

Roman Empire, or in otherwise accurate portrayals of classic 

Greek times. 

In one other place cacti escaped like this and became one of 

the worst plant scourges ever known. This was in Australia, 

where several Opuntias, in the absence of their natural enemies 

and in an arid situation exactly to their liking, took over millions 

of acres and rendered them useless for anything else. Much 

money and effort was spent in discovering how to control these 

cacti in Australia, and the effort has been largely successful. 

They have been eliminated from huge areas and are being kept 

in check in others. 

But these two instances of cacti escaping and invading new 

areas are the exceptions. Usually, when taken from their natural 

haunts, the cacti survive only under very precise conditions 

and when great care is lavished upon them by their growers. 

Almost none of them can survive unaided even when only 

transplanted from one state to another within the United States. 

Within the Americas, where they are at home, cacti as a 

group are very widespread. They range from Alberta and British 

Columbia in Canada on the north to Patagonia, toward the 

tip of South America on the south. Their greatest development 

in both numbers and diversity is in two areas, one along the 

Tropic of Cancer in Mexico and the other near the Tropic of 

Capricorn in South America. While flourishing the most in the 

American deserts, they are far from restricted to these places. 

Special forms are found in tropical rain forests; others abound 

along the seashores of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, and 

the Pacific Ocean; while some thrive in mountain forests and a 

few are at home on bleak mountain slopes to as high as fourteen 

thousand feet. There are also some forms which abound on the 

Great Plains all the way into Canada, and within the United 

States it is said that indigenous cacti have been found growing 

in every state except Maine, Hawaii, and Alaska, although in 

many states they are so rare and inconspicuous that their pres- 

ence is unsuspected by most residents. 

This picture of far-ranging cacti is misleading if one thinks 

of any single form as so far-flung. This is the range of the group, 

which is a huge and diverse aggregation. It is probably fruitless 

to try to estimate the number of cactus forms that exist, because 

new publications are constantly adding new-found forms to the 

list, as well as realigning those already known. But it is said that 

there are well over three thousand known species in all. Of 

these, almost none range across from one America to the other. 

A very few species, considered broadly, may range practically 

across a continent, and some few cover large expanses of one or 

the other of the Americas, but the much more usual situation is 

for each species to inhabit a range measured in a few hundred 

square miles or less. It is very common for a species to inhabit 

only a certain valley or mountain range, and there are numerous 

forms so restricted in habitat that two or three Texas-sized 

ranches will contain them all. 

As we have seen, the cacti which excited the first interest and 

touched off the first cactus craze were the huge and spectacular 

Central and South American forms. The cacti of the United 

States were hardly known until later. Early botanists on the 

east coast of the United States found only two or three very

introduction xiii 

inconspicuous and uninteresting little prickly pears which they 

dutifully recorded and no one got excited about. As they pushed 

west, they found little else until they got beyond the Mississippi 

River. But once they began to explore the West, the study of 

U.S. cacti began. 

The first great student of U. S. cacti was the famous botanist 

Dr. George Engelmann. He made his headquarters at the Missouri 

Botanical Garden, the remarkable early botanical center 

in St. Louis, and studied the specimens and descriptions sent in 

by botanists on the early governmental surveys through the 

West. These botanists—such as Wislizenus, Wright, Bigelow, 

Parry, and Poselger—were the heroes of early cactus studies in 

the United States, and some of their names will be met with 

later, since Engelmann acknowledged his debt to them by sometimes 

naming cacti after them. They must have been hardy souls, 

riding on long treks with expeditions such as the Mexican 

Boundary Survey, the Pacific Railroad Survey, Pike’s expedition, 

and others; and one must admire their stamina, gathering 

cacti all day on the trail, then, while the others rested, making 

their records and descriptions and packing up specimens of these 

unpleasant-to-handle plants to send back to Engelmann. Their 

routes took them through the heart of the cactus country of the 

West, and we are amazed at the number of plants found only in 

places almost inaccessible even a hundred years later, which 

they located and recorded so long ago. 

Beginning in about 1846, Engelmann started publishing the 

results of these expeditions. He faced the herculean task of listing 

and describing a huge population of cacti almost unknown 

before to the world. He coined names for the multitude of 

forms, worked out something of their relationships, and presented 

descriptions and some of the finest botanical illustrations 

ever made for any plants. Although his material was sometimes 

incomplete and so his descriptions were sometimes deficient, he 

gave us the first information we have of approximately two- 

thirds of the U. S. cacti, information so remarkably accurate 

that in a few cases it has taken us almost a hundred years to 

verify it. Modern concepts have sometimes revised his ideas of 

the relationships between the forms, but almost never have we 

found him in error when he told where a plant grew or what it 

looked like. 

The next effort at studying the cacti of the United States was 

made by the great botanist John M. Coulter. In 1894 he began 

publishing a major work on the cacti of North America. Mostly 

he built on the foundation laid down by Engelmann, with the 

benefit of much more material collected since Engelmann’s time, 

but he added little really new to what was already known. It is 

indicative of the difficulty of studying cacti that he is said to 

have given up the study of this group in disgust and spent the 

rest of his life with other plant groups after misidentifying a 

cactus he had earlier named himself. 

About the same time as Coulter’s study, a large, general work 

on cacti was being produced in the German language by Karl 

Schumann. He did firsthand work on the cacti of the then In- 

dian Territory and the Canadian River area, but did not travel 

widely in the United States, and so his work has limited value 

for us today in the study of U. S. cacti. 

A major project on cacti was then undertaken by the Carnegie 

Institute. Dr. N. L. Britton and Dr. J. N. Rose, with the 

support of that institution, undertook to list and describe all 

the cacti of the world. They traveled widely throughout the 

Americas and visited the European collections, and as a result 

published a four-volume work, The Cactaceae, in 1919 to 1923. 

Their work had probably the greatest effect of anything ever 

published on the study of cacti as well as on the growing popularity 

of these plants. They greatly revised the classification of 

the group, adding a multitude of new genera and species, and 

their beautiful volumes, with fine color illustrations, were widely 

circulated, giving many people, especially in the United States, 

their first knowledge of the beauty of the cacti. Even today, 

most people still think of cacti strictly in the terms of the 

Britton and Rose accounts. 

No new attempt to encompass all of the cacti in one large 

study was made for many years. The task had become just too 

big. But the great German student of cacti, Curt Backeberg, did 

not flinch at the challenge, and in 1958 he brought out the first 

volume of a new world-wide survey, Die Cactaceae. It was 

completed shortly before his death and comprises six large volumes 

of fine descriptions, with many good pictures of the cacti 

of the world. It is truly a monumental work. 

But the great diversity of the cacti and the fact, already mentioned, 

that the majority of them are limited to areas which are 

very small (often single mountain ranges or river valleys), when 

set against the huge expanse covered by the group as a whole, 

make it very difficult for any major flora or all-inclusive cactus 

work to be useful on a local level. Who wants to carry the four 

volumes of Britton and Rose or the six of Backeberg to the Big 

Bend of Texas or the mountains of Peru? And if these works 

were to give really detailed accounts of the cacti found in all 

of such areas, exactly the information which the local student 

needs, they would become encyclopedic in size. This fact explains 

the numerous regional publications on cacti, both articles 

in journals and separate books. If one is to understand the local 

cacti, he must refer to these publications, done by people on the 

scene who have studied the larger picture and then sought out 

and portrayed the details of the local forms he sees about him. 

This book is intended to be such a regional guide. 

In the United States there has long been a tendency to break 

down the treatment of cacti into state studies. States are artificial 

areas and their boundaries have nothing to do with plant 

distribution, but it has been impossible to ignore them. The present 

study, however, includes the cacti of five states: Arkansas, 

Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. These five states 

make up a unit much more logically considered, cactuswise, than 

any one of them alone, and a unit for whose cacti there has 

never been a complete guide. While lists of cactus species and 

some good descriptions are found in the floras of the respective

xiv cacti of the southwest 

states (as for instance those of Wooton and Standley for New 

Mexico) and many articles concerning various cacti in this region 

are scattered all through the literature, there has been only 

one complete work on cacti within this area: Texas Cacti, by 

Ellen D. Schulz (Mrs. Roy Quillin) and Robert Runyon. This 

was published in 1930, covered only the cacti of Texas, and is 

now out of print. 

The need for such a guide for these five states seems, therefore, 

clear. While the cacti of the far Southwest have been dealt 

with in numerous publications—Stockwell and Brezzeale’s Arizona 

Cacti of 1933, Baxter’s California Cacti of 1935, Boissevain 

and Davidson’s Colorado Cacti of 1940, Benson’s The 

Cacti of Arizona of 1950, and Earle’s Cacti of the Southwest 

of 1963—none of these covered more than those few forms of 

cacti which happened to extend their range into our area from 

the West. And where the cacti of this five-state area have been 

written about in journals or magazines it has usually been done 

by students who lived and worked in the far West or even in 

Europe, and who wrote of our cacti after brief trips through 

this vast area or from secondhand accounts. 

The cacti of this area have not lacked a detailed treatment 

because they were fewer in number or less diverse than those 

of the far Southwest. If anything, they may have presented too 

great a challenge just because of their number. I have found 

some professional botanists who believed, probably because of 

the greater size and conspicuousness of the Arizona species plus 

the greater publicity they have received, that the greatest speciation 

in the United States occurs in the far Southwest. Actually, 

this is not true. Texas alone presents more species of cacti than 

all of the rest of the United States combined. L. Benson lists 60 

cactus species in Arizona. California is said to have about 20 

natives; and New Mexico, about 50. On the other hand the 

number of separate species listed here for our five-state area is 

119. Earle, the most recent writer on the cacti of the Southwest, 

lists 121 forms, counting varieties as well as separate species for 

all of California, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and western 

New Mexico. Within our area we find 172 different forms. 

Within Texas alone can be found 106 species and 142 recognizable 

forms. 

The present work, then, lists all of the forms of cacti presently 

known to be growing within the five states: Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. They are listed by 

their recognized scientific names, and immediately following 

(in every case where such exist) are given all of the common 

names which could be discovered, by which the cactus is known 

in various localities, including the Spanish and sometimes the 

Indian names. Spellings of these common names show the local 

variations found in the literature. 

A description of the whole cactus plant, not meant to be tedious 

but made full enough to be useful for the serious student, 

is then given. This description is patterned on the original one 

of the species, but it takes into account other descriptions by 

more recent students plus our own observations and so may be 

broader than the original in the case of quantitative characters 

and may add information not covered in the original. 

Following this is outlined the known range of natural distribution 

for the cactus. This is given in rather general terms, partly 

because there is still more to be learned about the spread of some 

of these plants and partly because it is not meant to be a guide 

telling exactly which mountain slope will provide the collector 

with the cactus he wants. The publication of such specific information 

all too often has meant that the slope is bare of any 

cacti at all the next year. There are no laws protecting cacti in 

any of the states covered in this study, and the conservation of 

our cacti is a real problem today. While this work gives no inaccurate 

or misleading information about where the various 

cacti are to be found, the exact locations of specific populations 

are not usually given. Any cactus hunter worthy of the title of 

“cactophile,” once given the general territory where the plant 

grows, might rather search out the prize himself. 

Next follows a discussion of each cactus listed. This is a 

gathering together of any remarks I might have on anything 

unusual or especially interesting about the cactus. Included 

under remarks also, because these are purely my own opinions 

after studying the plants and the literature upon them, are suggestions 

concerning its relationship to its fellows, with restatement 

of the specific characters which distinguish it from its 

closest relatives. 

These relationships are very complex, and the concepts of 

them have been almost constantly changing throughout the 

study of the cacti, as can be quickly traced by looking at the 

synonymy in almost any listing. In an attempt to avoid making 

this part another series of synonym lists in fine print—or a dry, 

dead discussion of dead names-this synonymy is presented as 

a historical account of the vicissitudes through which individual 

cactus forms, individual plant names, and the ideas of individual 

students went from their discovery and their first 

statements until the present. Such a historical approach to this 

material has not been made before, and it can enable us to 

understand much about the science of botany and about men, 

as well as about cacti. Of course, the material is much simplified 

and rendered as nontechnical as possible. Nevertheless an attempt 

is made to evaluate fairly, from the vantage point of the 

present, each important author's arguments and to assign his 

proposal its proper place in the history of the cactus being discussed. 

Lastly, each cactus form is illustrated by a full-color photograph 

of the plant, in most cases in bloom. A few of these 

photographs were made in the plant's natural location, but in 

most cases this proved to be impractical. Most cacti bloom only 

a few days out of the year, and it was obviously impossible to 

be in a canyon of the Texas Big Bend, on the Wichita Mountains 

of Oklahoma, on an Indian reservation in northwest New 

Mexico, and on an Ozark slope in Arkansas on precisely the 

days when each cactus chose to bloom. Much effort, therefore, 

has gone into the work of locating the various forms in the

introduction xv 

wild, then bringing them in and growing them in such congenial 

environments that they have bloomed, so that they could 

be pictured at the right moment. Unless otherwise stated, I 

made all photographs myself. 

The soils and backgrounds visible in the pictures are, therefore, 

not usually the natural environments of the plants. In fact, 

the colors of these have often been chosen to contrast with and 

make as clearly visible as possible the spines and other characters 

of the cacti. This means that no conclusion about the environments 

of these plants can be drawn from these pictures. 

While some readers may consider this a drawback, it should be 

remembered that most of these cacti use protective coloration 

and camouflage. Pictures of them in their natural habitats, while 

of value to the ecologist, usually show little detail of the plants, 

if they are visible at all. An extreme illustration of this difficulty 

would be the case of Mammillaria nellieae Croiz., where 

the whole plant is usually totally covered by the moss which 

grows with it in its rock crevice; a picture of it in loco would 

show only the flower apparently blooming on the moss and 

would be useless in illustrating what the cactus is really like. 

In the verbal description of the flower parts, I was confronted 

with the choice of employing standardized color names, such 

as those given in A Dictionary of Color by Maerz and Paul, or 

of using more general terms which would be meaningful to the 

average reader. I decided on the latter course in the belief that 

what would be gained in preciseness by the use of terms from A 

Dictionary of Color would be counterbalanced by the incon- 

venience of having to consult this reference work in a library in 

order to determine what was meant by the shade names used. 

Although as full as possible a rendering of the beauty of the 

flowers is an aim of these pictures, this is not their only goal. It 

is hoped that they may also convey a real concept of the plant 

body itself and of the spine character; sometimes the flower is 

shown at less than full angle because of this other aim. 

In organizing this presentation, one of the biggest problems 

was the delineation of the genera. The widest possible range of 

opinions is held today by the different authorities in the field 

on the limits of the genera in the Cactaceae. It seems that the 

present extent of the knowledge of the cacti does not enable 

anyone to give as definite a list of cactus genera as can be made 

for many other plant groups. There are several very different 

systems of genera, each very logical in the light of a certain set 

of assumptions. I have attempted to re-evaluate these in the 

light of the latest research available. The work of Dr. Boke at 

Oklahoma University and results of our own chromatographic 

studies seem particularly important here. The resulting alignment 

of the genera is in no case a new one, but in some cases 

favors one previous proposal and in some another. 

Within the genera no attempt has been made to organize the 

species into tribes or sections, since this sort of thing—as, for 

instance, various proposals for the genus Opuntia—seems still 

to be based on conjecture, and I find little newer and more solid 

evidence for any of the various contradictory proposals already 

made.

P L AT E S 

Measurements given in the photograph captions are the plant body 

sizes of the specific plants pictured and do not, unless otherwise stated, 

include flowers. In most cases this size is smaller than the maximum 

size achieved by the species.

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. viridiflorus. Larger plant 21/4 inches tall. 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. cylindricus. 41/4 inches tall. Echinocereus viridiflorus var. standleyi. 4 inches tall. 

1

2 

Echinocereus davisii. 1 inch tall. 

Echinocereus chloranthus var. neocapillus. 31/2 inches tall. 

Echinocereus chloranthus var. chloranthus. Young plant (left): 

mature plant, 4 inches tall (right). 

Echinocereus chloranthus var. neocapillus. Immature plant (center), 

11/4 inches tall, flanked by mature specimens.

Echinocereus russanthus. 41/2 inches tall. 

(above, right) 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. caespitosus. 

The white-spined “Lace Cactus,” 3 inches tall. 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. caespitosus. The 

brown-spined “Brown-Lace Cactus,” 5 inches tall. 

3

4 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. minor. Largest stem pictured, 2 inches tall. 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. perbellus. 2 inches tall.

Echinocereus melanocentrus. 2 inches tall. 

(above, left) 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. purpureus. 

31/3 inches tall. 

Echinocereus fitchii. 


5

Plate 6 

(above, left) Echinocereus baileyi. 

White-spined. 41/4 inches tall. 

(above, right) Echinocereus baileyi. Brown-spined, 

clustering. Largest stem pictured, 21/4 inches tall. 

(below) Echinocereus albispinus. Tallest stem 

pictured, 2 inches high. 

Plate 7 (opposite) 

(above, left) Echinocereus pectinatus var. wenigeri. 

Stem 41/2 inches tall. 

(above, right) Echinocereus pectinatus var. rigidissimus. 

6 inches tall. 

(below, left) Echinocereus chisoensis. 


(below, right) Echinocereus pectinatus var. ctenoides (right) 

and Echinocereus caespitosus var. caespitosus (left). 

Note typical ovary and fruit coverings.

8 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. ctenoides. 3 inches tall.

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. dasyacanthus. 

Yellow-flowered. 101/2-inch stem. 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. hildmanii. Stem 5 inch tall. 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. dasyacanthus. 

Pink-flowered. 12-inch stem. 

9

10 

Echinocereus roetteri. 43/4 inches tall.

Echinocereus lloydii. 


Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. triglochidiatus. 


11

12 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. octacanthus. 

Stems 41/4 inches tall. 

(below, left) 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. gonacanthus. 


(below, right) 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. coccineus. 

61/2 inches tall.

Echinocereus coccineus var. conoides. 8 inches tall. Echinocereus polyacanthus var. rosei. 8 inches tall. 

Echinocereus polyacanthus var. neo-mexicanus. 41/2 inches tall. 

13

14 

Echinocereus stramineus. Clump, 30 inches in diameter. Echinocereus enneacanthus var. enneacanthus. 

Clustered stems, 13 inches across. 

Echinocereus enneacanthus var. carnosus. Tallest stem 8 inches high.

Echinocereus fendleri var. rectispinus. 

Tallest stem pictured, 8 inches high. 

(above, left) 

Echinocereus fendleri var. fendleri. 

Stem 53/4 inches tall. 

Echinocereus dubius. Tallest stem 

9 inches high. Two specimens of 

Lophophora williamsii in right 

foregrounds. 

15

Echinocereus papillosus var. angusticeps. 

Tallest stem pictured, 3 inches high. 

16 


Echinocereus papillosus var. papillosus. 

Sprawling stems, 2 inches high. 

Echinocereus pentalophus. Stems approximately 

3/4 inch in diameter.

Wilcoxia poselgeri. Single 

upright stem, 12 inches long. 

Echinocereus papillosus var. 

papillosus on ground. 

(above, left) 

Echinocereus blanckii. 

Stem pictured, 101/2 inches long. 

Echinocereus berlandieri. Tallest 

stems pictured, 4 inches high. 

17

18 

Peniocereus greggii. Flowers 

27/8 inches in diameter. 

(below, left) 

Acanthocereus pentagonus. Flower 61/2 inches 

long, including ovary and tube. 

(below right) 

Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. curvispina. 6 

inches in diameter.

Echinocactus texensis. 

6 inches in diameter. 

(above, left) 

Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. moelleri. 


Echinocactus asterias. 


19

20 

Echinocactus uncinatus var. wrightii. 8 inches tall. 

(above, left) 

Echinocactus wislizeni. 


Echinocactus whipplei. 

3 inches in diameter.

Echinocactus mesae-verdae. 


(below, left) 

Echinocactus brevihamatus. 



Echinocactus scheeri. 


21

22 

Echinocactus tobuschii. 


(below, left) 

Echinocactus setispinus var. hamatus. 



Echinocactus setispinus var. setaceus. 

10 inches tall.

Echinocactus sinuatus. 5 inches diameter. 

Echinocactus hamatacanthus. 


(below, left) 

Echinocactus bicolor var. schottii. 4 inches in diameter. 


Echinocactus flavidispinus. 2 inches in diameter. 

23

24 

Echinocactus intertextus var. intertextus. 

When collected, 23/4 inches in diameter. 

Echinocactus intertextus var. dasyacanthus. 


Echinocactus intertextus var. intertextus. Same plant 

after 1 year of cultivation. 27/8 inches in diameter. 

Echinocactus erectocentrus var. pallidus. 

21/2 inches in diameter.

Echinocactus mariposensis. Green-flowered. 


Echinocactus conoideus. 3 inches in tall. 

Echinocactus mariposensis. Pink-flowered. 


25

26 

Plate 26 

(above, left) Ariocarpus fissuratus. 35/8 inches in diameter. 

(above, right) Lophophora williamsii var. williamsii. 

Largest stem 3 inches in diameter. 

(below) Lophophora williamsii var. echinata. 

Largest stem 21/2 inches in diameter. 


(above, left) Pediocactus simpsonii var. simpsonii. 3 inches in diameter. 

(above, right) Pediocactus knowltonii. 1 inch in diameter. 

(below, left) Pediocactus papyracanthus. 2 inches tall. 

(below, right) Epithelantha micromeris. 11/2 inches in diameter.

28 

Mammillaria scheeri. 6 inches in diameter. Mammillaria scolymoides. 31/4 inches in diameter. 

Mammillaria echinus. Stem 21/4 inches in diameter. 

Mammillaria sulcata. 


Mammillaria ramillosa. 31/4 inches in diameter. 

29

Mammillaria macromeris. Young plant, 

not yet clustered. 3 inches tall. 

(below, left) 

Mammillaria runyonii. 



Mammillaria similis. Typical small 

plant; diameter 3 inches. 

30

Mammillaria similis. Old plant 

in full bloom. Diameter 12 inches. 

Mammillaria vivipara var. vivipara. 


31

Mammillaria vivipara var. arizonica. 3 inches in diameter. Mammillaria fragrans 21/4 inches in diameter. 


(above, left) Mammillaria vivipara var. radiosa. 


(above, right) Mammillaria vivipara var. neo-mexicana. Large stem 


(below, left) Mammillaria vivipara var. borealis. 


(below, right) Mammillaria vivipara var. neo-mexicana. 

Young plants, showing juvenile spination on sides of stem and 

mature spines at the tips. Larger plant 2 inches in diameter. 

33

34 

Mammillaria tuberculosa. 

Main stem 35/8 inches tall. 

Mammillaria dasyacantha. Plant 

pictured, 3 inches in diameter. 


(above) Mammillaria dasyacantha and 

tuberculosa, growing together. 

(below left) Mammillaria duncanii. Showing root 

formation. Spiny portion of the stem 1 inch tall. 

(below right) 

Mammillaria duncanii. Same plant, with fruit, 

after 3 months’ cultivation.

36 

Mammillaria albicolumnaria. Plant pictured, 27/8 inches in diameter.

Mammillaria varicolor. Largest stem 


(below, left) 

Mammillaria hesteri. 



Mammillaria nellieae. Blooming 

plant, 1 inch in diameter. 

37

38 

Mammillaria roberti. Largest stem 13/8 inches in diameter. 

Mammillaria sneedii. Blooming stem 3/4 inch in diameter.

(above, left) 

Mammillaria leei. Plants in garden cultivation. 

Clusters 4 to 6 inches in diameter. 


Mammillaria leei. Typical root formation. 

Large clump, 41/4 inches across. 

(below, left) 

Mammillaria pottsii. Largest stem, 11/3 inches 

across. M. lasiacantha var. denudata in foreground. 


Mammillaria lasiacantha var. lasiacantha. 

Stem 1 inch in diameter. 

39

40 

Mammillaria lasiacantha var. denudata. Stem 2 inches in diameter. Mammillaria microcarpa. 2 inches tall. 

Mammillaria multiceps. Cluster of stems, 41/8 inches across.

Mammillaria wrightii. Stem 13/16 inches in diameter. 

41

42 

Mammillaria wilcoxii. 

Stem 17/8 inches in diameter. 

Mammillaria heyderi var. heyderi. 

41/3 inches across. Mammillaria heyderi var. applanata. 

4 inches across. 


(above) Mammillaria heyderi var. hemisphaerica. 

31/2 inches across. 

(below) Mammillaria meiacantha. 

4 inches across.

44 

Opuntia stricta. Plant pictured 26 inches tall. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. engelmannii. 

Pad 12 inches long. 

Mammillaria sphaerica. Main plant, with offsets, 

43/4 inches across.

Opuntia engelmannii var. texana. Largest pads pictured, 

8 inches wide. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. alta. Red-flowered. 

Blooming pads, 51/2 inches across. 

45

46 

Opuntia engelmannii var. alta. White-flowered. 

Flower 31/8 inches across. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. cacanapa. Largest 

pad shown, 7 inches across. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. flexispina. Main pad 101/2 inches 

wide. White spots are cochineal insects.

Opuntia engelmannii var. aciculata. Largest pad 


(above) Opuntia engelmannii var. dulcis. Largest pad 

8 inches in diameter. This plant grew for many years in 

an urn by the entrance to the Old Trail Driver’s Museum 

in San Antonio. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. subarmata. 

Main pad 12 inches across. 

47

48 

Opuntia engelmannii var. linguiformis. 

Blooming pad 16 inches long. White spots 

are cochineal insects. 

(below, left) 

Opuntia chlorotica. Plant about 22 inches tall. 


Opuntia tardospina. 9 inches tall.

Opuntia rufida. Largest pad 

pictured, 7 inches long. 

(above, left) 

Opuntia spinosibacca. Largest pad 

pictured, 53/4 inches long. 

Opuntia macrocentra. Largest pad 


49

50 

Opuntia gosseliniana var. santa-rita. 


(below, left) 

Opuntia strigil. Largest pad pictured, 

73/4 inches long. 


Opuntia atrispina. Largest pad pictured, 

6 inches across.

(above) Opuntia phaeacantha var. major. Largest pad 

shown, 8 inches across. 

(below) Opuntia phaeacantha var. nigricans. Old 6-inch 

pad sprawling; and new, sprouting 4-inch pads. 

(above, left) Opuntia leptocarpa. Shown in fruit. 

Plant 15 inches tall. 

(below, left) Opuntia leptocarpa in foreground and 

Opuntia engelmannii var. texana in background. 

51

52 

Opuntia phaecantha var. brunnea. Wide-open flowers, 3 inches across.

Opuntia cymochila. Largest pad pictured, 4 inches across. 

(above, left) 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. camanchica. Largest pad 

pictured, 41/3 inches long. 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. tenuispina. 

Pads 9 inches long. 

53

54 

Opuntia compressa var. humifusa. Largest pad 

pictured, 3 inches across. 

Opuntia compressa var. microsperma. Largest pad 


Opuntia compressa var. macrorhiza. 

Pad 4 inches long, blooming. 

Opuntia compressa var. fusco-atra. Two specimens from the same 

locality. Largest pad on stunted plant, 21/4 inches long; 

largest pad on vigorous plant, 5 inches long.

Opuntia compressa var. fusco-atra. An abnormal form known as O. macateei. 

Open flower 2 inches across. 

Opuntia compressa var. allairei. Largest pad pictured, 61/4 inches long. 

Opuntia compressa var. grandiflora. Largest 

pad pictured, 51/4 inches long. 

55

56 

Opuntia compressa var. stenochila. Largest pad pictured, 4 inches across. 

Opuntia ballii. Pad 


Opuntia pottsii. 61/2 inches tall, exclusive of fruits. Opuntia plumbea. Pad 21/4 inches long.

Opuntia drummondii. Largest pad pictured, 3 inches long. 

Opuntia fragilis. Clump 61/2 inches across. Opuntia sphaerocarpa. In winter condition. 

Largest pad pictured, 31/4 inches across. 

57

58 

Opuntia rhodantha var. rhodantha. Yellow flowered. 61/2 inches tall. Opuntia rhodantha var. rhodantha. Pink flowered. 8 inches tall. 

Opuntia rhodantha var. spinosior. Larger 

pad pictured, 41/2 inches long. 

Opuntia polyacantha. Typical, heavily spined. 

Largest pad pictured, 4 inches long.

Opuntia polyacantha. With spines few and short. 

Largest pad pictured, 55/8 inches long. 

Opuntia hystricina. Upright pad, 4 inches long. 

Opuntia arenaria. Largest pad pictured 23/4 inches long. Opuntia grahamii. Pictured clump, 7 inches across. 

59

60 

Opuntia Stanlyi. Largest joint 


(below, left) 

Opuntia schottii. Pictured joints, 

each 2 inches long. 


Opuntia clavata. Largest joints pictured. 


Opuntia imbricata var. arborescens. Branch white ripe 

fruits. Main pictured. 11/4 inches in diameter. 

Opuntia imbricata var. viridiflora. Pictured plant 15 inches tall. 

(above, left) 

Opuntia imbricata var. arborescens. Section of the 

main stem pictured, 11/4 inches in diameter. 

(below, left) 

Opuntia imbricata var. vexans. Branch with ripe fruits. 

Largest fruit pictured, 15/8, inches in diameter. 

61

62 

Opuntia spinosior. Largest stem pictured, 1 inch in diameter. Opuntia whipplei. In winter condition, 10 inches tall.

Opuntia davisii. Largest branch 

pictured, 5/8 inch in diameter. 

Opuntia tunicata. Plant pictured, 

13 inches across. 

63

64 

Opuntia leptocaulis. Main stem pictured, 1/4 inch in diameter. Opuntia kleinei. Plant pictured, 4 feet tall.

CACTI OF THE SOUTWEST

What Is a Cactus? 

Before going directly into the description of the various 

cacti we might pause to consider, for those who have not concerned 

themselves about these things before, how a cactus differs 

from other plants, what is so special about it, and what are 

some of the problems the uniqueness of its form and physiology 

bring to it in its natural situation and to us if we desire to raise it. 

It is harder to say exactly what a cactus is and how it differs 

from other plants than one might think. It is obvious that a 

cactus is a unique plant, with special problems. Imagining how 

it got that way, learning how to recognize it when we see it, and 

understanding its adaptations to its special problems—each of 

these presents us with special difficulties. 

The origin of the cactus family remains almost completely a 

mystery. We are balked here by the fact that there are no fossils 

of any cacti. So anxious have we been for such evidence that 

there have been several remains grasped hopefully as being cactus 

fossils, but all these, such as the famous one optimistically 

christened Eopuntia douglassii Chaney, have since proved not 

to be connected with the cacti at all. The most primitive and 

least cactus-like forms that we know are the members of the 

genus Pereskia, still alive, flourishing, and all-cactus, giving us 

no clear clues as to how they got that way. This leaves us with 

only theories based on comparative anatomy studies to satisfy us. 

Mostly because of certain flower characteristics, it is quite 

often assumed that cacti are related to the Rose Family. From 

here one can go as far as his imagination chooses to range, presuming 

with some that the roses of the West Indies changed in 

order to adapt to more arid conditions and so gave rise to the 

Pereskias and through them to all cacti. This is an enchanting 

story, and I am sure that the cactophiles are pleased with the 

idea that their favorites might be descendants of the rose, but I 

am not so certain that the rose enthusiasts are as sympathetic to 

the idea of appending the cacti to their queen of the flowers. 

Most agree that the cacti are a young group, maybe 20,000 

years old, and an equally big problem is how they could have 

developed their extreme and fantastic adaptations in such a 

comparatively short time. 

Be that as it may, the cacti are here, and one needs to know 

how to recognize them. This task is complicated by the fact that 

most of the obvious characters by which one thinks to recognize 

them are shared by some plant or other somewhere in the 

world. This is true of such things as large, fleshy stems, vicious 

spines, and reduction of leaves, which to an amateur mean cactus 

every time. There are other plants showing all of these characteristics, 

some of them to almost the extent the cacti do. 

It is a failure to recognize this fact that accounts for the popular 

articles, nursery ads, and many “cactus plantings,” containing 

mention or actual specimens of completely unrelated plants 

under the banner of cactus. Although they show some at least 

of the above characteristics, it must be stated that such things 

as yuccas, agaves, century plants, sotol, and so on, are not cacti 

at all, but extremely modified members of the Lily Family. 

Ocotillo and allthorn are individual residents of the desert community 

showing some of the same adaptations, but belonging to 

other plant families. Then there is the whole multitude of African 

plants paralleling the cacti in almost every feature of stem, 

rib, spine, and leaf, but all belonging to the huge, world-wide 

genus Euphorbia which also includes such plants as the Poinsettia. 

We sometimes speak of all these other plants as succulents, 

setting up the categories of cacti and succulents—although 

the cacti are also succulent, since the word merely means 

“fleshy.” 

How then do you tell a cactus? There is no easy way to do it 

without close observation of details and something of a bota-

4 cacti of the southwest 

nist’s eye. However, a cactus is always a dicot, and its two seed 

leaves will distinguish it at once from all those members of the 

Lily Family so often called cacti, since they are monocots and 

have only one seed leaf. 

Then, a feature which all cacti have and share with no other 

plant is the structure called the areole. All cacti have areoles 

quite liberally scattered over the surface, and usually arranged 

in rows or spirals in the most conspicuous places. These are 

round to elongated spots from 1/16 to sometimes well over 1/2 

inch in greatest measurement; their surfaces are hard, rough, 

uneven, and brown or blackish or else covered with white to 

brown or blackish wool. These areoles are now considered to be 

the equivalent of complex buds, and it is from these that whatever 

spines the cactus possesses grow. These spines, since they 

come from these areoles, are always arranged in clusters, which 

is another feature not found on other spiny plants, whose spines 

are produced singly from some source other than an areole. 

Beyond this, for the actual features separating cacti from all 

other plants, one has to look to the flower. Certain rather technical 

features of the flower are cited, such as its having sepals 

and petals numerous and intergrading, its having an inferior 

ovary with one seed chamber and having one single style with 

several stigma lobes. 

The key to understanding why the cactus is such a strange 

plant is the understanding of its major problem and how it 

solves it. This is its water problem. 

Most plants are great spendthrifts when it comes to water. 

They stand with their roots in unfailing water supplies from 

streams or from moisture stored in the soil between rains; and 

they constantly absorb quantities of water, which they use and 

then pass on out through their leaves into the atmosphere. This 

passage of water through the typical plant is so great that we 

call it the transpiration stream and can best think of such plants 

as constantly flowing fountains of water. If there is too little 

water available near them such plants normally solve the problem 

by developing extra long roots which go where the water 

is, and if this fails they dry out and die. 

But the cactus is typically a resident of the desert or else of 

habitats where, for one reason or another, the water supply is 

practically nonexistent at least part of the time. It may be 

because of inadequate rainfall or because the soil is too coarse 

or too thin to hold much water. So the cactus has a water 

problem which it solves in its own way. 

The cactus disdains to put out the extreme root systems, often 

drilling fifty feet deep, used by other desert plants to find the 

precious water which enables them to stay alive. Instead it sits 

and waits for the infrequent showers which ultimately do come, 

even in the desert, or for the rainy season. And when moisture 

does come the plant is ready. Its finely branching roots absorb 

water rapidly when it is available, and in a short time it has 

taken in a large amount. But there will be another drought to 

come, when it may be able to take in little if any water for 

weeks or months, so it stores this bonanza of water to the limit 

of its capacity, and its adaptations for great water-storing capacity 

form the basis for the most obvious peculiarity of the 

cactus. 

The commonest and most simple means of storing water found 

in these plants is by the enlarging of the stem into a thick, fleshy 

column or even a round ball. A cactus adapted this way becomes 

literally a water-filled column or ball, actually, in large 

specimens, a barrel of water-from which comes the common 

term, “barrel cactus.” The interior of such a cactus is not a reservoir 

of pure water into which you could dip a ladle, as cartoons 

sometimes show the thirsty prospector doing, but a mass 

of soft tissue permeated with water. Except for the supporting 

framework necessary in larger species, that interior is of about 

the consistency of a melon’s watery pulp. When rain comes it 

fills to the maximum with water, and in times of drought this 

reserve is gradually reduced. Thus, the cactus stem swells and 

shrinks according to the water supply, and there is always an 

arrangement of ribs or tubercles which make this change in bulk 

possible without the whole stem alternately caving in or split- 

ting open. 

In a number of the cacti where adaptations for clambering up 

trees, camouflage in thickets, or something else limits the thickness 

or size of the stems, the root may become the water-storage 

organ instead. In these cacti the root may become a carrot-like 

taproot weighing up to fifty pounds (in the extreme case of an 

old Peniocereus greggii specimen) or a cluster of tubers (as 

found on Wilcoxia poselgeri and some of the Opuntias). 

The cactus, then, is a plant which solves the problem of insufficient 

water in its habitat by storing large amounts of water 

within its tissues, and this explains its succulent consistency and 

bloated stem. Due to this habit it is internally among the softest, 

most delicate of plants. 

But standing there as almost literally a column or barrel of 

water in the middle of the thirsty desert brings problems requiring 

still further adaptations, giving us the other remarkable 

characteristics of a cactus. Since the cactus may have to survive 

for weeks or months on the moisture it has within it, it cannot 

afford to be a spendthrift with water like other plants. It has 

to give up a little at all times to stay alive, but it must sacrifice 

the smallest possible amount and protect its precious store 

against the dryness of the desert air which would otherwise 

evaporate it all in a matter of hours. 

For this reason the leaves of a cactus are reduced or eliminated 

altogether. After all, leaves are for the purpose of increasing 

the evaporative and light-absorbing surface of the plant, and 

the cactus needs to reduce the evaporative surface to a minimum, 

while certainly, in the glaring desert, it need not spread 

out its surface after light. Therefore, the more strictly a desert 

dweller it is, the more completely the leaves tend to be reduced 

or absent and the green stems to take over their functions. Then, 

its compact form is covered with a thick, waxy epidermis which 

is impervious to water, and even its stomata are equipped with 

means to reduce moisture loss. There is great variation in the

what is a cactus? 5 

tenacity with which individual cacti hold water, with the most 

extreme desert forms said to release up to six thousand times 

less water in a given moment than an ordinary plant of the 

same weight. 

The thick, dry, protective covering of the cactus is so deceptive 

to us that we seldom think of the soft, delicate, watery interior 

which it protects, but we may be sure the thirsty denizens 

of the desert, where water is life itself, are ever conscious of it. 

They would eat the plant immediately just for the water, if they 

could get at it. So the cactus has had to add protection against 

all the living water-seekers which surround it, and this gives yet 

another of its peculiarities. 

The almost universal solution of the cactus to this problem is 

to cover itself with an armament of spines. The succulent flesh 

is entirely covered with a system of spines so sharp and dangerous 

and so perfectly spreading and interlacing that neither the 

browsers nor the rodents can get their teeth between them to 

bite into the plant. The spines are never poisonous, and one can’t 

ascribe maliciousness to a plant for having them. They are there 

as necessary protection for the otherwise most delicate, most 

defenseless member of the desert community. It should help one 

to understand the spiny thing to realize that in the desert, when 

an injury or a malformation leaves a space wide enough for the 

jaws of a rabbit or even a mouse to get between the spines and 

start working, the cactus is soon eaten entirely. If one goes out 

on the desert and cuts all of the spines off a cactus, it usually 

disappears overnight. Ranchers have long ago learned to profit 

by this fact, and in some areas, by merely burning the spines off 

the huge prickly pears, provide their cattle with tons of free, 

succulent forage. The water problem, then, is directly responsible 

for the soft make-up of a cactus and indirectly responsible 

for its hard, waxy exterior and its often unpleasant but also 

fascinating array of spines. 

The cactus faces another closely related problem. Its habitats 

are usually extreme in their heat and the intensity of their light. 

The temperature on a south-facing, rocky desert slope reaches 

almost unbelievable heights on a summer afternoon. Even the 

desert reptiles are said to avoid the sun in which the extreme 

desert forms of cactus have to stand all day. How can they sur- 

vive this baking heat and searing light? 

Of course many cacti could not, and these grow only in the 

shade of thickets or trees, but the ones which stand and take it 

are said to depend on their own spines for shade. The spines 

achieve their shading effect, somewhat after the manner of a 

lath-house cover, by breaking the radiation up into moving 

strips of endurable duration. These forms also protect the exposed 

surface, especially the tender growing area at the top, 

with a covering of wool or hair, usually white and reflective. 

One can fairly well judge how extreme a desert situation a 

species comes from and how much sun it can stand by looking 

at how extensively this wool is developed or how complete the 

spine shading is. 

With no tender leaves, the compact body of the cactus, with- 

in its spiny envelope, is thus remarkably well protected against 

any of the natural forces or living enemies of its habitat, and it 

can survive in places where only the hardiest persist. Yet it has 

one more major problem to surmount. It must reproduce itself. 

And to do this it must usually produce a flower. Some of the 

cacti avoid this at all but the most favorable times, and depend 

instead upon very well-developed vegetative reproduction, but 

sooner or later all have to bloom. 

Now, a flower is an amazingly complex structure of extremely 

delicate parts. Flowering is a time when the plant must 

open and expose for the generating touch the most precious 

centers of its being. It is a time of vulnerability, and not even the 

cactus has succeeded in armoring the flower. It may swathe the 

bud in spines and wool, but when the moment comes it must 

expose the flower to the cruel desert situation as unprotected as 

any rose or lily. This presents another immense problem for the 

cactus and its way of solving it gives us both the wonderful 

beauty for which the flower is famous, and the extreme fleet- 

ingness of the flower which exasperates us. 

The cactus flower is almost always renowned for its size and 

beauty, which are said to be for the purpose of attracting insects 

or other flying forms across the arid distances to pollinate 

it. At any rate it does not seem to be beautiful for our benefit, 

because the flower usually lasts so short a period and blooms at 

such an unfavorable time that we hardly ever catch a glimpse 

of it and it usually is “born to blush unseen and waste its sweet- 

ness on the desert air.” 

Most cacti have flowers which open in the worst heat of the 

day, usually for only a few hours, and then are closed and fading 

before the cool of the evening begins. It is as though the 

plant waits until the heat of the day drives most of its enemies 

under the protection of some shade to unfold these tender morsels 

which it cannot otherwise protect. Thus, in most forms, the 

flower has its brief life, the reproductive act is completed by 

the insects which scorn the heat, and the life spark is already 

down within the spiny ovary before the desert cools, so that its 

thirsty tribes find only wilted petals for their evening meals. 

Many tropical and a few of our U. S. cacti reverse this schedule 

entirely and open their gigantic, wonderfully fragrant flowers 

at night to be pollinated by night-flying insects or in a few 

cases by bats. In most cases these species produce their flowers 

on tall, spiny stems where no ordinary enemy could reach them 

anyway, but they fade as quickly as the others, and are usually 

only sadly wilted remains by dawn. Only the saguaro, whose 

flowers are inaccessible to almost any enemy, and some other 

forms protected by especially long, vicious spines seem able to 

enjoy the luxury of longer lasting flowers. 

The cactus fruit, which follows the flower, is usually protected 

at first by spines or wool, and grows to become a berry with 

numerous small seeds. In some cases this dries up and the seeds 

are allowed to scatter, but in many species the ripe berry becomes 

fleshy and at the same time loses its spines or rises out of 

its wool covering. Here is probably the only part of a cactus


purposely left unprotected. It is never poisonous, and it ranges 

from sour to very sweet in different species. It is snapped up 

and carried off by animals and birds who finally get a meal 

from the cactus, but who pay for it by scattering the seeds far 

and wide. Some of the sweetest of these fruits are relished by 

humans. Those of the Opuntias are called “tunas”; and the 

“strawberry cactus” (of which there are several species) bears 

this common name because the flavor of the red fruits suggests 

that of strawberries. 

In all of its stages, then, the cactus is admirably adapted for 

survival in an arid environment, with all of these special features 

accentuated to the extreme in the forms inhabiting the 

more severe desert regions and less markedly developed in those 

of less extreme situations. But these same wonderful features 

which make the cactus so successful in the desert bring their 

own problems with them, limiting it in important ways even 

in its natural environment and making the tough desert thing 

one of the most vulnerable of plants when brought out of the 

desert into cultivation. 

Its very life, we have seen, depends upon the large amount 

of water stored within it as watery pulp. But this brings also 

the greatest danger to the cactus. Everyone knows how easily 

bruised and how quickly rotting is the watery flesh of melons 

and other soft fruits. A sharp blow or a gash through the protective 

covering of such structures causes a breakdown of the 

soft tissues which often spreads like wildfire throughout, leaving 

the whole thing a putrid, rotten mass. This is because such 

soft, nutrient-filled tissues form the perfect media for the 

growth of bacteria and all sorts of fungi. 

The interior of even the toughest cactus is just as vulnerable 

to fungi. It survives because this tender core is surrounded by 

the tough, fungus-resistant epidermis. The cactus is only safe 

when this forms an unbroken barrier covering not only the 

stem but the roots of the plant. But the slightest injury, any 

break in this epidermis, may let in a fungus, and if one gets in 

before the plant can repair the break with scar tissue and starts 

growing in the interior, the outwardly invincible old cactus 

will be attacked from within. It will then be quickly permeated 

by the fungus and will collapse into a foul, oozing thing—often 

literally overnight. For this reason any injury is a greater danger 

to a cactus than to most plants, especially if it has been 

removed from the desert, where fungi are not as numerous, to 

a more damp climate where they abound. 

But the fungi often gain entrance to our cacti in a more subtle 

way. The epidermis on the roots of these plants is necessarily 

thinner than that on the stems, and it is in constant contact 

with the fungus-populated soil. If there is very little rainfall 

or the soil is open and fast-draining, all will probably be well, 

but if there are periods of continuous rainfall, or if the soil is 

close-packed and remains for any time water-saturated, then 

the normally hard, dry, and impervious epidermis of the roots 

becomes wet through and softened, and loses its impermeability 

to the fungi. The defense barrier is dissolved, and almost any 

cactus whose roots lie in waterlogged soil for over twenty-four 

hours or so will be invaded and reduced in about that much 

longer to stinking carrion. This is the fate of most cacti taken 

in from the desert and planted in heavy yard soil in a more 

rainy region or else in a pot which is watered every day along 

with the geraniums. In general, cacti must have abundant water 

now and then to replenish their stored supply, but they must 

not stand in stagnant water at any time. 

We have also seen how the cactus survives not only by storing 

water but by being miserly with it and giving off a transpiration 

stream of up to several thousand times less volume than 

other plants. When other plants are wide-open, gushing fountains, 

the cactus is a dribbling faucet with extra safeguards on 

all the water exits of its body. This means survival in the desert, 

but brings problems even there and may mean death in the 

moisture-laden atmosphere of your garden. 

Plant physiologists tell us that the transpiration stream must 

flow unceasingly in any active plant. If the flow ceases the 

plant must go dormant—as some plants do in winter or severe 

drought—or die. They also tell us that the rate of transpiration 

is directly proportional to the rate of the plant’s life processes, 

including its growth. 

Relating this to cacti, we find that, having to restrict their 

transpiration to a minimum to conserve their stored water, the 

cacti are limited thereby to very slow life processes and growth 

as compared with other plants. When looking at a large old 

cactus one should appreciate the time it took, at this reduced 

rate, to achieve its bulk. While there is much variation, with 

the more extreme desert forms, naturally the most slow-growing, 

the variations exist even in these according to their immediate 

situation. It is often said that a saguaro cactus one foot 

tall will be about twenty-five years old, and a barrel cactus one 

foot in diameter between twenty and forty years old. I have in 

my own garden a fine specimen of Echinocactus ingens, a perfect 

ball just over twelve inches in diameter, which was planted 

at the old Shiner Cactus Garden in Laredo, Texas, as a seed, 

forty-five years ago. It has grown its whole life in a good 

situation in a plant bed, and while the species might grow 

somewhat faster in its native haunts in Mexico, its growth has 

been very nearly typical. Nor is a smaller cactus necessarily 

younger. I have heard it said that a peyote button two inches 

in diameter is ten years old. The rates of growth vary from 

species to species, but almost no cactus is over a fraction of an 

inch tall at the end of its first year, and they all must have 

long periods of time to achieve their potential size. 

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere around a plant 

also affects the amount of water it will transpire. The dry air of 

arid regions literally drags the water out of the plants, and 

desert species, including cacti, have to guard their water ardently 

against this evaporative pull. On the other hand, the waterloaded 

air of humid regions is reluctant to take up more water, 

and the plants living in the regions must lay themselves wide 

open in order to promote the life-giving flow and often live

what is a cactus? 7 

less than the maximum span because of their inability to tran- 

spire enough water. 

Imagine the problem, then, of that cactus you brought home 

from the desert and planted in your nice moist yard. Adapted 

to hoarding its water, with its stomata small and guarded by 

various means against the pull of the dry desert air, what can 

it do in the humid air where it is now? It cannot open and lay 

its moisture out for the humid air. This is not its way. And 

since this air does not pull water out of its deep recesses, the 

flow will be less than it would be in the desert, so your cactus, 

which you thought would respond with prodigious growth to 

your kindness in bringing it into the moisture, may actually 

suffer and grow poorly because it cannot transpire and carry 

on its life processes here. 

We have also mentioned the adaptations of the cactus which 

enable it to live in the extreme heat and light of the desert. 

These may also bring severe problems to a cactus. 

The flesh of most cacti is more or less shaded and protected 

by the spines and a covering of wool or hair. In the forms 

which grow in extremely exposed places this covering may be 

developed to protect against temperatures of well over 100 

degrees Fahrenheit and some of the most intense light radiation 

found on earth. The outer tissues themselves, and even the life 

processes of some of these species are adapted to such extremes. 

It seems, for instance, that some of these cacti cannot even begin 

photosynthesis until the temperature reaches 75 degrees or 

higher. Everything in them is adjusted for high heat and light 

intensities. 

All this is fine and necessary in the desert, but what about 

the problems of such a cactus when you bring it home? You 

want to keep it in your nice cool dark house or your nice shaded 

garden, and you can’t understand why it does not grow, or why, 

if it does, it becomes all grotesque and spindly. Don’t you see that 

in such a situation it cannot get light and heat enough through 

all of its defenses to activate its high-set thermostat and stimulate 

its growth processes properly? Air-conditioning has marked 

the end of many a cactus dish-garden because the plants can 

hardly carry on photosynthesis, in the coolness we maintain, 

even in a window, and when this is coupled with what is for 

them little better than darkness, they may not be able to manufacture 

enough food even to stay alive. 

We have seen some of the remarkable adaptations which 

make cacti so fascinating and have tried to understand the 

problems these changes are meant to meet, as well as the special 

problems they can generate for cactus-growers. Successful cactus 

culture consists of recognizing these problems and helping 

the cactus meet them naturally. One does not have success with 

cacti by removing them from all their natural problems. More 

cacti in cultivation have been killed by too much kindness than 

by anything else. These are tough plants by nature, and all they 

ask is that the conditions around them remain within the ranges, 

rather severe by our standards, for which they are adapted. 

It is well to recall that there are cacti adapted for almost 

every sort of environment, from shady rain forest to extreme 

desert exposure. All of the problems of growing cacti mentioned 

above are less critical for those plants adapted to less severe 

conditions, and these can be grown much more easily than the 

more restricted ones; some of them can be treated quite a lot 

like other plants. But these are generally the less spiny, less succulent 

forms which are, therefore, the ones less fascinating to 

most of us. It is perhaps unfortunate, but unavoidable, that to 

grow pitahayas and barrels and other remarkable types one 

has to simulate to a fair degree the extreme environments of 

their hot, arid homes.

Key to the Genera of the Cacti 

The keys which are given here and before the discussion of 

each major genus are based as far as possible on the vegetative 

characters of adult individuals, but it appears to be impossible 

to construct workable keys for the cacti based on these alone. 

It was found necessary to refer in some cases to the flowers or 

fruits and sometimes even to the seeds. This means that the keys 

will be less than satisfactory in certain seasons and will not 

identify most juvenile forms at all. Those using the keys will 

need to have before them very nearly complete adult specimens 

of the living plants. 

The keys are artificial and are my own. They are binomial 

keys, presenting a series of choices between two alternatives. In 

use, one reads the first choice (1 a) and compares the specimen 

in question with the description. If the description at 1 a fits 

the specimen, he then proceeds to the number given at the end 

of the description and repeats the process there. If the description 

at 1 a does not fit the specimen, then the user abandons 1 a 

and moves on to 1 b, which is the alternate choice. If the specimen 

matches 1 b, then he moves to the number given at the 

end of 1 b, and so on. When this process is followed carefully 

with a mature plant from our area, it should lead to a description 

after which a plant name and page number is given. This 

is the name of the specimen in hand and the discussion of it will 

start on that page. If at any point the specimen does not fit 

either the a or b choice one has arrived at, there are two possible 

explanations. Either the user has already made a wrong 

choice somewhere earlier in the process, or else the cactus he has 

is not included in this key. Careful reconsideration of all choices 

should show which is the case. If the user cannot choose between 

alternatives by studying his specimen, he may have to secure a 

more mature or more complete example in order to key the 

form. 

1a. Stems of mature plants ribbed-that is, the surfaces of the stems 

covered with vertical or sometimes spiraling ridges which may 

be completely uninterrupted, undulate, or sometimes almost completely 

interrupted by grooves between the areoles, but which are 

never, on mature stems, rows of completely separate tubercles—2. 

2a. Plants possessing spines—3. 

3a. Stems of plants upright, prostrate, or clambering, with mature 

stems more than twice as long as they are thick; the 

flowers produced on the sides of the stems, with the ovary 

surfaces spiny; the fruit remaining fleshy and indehiscent or 

sometimes splitting open laterally—4. 

4a. Stems not more than about 6 times as long as they are 

thick, not over 24 inches long, upright or prostrate, but 

not clambering, often caespitose; the flowers produced 

from a rupture of the stem epidermis just above an areole 

—Genus Echinocereus (see key on page 11). 

4b. Stems when mature at least 8 to sometimes 100 times as 

long as they are thick, on old specimens becoming more 

than 24 inches long, upright or clambering, never caespi- 

tose; the flowers produced from within a spine areole—5. 

5a. Stems 1/4 to 1 inch in diameter; spines 1/32 to 1/4 of an 

inch long; roots tuberous—6. 

6a. Stems 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch thick; ribs 8; spines to 1/4 

or 3/8 of an inch long; roots clustering tubers; flowers 

purplish with short tubes and opening during the day 

—Genus Wilcoxia (see page 55). 

6b. Stems 1/2 to 1 inch thick; ribs 3 to 6; spines 1/32 to 1/8 

of an inch long; root a single extremely large taproot; 

flowers mostly white with long tubes and opening at 

night —Genus Peniocereus (see page 57). 

5b. Stems 2 to 4 inches in diameter; spines 3/8 to 2 inches 

long; roots fibrous—Genus Acanthocereus (see page 60). 

3b. Stems of plants upright, never more than twice as tall as 

they are thick; the flowers produced at the apex of the stem,

key to the genera of the cacti 9 

with the ovary surface scaly or sometimes with hair, but 

never spiny; the fruit opening basally or laterally 

—Genus Echinocactus (see key on page 65). 

2b. Plants spineless—7. 

7a. Flowers large and yellow with red centers; ovary 

scaly —Genus Echinocactus (see key on page 65). 

7b. Flowers small and pinkish; fruit never having spines 

or scales —Genus Lophophora (see page 95). 

lb. Stems of plants smooth or else tubercled—that is, covered with 

nipple-like projections which may be arranged in spiral rows and 

which may overlap due to their length, but which are never con- 

fluent to form raised ribs—8. 

8a. Plants a fraction of an inch to about 6 inches 

tall; stems depressed, hemispherical, or columnar, 

but never jointed; the spines straight or hooked 

but never barbed glochids; the ovaries and fruits 

naked or with only a few scales on them—9. 

9a. Plants spineless —Genus Ariocarpus 

(see page 100). 

9b. Plants spiny—10. 

10a. Fruit becoming dry and splitting open 

—Genus Pediocactus (see page 103). 

10b. Fruit remaining fleshy and not splitting 

open—11. 

11a. Flowers produced in the axils of the 

tubercles —Genus Mammillaria 

(see key on page 112). 

11b. Flowers produced from the tips of the 

tubercles —Genus Epithelantha 

(see page 107). 

8b. Plants several inches to sometimes 6 or more feet 

tall; stems jointed; at least some of the spines 

barbed glochids; the ovary naked or spiny 

—Genus Opuntia (see key on page 162).

Genus Echinocereus Engelmann 

The Echinocerei make up one of the largest genera of cacti, 

both in number of different species and in number of individuals 

found growing in the area of this study. Many of its members 

are collected and grown by cactus fanciers all over the 

world as great favorites because of the beauty of their flowers 

as well as of the plants themselves. 

The name of the genus is composed of two words: echinos, 

meaning spiny, which refers to the very spiny covering of the 

typical members of this genus, and cereus, which means “wax 

candle,” a reference to the stately appearance of the stems of 

the upright species. 

The Echinocerei are oval, conical, or cylindrical cacti, always 

with ribbed stems. The vertical ribs of some species are more or 

less divided into swellings which may be called warts or tubercles, 

but these are never completely separated from one another 

as in some other genera, so the ribs are always an outstanding 

character of them all. 

These cacti are usually very spiny, as their name implies, and 

these spines may be straight or curved, but are never hooked, as 

is common in some other groups. 

The stems of Echinocerei are always low as compared with 

many of their relatives. Most of them are well under twelve 

inches long when mature, and the few in the Southwest which 

sometimes surpass that do not usually exceed twenty-four inches 

long. These stems are erect in most species, but in a few they lie 

partly or entirely prostrate upon the ground. 

The plant body of some species remains a single, unbranched 

stem throughout life. Others cluster or branch sparingly only 

when very old; but many regularly form clusters of stems almost 

from the start. In some these clusters are made up of only 

a few stems, but in a few of them one plant may with age become 

a huge, caespitose clump of as many as a hundred or more 

stems, These stems are never divided into joints however. 

The flowers of this genus are borne on the ribs at the spinebearing 

areoles, developing just above the uppermost spines of 

the areoles, where they literally burst through the epidermis of 

the stem. They may be produced from almost any point on the 

stem, different species bearing them high or low, but most commonly 

they appear on the sides of the stems a little below the 

tips. 

The flowers are usually very large and beautiful, so beautiful 

that many fanciers pick one or another species in this genus as 

the most beautiful of our native cacti. However, a few of the 

Echinocerei have small and inconspicuous greenish flowers. 

The petals of some species remain only partly open, making the 

flowers funnel-shaped, while those of others open very widely. 

A perianth tube is always present. The outer surface of the ovary 

is always spiny and sometimes woolly as well. The stigma lobes 

are always green on all of our species. 

The fruits produced by these cacti are always fleshy, thinskinned, 

and often edible. Those of some species are considered 

delicacies. Something of their character may be imagined from 

the fact that a number of them are known by the common name 

of “strawberry cacti.” These fruits are also spiny, but the spines 

become loosened as the fruits mature, and may be easily brushed 

off. 

The members of the genus Echinocereus inhabit a wide belt of 

the North American continent from Utah and Wyoming south 

throughout most of northern Mexico to a little beyond the latitude 

of Mexico City, and from central Oklahoma and Texas on 

the east to the Pacific on the west. ‘Within this huge area more 

than eighty species have been described by various authorities, 

but many of these so intergrade that later students have combined 

various ones. The result is that almost every book or article on 

this genus has at least a slightly different method of listing them, 

depending upon the taxonomic philosophy of the writer as well

genus Echinocereus engelmann 11 

as upon his knowledge of these cacti. This has caused much confusion, 

and makes it necessary for us to deal with many authors 

and names in order to know exactly what plant we have before 

us. 

I will attempt to make or follow no formal classification of 

the species within the genus because it is too large a group and 

we have in the area of this study only a minority of the forms 

which would have to be considered in such a classification. Instead, 

I will group the species in a purely artificial series according 

to their most obvious characteristics, while concentrating 

upon describing the various forms properly and calling 

them, in the light of the most recent knowledge, by their proper 

names. 

The Echinocerei grow mostly in exposed places on dry slopes 

and hills in the full strength of the southwestern sun. Only a few 

of them prefer the shade of bushes and trees. With this sunloving 

characteristic and their inability to tolerate excess moisture 

remembered, most of them are rather easily cultivated and 

are, therefore, popular among collectors. They have a wide range 

of tolerance of cold, those of the north being very resistant, 

while many of those of Mexico perish by freezing when brought 

farther north. 

KEY TO THE ECHINOCEREI 

1a. Stems upright or sprawling, comparatively thick, being two 

inches or more thick when mature—2. 

2a. Having all three of the following characters: areoles always 

1/2 inch or less apart; ribs always more than 10; radial spines 

always more than 12—3. 

3a. Flowers small, 1 to 11/2 inches long and less than that in 

width, yellow, yellow-brown, or pinkish-red in color—4. 

4a. Areoles elongated; central spines 0 to 3 in number, arranged 

in a vertical row, and 1 inch or less in length on mature 

plants—5. 

5a. Plant globose to short-cylindric; radials 1/4 of an inch or 

less long—6. 

6a. Ribs 12 to 18; radials 16 to more than 20; plant 2 

inches or more tall when mature—7. 

7a. Spines varicolored red, brownish, or purplish-red 

and white —E. viridiflorus var. viridiflorus. 

7b. Spines yellowish —E. viridiflorus var. standleyi. 

6b. Ribs 6 to 9; radials 8 to 12; plant about 1 inch tall 

when mature —E. davisii. 

5b. Plant cylindrical; radials to 1/2 inch long 

—E. viridiflorus var. cylindricus. 

4b. Areoles broad oval to round; centrals 3 to 12 in number 

and not standing in a straight vertical row, but instead 

spreading outward from the center of the areole—8. 

8a. Radials 12 to 23; ribs hardly tuberculate; centrals 

3 to 5 in number on mature plants 

—E. chloranthus var. chloranthus. 

8b. Radials 30 or more; ribs markedly tuberculate; 

centrals 5 to 12 on mature plants—9. 

9a. Centrals to only 1/2 inch long; immature plants 

having flexible hairs instead of spines; flowers 

greenish-yellow to bronze and with a glossy 

surface —E. chloranthus var. neocapillus. 

9b. Centrals 3/4 to 11/4 inches long; immature 

plants having rigid spines from the first; flowers 

pale pinkish or brownish-red and with a 

dull surface —E. russanthus. 

3b. Flowers large and showy, 2 to 5 inches or more in length 

and width, yellow to purple in color—10. 

10a. Flower tube with long, cobwebby wool and hairlike, 

bristly spines; spines not recurved against the plant 

body—11. 

11a. Longest radial spines 3/8 of an inch or less—12. 

12a. Central spines 0 to 2, porrect and if more than 

one, then arranged in a strict vertical row—13. 

13a. Centrals usually missing and 1/8 inch or less long 

when present—14. 

14a. Size of mature plant stems 3 to 12 inches tall 

by 2 to 31/2 inches thick; flower 3 to 5 inches 

long and nearly as wide, petals 30 to 50, 

stigma lobes 8 to 22—15. 

l5a. Radial spines 15 to 36—16. 

16a. Spines white to gray or reddish, often 

with dark tips, but not with the outer 

parts of the spines conspicuously shiny 

purplish or black so as to give the plant 

a shiny blackish aspect —E. caespitosus 

var. caespitosus. 

16b. Outer parts of the spines bright, shiny, 

purplish or black, giving the plant a con- 

spicuous blackish appearance 

—E. caespitosus var. purpureus. 

15b. Radial spines 12 to 15 —E. caespitosus 

var. perbellus. 

14b. Size of mature plant stem to only 3 inches 

tall and 1 inch thick; flowers small, to only 

2 inches long and 13/4 inches wide, petals to 

only 20 in number and stigma lobes to only 8 

—E. caespitosus var. minor. 

13b. One black central 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch long always 

present —E. melanocentrus. 

12b. Centrals 3 to 7 and not in a strict vertical row, 

but spreading —E. fitchii. 

11b. Longest radial spines 3/8 to 1 inch—17. 

17a. Stems usually caespitose; areoles more than 1/8 of 

an inch long, having no central spines over 3/8 of 

an inch long—18. 

18a. Radials 5/8 to 1 inch long; flower rose-red 

—E. baileyi. 

18b. Radials 3/16 to 1/2 inch long; flower pale pinkish 

—E. albispinus. 

17b. Stems usually simple; areoles 1/8 of an inch or less 

long, having at least the main central spines 3/8 of 

an inch or more long on mature areoles 

—E. chisoensis.


10b. Flower tube with short wool and rigid spines—19. 

19a. Spines of the plant body strictly pectinate and recurved 

against the plant body; areoles oval to elon- 

gated—20. 

20a. Centrals 2 to 3 in a vertical row; radials slender 

to medium stout, white to purplish or pinkish and 

the plant often banded with color, but spines of 

individual areole not variegated—21. 

21a. Flower purple with white zone and green center 

—E. pectinatus var. wenigeri. 

21b. Flower orange-yellow with green center 

—E. pectinatus var. ctenoides. 

20b. Centrals none; radials stout; spines of individual 

areoles variegated grays or tans and red 

—E. pectinatus var. rigidissimus. 

19b. Spines of plant body spreading outward instead of 

being pectinate; areoles oval to round—22. 

22a. Radial spines 15 to 25; areoles 1/8 to 3/8 of an inch 

apart; flower 3 to 51/2 inches long—23. 

23a. Radials 16 to 25 and to 1/2 inch long; plant 

simple or sparingly branched —E. dasyacanthus 

var. dasyacanthus. 

23b. Radials 15 or 16 and to only 3/8 of an inch long; 

plant caespitose —E. dasyacanthus 

var. hildmanii. 

22b. Radial spines 10 to 15; flower 2 to 3 inches long; 

areoles 5/16 to 1/2 inch apart —E. roetteri (in part). 

2b. Never having all three of the characters listed under 2a or, in 

other words, having any one or more of the three following 

characters: areoles more than 1/2 inch apart; ribs less than 10; 

radials less than 12—24. 

24a. Flowers scarlet-red and lasting up to 4 or 5 days, with the 

petals firm and their edges entire—25. 

25a. Ribs 5 to 9; radial spines 2 to 9; centrals 0 or 1—26. 

26a. Spines greatly flattened and usually channeled or furrowed—27. 

27a. Spines extremely heavy—28. 

28a. Central spine absent; radials 2 to 6; areoles 7/8 to 

11/2 inches apart —E. triglochidiatus 

var. triglochidiatus. 

28b. One central present in at least part of the areoles; 

radials 6 to 8; areoles 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch apart 

—E. triglochidiatus var. gonacanthus. 

27b. Spines slender to medium thickness; radials 5 to 7; 

centrals 0 to 1 —E. triglochidiatus var. hexaedrus. 

26b. Spines round or practically so and slender to medium 

in thickness —E. triglochidiatus var. octacanthus. 

25b. Ribs 7 to 15; radial spines 7 to 16; centrals 1 to 6—29. 

29a. Plant clustering densely into dome-shaped masses of 

equal, short stems not usually over 6 inches tall—30. 

30a. Centrals 1 to 5; areoles 3/16 to 3/8 of an inch apart; 

largest central round —E. coccineus var. coccineus. 

30b. Centrals 3 to 5; areoles 5/16 to 5/8 of an inch apart; 

largest central flattened —E. coccineus 

var. conoideus. 

29b. Plant clustering sparingly to form flat clumps of un- 

equal stems up to 18 inches tall—31. 

31a. Centrals several—32. 

32a. Ribs 8 to 11; radials 7 to 12; centrals usually 3 or 

4 and variable in length from 3/4 to over 2 inches 

long; all spines round and medium thickness to 

heavy, whitish to ashy purplish-gray or reddish in 

color—33. 

33a. Ovary tube with long, flexible hair 

—E. polyacanthus var. polyacanthus. 

33b. Ovary tube with sparse and short wool 

—E. polyacanthus var. rosei. 

32b. Ribs 11 to 15; radials 8 to 16; centrals 4 to 6; 

spines round and white, yellow, or reddish-yellow 

in color —E. polyacanthus var. neo-mexicanus. 

31b. Central 1 —E. mojaviensis. 

24b. Flowers purple or yellow with red centers and delicate, last- 

ing only 1 or 2 days, with petals soft and more or less 

emarginate—34. 

34a. Spines opaque; flesh medium to dark or gray-green—35. 

35a. Mature spines opaque and varicolored or variegated 

with shades of brown, gray, and white streaking at 

least some of them; radials 5 to 12; centrals 1 to 3—36. 

36a. Stems more or less flaccid, wrinkled, with broad, 

somewhat tuberculate ribs; central spine 1, long and 

curving upward —E. fendleri var. fendleri. 

36b. Stems firm and not wrinkled; ribs narrow and not 

markedly tuberculate; central spines 1 to 3, the main 

one porrect and straight —E. fendleri 

var. rectispinus. 

35b. Mature spines opaque but not variegated or varicolored; 

radials 14 to 17; centrals 2 to 8—37. 

37a. Lowest radials as long as the lateral ones in the areole; 

fruits 11/4 to 2 inches long —E. lloydii. 

37b. Lowest radials shorter than the laterals; fruits 1/2 to 

7/8 of an inch long —E. roetteri (in part). 

34b. Spines translucent to some degree; flesh light or medium 

green—38. 

38a. Areoles 1/2 to 11/2 inches apart; ribs only slightly tuberculate 

on mature stems; flowers purple—39. 

39a. Ribs 11 to 13; areoles 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch apart; 

plant forming a large, regular, hemispherical clump 

from a single root center; flowers 4 to 5 inches long 

—E. stramineus. 

39b. Ribs 7 to 10; areoles 3/4 to 11/2 inches apart; plant 

forming an irregular, sprawling, or prostrate clump, 

often with adventitious roots; flowers 11/2 to 3 inches 

tall—40. 

40a. Stems extremely flabby; becoming prostrate and 

to 30 inches long; flower with 20 to 35 inner pet- 

als in several series and 10 to 12 stigma lobes 

—E. enneacanthus var. carnosus. 

40b. Stems sprawling, more or less flabby, and to 15 

inches or so in maximum length; flower with 10 

to 15 inner petals in one row and 8 to 10 stigma 

lobes—41. 

41a. Stem to 23/4 inches thick, comparatively firm 

and upright; radials 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long 

and straight; areoles 1/4 to 1 inch apart 

—E. enneacanthus var. enneacanthus. 

41b. Stems 3 to 4 inches in diameter, flabby, and


semiprostrate; radials 3/4 to 11/2 inches long, 

often curving; areoles 1 to 11/2 inches apart 

—E. dubius. 

38b. Areoles 3/8 to 1/2 inch apart; ribs extremely tuberculate; 

flowers yellow with red centers —E. papillosus 

var. papillosus. 

lb. Stems prostrate and slender, being 1/2 to 11/2 inches thick—42. 

42a. Central spine present on all or most areoles and 3/8 to 2 inches 

long—43. 

43a. Stems to only 4 inches long; central spine 3/8 of an inch 

long; flower yellow with red center; ribs markedly tuber- 

culate —E. papillosus var. angusticeps. 

43b. Stems 6 to 14 inches long; central spine 1/2 to 2 inches long; 

flower purple—44. 

44a. Central spine 1/2 to 2 inches long, dark in color, and 

somewhat aimed and curved downward; flower with a 

dark reddish-purple throat and narrow, pointed petals 

—E. blanckii. 

44b. Central spine 1/2 to 11/2 inches long, yellowish-brown, 

porrect or turning upward; flower with a white throat 

—E. berlandieri (in part). 

42b. Central spine usually missing, and if present on occasional 

areoles only 1/4 of an inch or less in length—45. 

45a. Radial spines 4 to 6 and some of them 1/4 to 11/4 inches 

long; flower with white throat and narrow, pointed petals 

—E. berlandieri (immature or stunted growth form). 

45b. Radial spines 3 to 6 and only 1/16 to 1/4 of an inch long; 

flower with white throat and broad, blunt-tipped petals 

—E. pentalophus. 

Echinocereus viridiflorus Eng. 

“Green-Flowered Torch Cactus,” “Green-Flowered Pitaya,” 

“Nylon Cactus,” “New Mexico Rainbow Cactus” 

Description Plate 1 

stems: Single or forming small clusters of up to about half a 

dozen heads. Each stem is spherical to columnar, varying in 

the different forms from a sphere or cone only an inch or so 

across to a column as much as 8 inches tall by as much as 3 

inches in diameter. The surface is light green to yellowishgreen 

in color. There are 13 to 15 low ribs with shallow vertical 

grooves between them. There are definite grooves crossing 

the ribs between the areoles, giving them a somewhat tuberculate 

appearance. 

areoles: Small, narrow oblong to very elongated, up to 

about 3/8 of an inch apart on mature parts of the stem. Young 

areoles are covered with short, white felt, but old areoles lose 

this and become bare except for a small tuft of wool just 

above the spines of each areole where a flower has developed. 

spines: There are 12 to more than 20 radial spines which 

radiate evenly around the areole. They are straight and rigid, 

and lie flat upon the surface of the plant or sometimes recurve 

back toward the grooves between the ribs. The longer 

ones sometimes interlock with those of the adjacent areoles. 

They vary in size from very small, very weak upper ones 

which are bristle-like and only 1/16 of an inch long to lateral 

and lower ones 1/4 of an inch long in one variety and 1/2 inch 

long in another. There is great variation in the coloring of 

these radial spines. They may all be purplish-red or yellow or 

whitish, but the most typical pattern is for the upper and 

lower ones in each areole to be white while the lateral ones 

are reddish—although an occasional specimen displays exactly 

the reverse pattern. Sometimes individual spines may 

be white, tipped with red. All of these variations may sometimes 

occur on the same plant, often in zones, giving the plant 

a banded appearance. 

There is most typically one central spine, much thicker and 

more rigid than the radials and standing erect in the center of 

the areole. This spine sometimes is curved upward toward its 

tip and is usually about 1/2 inch long, although in one form 

it may be up to 1 inch long. This spine may be white with a 

reddish tip, half and half, or all purplish-red except for a 

white base. Sometimes one or even two auxiliary central 

spines, much shorter (only 1/16 to 3/16 of an inch long) but 

otherwise identical to the first, may be present, in which case 

the two or three centrals are arranged in a perfect vertical 

row. On the other hand, the areoles of many plants lack the 

central entirely. All the spines have bulbous bases. 

flowers: Small, lemon-yellow or straw-color, this often 

approaching chartreuse or occasionally being suffused with 

brown and then bronzy. These flowers are about 1 inch long 

by 3/4 of an inch in diameter, produced on old areoles on the 

sides of the stem, usually midway between the base and the 

top although sometimes even lower. The outer petals are 

linear, brownish in the midline with lemon-yellow or chartreuse 

edges. The inner petals are longer and become a little 

broader toward the tips which are more or less rounded. 

These inner petals are lemon-yellow to straw, usually with 

somewhat darker green in the midline. The edges are all entire. 

The stamens show the same colors. The style is somewhat 

longer than the stamens and crowned by 6 to 10 dark 

green, rather fat stigma lobes. Each areole of the ovary has 

short white wool and 4 to 12 white spines up to 1/4 of an 

inch long. 

fruits: These are 3/8 to 1/2 of an inch long, egg-shaped, and 

greenish in color, and have white wool and white spines upon 

them. 

Range. From eastern Wyoming and eastern Colorado south 

through eastern New Mexico to the vicinity of El Paso, Texas, 

and southeast through the Guadalupe Mountains into the Big 

Bend of Texas. 

Remarks. E. viridiflorus is famed as the most northerly of the 

Echinocerei. It grows on the bleak prairies and the foothills of 

eastern Wyoming and Colorado in spite of cold and extreme 

conditions which would kill most cacti. A few times it has been


reported from extreme western Kansas and the Panhandle of 

Oklahoma, but these reports were mostly fifty or more years 

ago. If it is not extinct in those areas, it is very rare today. It 

still may be found occasionally in the Texas Panhandle and in 

northeastern New Mexico, which is its type locality. The most 

westerly report of it seems to be just a few miles west of Santa 

Fe, New Mexico. 

Over this whole northern area of its range the cactus is a 

small, squat, egg-shaped, withdrawing plant, hiding as best it 

can in the sparse grass and practically invisible during the winter 

when it is greatly shrunken. The whole plant is seldom over 

2 or 3 inches tall in this area. Neither does it produce conspicuous 

flowers to give away its position in the spring. The flowers 

are small and greenish-yellow, and even these are borne low on 

the plant rather than at the top. These northern plants usually 

have long, up-curving central spines, but their radials tend to 

be shorter than those of their southern relatives. This northern 

form seems to he the plant Engelmann had before him which 

he called E. viridiflorus var. minor. He stated correctly that 

this variety grows from around Santa Fe, New Mexico, northeastward. 

South of Santa Fe the species is seen again past Socorro and 

Roswell, New Mexico, into the Guadalupe Mountains and at 

El Paso. It then becomes common east and south into the Big 

Bend area of Texas. But all of the southern plants studied show 

some differences from their northern relatives. These differences 

have been considered significant enough from the very 

beginning to warrant separate variety designations. Much of 

the confusion in the minds of cactophiles and, therefore, in their 

accounts of this species and the closely related species Echinocereus 

chloranthus has been due to a failure to distinguish and 

understand these varieties. The southern forms of E. viridiflorus 

are quite commonly displayed and even sold today under the 

name of E. chloranthus. 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. viridiflorus (Eng.) 


stems: As the species except that it is spherical to conical, 

growing occasionally to about 5 inches high by as much as 3 

inches in diameter, but usually much smaller. Usually clustering. 

areoles: As the species. 

spines: As the species, except that the centrals are often missing 

entirely and never observed over 1/2 inch long. 

flowers: AS the species, except that they are usually lemonyellow 

in color and more rarely brownish than in the other 

forms, with the petals somewhat rounded at the ends. 

fruits: As the species. 

Range. From eastern Wyoming and eastern Colorado through 

eastern New Mexico to the vicinity of Santa Fe, which seems 

to be the southern and western limit of its range. It occurs from 

there east into the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles and is 

found occasionally in the high plains of extreme northwestern 

Texas, but this form does not appear to come down into south- 

west Texas. 

Remarks. This is the more hardy northern form of the Species. 

Small and comparatively insignificant as it is, anyone who has 

been abroad in its range would be amazed to know how many 

specimens he has stepped over as it hides in the grass. It takes 

a real Search to locate the plant, but it can easily be grown in 

northern gardens where most other cacti do not survive. With 

its clustering habit it soon presents an attractive little clump of 

heads with varicolored spines. 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. cylindricus (Eng.) Rümpl. 


stems: Similar to the species except that it is cylindrical and 

grows to at least 8 inches tall by 3 inches in diameter. Seldom 

and sparingly clustering. 


spines: As the species, except that the radials number 14 to 

24, their maximum length to 1/2 inch; and the centrals number 

0 to 3 in a vertical row, the main central growing to a 

maximum length of 1 inch on some plants. On many plants, 

however, the main central may be entirely missing or no 

longer than the 1/16 to 3/16-inch auxiliary centrals. 

flowers: As the species, except that they are more often 

brownish in color and the petals are more sharply pointed. 


Range. Common from the area of Socorro and Roswell, New 

Mexico, southeast through the Guadalupe Mountains into Texas. 

The writer was surprised to find a stand of this variety near 

Mosquero, in northeastern New Mexico, which marks a great 

extension of its range northward. In Texas it ranges through the 

Davis Mountains into the Big Bend. 

Remarks. This is E. Viridiflorus as it appears in its southern 

range, a much more robust form, with radial spines about twice 

as long as and more interlocking than those of the northern 

form. Its central spines are extremely variable. Almost any collection 

from the Big Bend will show some plants with only five 

or six single centrals 3/16 to 1/8 of an inch long scattered over 

the whole stem, a few with no centrals at all, and others with 

regularly 2 or 3 centrals per areole arranged in a single vertical 

row. The specimens from the Hueco and Guadalupe mountains 

sometimes lack centrals also but more often show a single central 

like the species except usually to 1 inch long and curving. 

Thousands of these large, columnar specimens, usually dis- 

Rumpl -> 

Rümpl


tinctly reddish of spine and bronze of flower, are shipped by 

dealers out of the Texas Big Bend every year. They are so obviously 

different from the little northern form that, since the 

name E. viridiflorus without variety qualification is usually applied 

to the northern form, these are usually distributed under 

the name of E. chloranthus. However, this southern variety was 

recognized as a distinct form long ago when it was named E. 

viridiflorus var. cylindricus by Engelmann. Coulter, failing to 

apply Engelmann’s name to it, renamed it Cereus viridiflorus 

var. tubulosus, basing his description on specimens from Brewster 

County, Texas. Both men recognized its distinctness from 

E. chloranthus, a distinction which has become blurred in some 

more recent accounts. 

This variety of this cactus was once one of the most common 

in the Big Bend region. I have been told by older collectors of 

beds of these cacti extending over many acres in Brewster 

County, Texas, in which the cacti often stood almost too close 

for one to walk among them. Their numbers seemed inexhaustible. 

There are few such stands left today, however, mostly due 

to the destruction wrought by the cactus dealers whose crews 

have for years been bringing them out by the truckloads to 

languish and die in dime-store bins and novelty-shop cactus 

assortments. I have been on some ranches in the area whose 

owners have allowed no cactus digging, and there they still 

grow in quantity; but only a few years ago I watched three 

big truckloads of them come out as another of these ranches 

was opened up and swept clean of cacti, and so they appear to 

be doomed to elimination as surely as the more rare species of 

the area. 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. standleyi (B. & R.) Orcutt 


stems: Similar to the species except becoming cylindrical and 

growing to about 4 inches tall, while seldom clustering. 


spines: As the species, except that they are a clear, rather 

translucent yellow, becoming sometimes whitish when old. 

flowers As the species. 


Range. South central New Mexico. 

Remarks. This was described as a species by Britton and Rose, 

but since they had not seen it flower and their description was 

very incomplete, it was long uncertain what the plant’s relationship 

really was. After having seen numerous specimens 

throughout their development and in bloom, I feel certain that 

it is a form of E. viridiflorus, as Orcutt has already suggested. 

I cannot distinguish its flowers from those of the species by any 

essential feature. It is close to the variety cylindricus in the 

cylindrical shape of its stems and in the character of its centrals, 

but its radial spines are shorter and more like those of variety 

viridiflorus. This leaves it distinct from these other forms only 

by the clear yellow color of its spines. This is a doubtful character 

to base even a variety upon, and it surely will not support 

its being listed as a separate species. It may be that it does not 

even warrant varietal status, but I list it separately here since 

anyone reading the literature will be anxious to know what the 

plant referred to so incompletely by almost all authors actually 

is. 

Echinocereus davisii Houghton 


stems: Globular or nearly so and very small. This is a dwarf 

plant, 1/2 to 11/4 inches tall when mature. Stems occur singly 

as far as is known. There are 6 to 8 ribs on this tiny stem, 

which are rather high and broken into nearly completely 

separated tubercles. The color of the flesh is dark green. 

areoles: Narrow oval to elongated and 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch 

long, having very little if any wool upon them, even when 

young. 

spines: White, with the tips or sometimes the outer one-half 

dark brown. These spines are all radials and are 8 to 13 in 

number. The upper ones are shortest, slender, round, and ‘Is 

to 1/4 of an inch long, while the laterals are longer, stouter, 

usually flattened, and 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch long. The spines 

are straight or often somewhat curved and recurved back 

against the plant. 

flowers: Straw-yellow, about 1 inch long, not opening 

widely. The outer petals are narrow with midlines reddish to 

umber and the edges yellowish. They are pointed and entire. 

The inner petals are straw-yellow, and linear to slightly 

broadened above, with the tips sharply pointed. The filaments 

are green, the anthers light yellow. The style is light 

green and is crowned by 5 light green, heavy, curving stigma 

lobes. The ovary has about 12 white spines to 1/4 of an inch 

long on each areole, but no wool. 

fruits: Oval, about 3/8 of an inch long, apparently remaining 

green. 

Range. Found on only a few limestone summits a few miles 

south of Marathon, Brewster County, Texas. 

Remarks. This is one of the two dwarf cacti of Brewster County, 

Texas, and it is remarkable that it grows on the same few 

hills as the other, Mammillaria nellieae. It even grows in the 

same situation as that other, underneath the moss in the crevices 

of the limestone ledges. The tiny plant is rarely visible at all 

because of its mossy protection, and only sends its flowers up 

briefly above this layer. It is a real hands-and-knees effort to 

search for these diminutive plants in the expanse of the Texas 

hills. The best effort will be useless unless one is on the right

Rumpl -> 

Rümpl 


hills, and these are restricted to two or three ranches near Marathon. 

One would think that the little cactus would be secure in its 

very limited range, but that is not the case. After Houghton 

described this plant in 1931 and others wrote about it, collectors 

and dealers went straight to the spot and brought out hundreds 

of specimens. This continued for some years, and most collections 

then sported some of these attractive little novelties. In 

this way the wild population was reduced steadily until more 

recently the area in which they grow has come into the hands 

of owners who allow no one to dig cacti at all. This is fortunate 

for the survival of the species, but the plant has become more 

and more rare in collections, and its value on the market has 

now become rather high. 

The problem here, again, is to place this cactus properly in 

respect to its relatives, and as always this cannot be done with 

absolute certainty or to please everyone. A. D. Houghton designated 

it a separate species when he first described it, but W. T. 

Marshall soon considered its similarities to E. viridiflorus too 

great and called it E. viridiflorus var. davisii. Anyone may take 

his choice of these arrangements, since it is a matter of evaluation 

of similarities and differences which all can see. I choose 

to leave it distinct from E. viridiflorus because it differs from 

that plant in rib and spine number and spine length, as well as 

in size. Of perhaps more importance to me in deciding to regard 

it as a separate species are the facts that the petals of its 

flowers are more pointed than those of E. viridiflorus, and that 

it has no wool on the ovary areoles while the other does. This 

matter of wool or no wool has been made the basis for separating 

others of this genus into entirely different sections, and so it 

certainly seems significant enough here to separate species. 

Although tiny in size, E. davisii is not short-lived, as one 

might expect. I have seen a series of specimens collected ten 

years ago and grown all this while by a collector who knows 

how to care for her plants. They have bloomed most years, but 

have hardly increased in size in all this time. 

Echinocereus chloranthus (Eng.) Rümpl. 

“Green-Flowered Torch Cactus,” “Green-Flowered Pitaya” 


stems: Cylindrical, up to 10 inches high by 3 inches thick, 

occasionally, but not often, producing one or two branches 

from the main stem. There are 12 to 18 ribs which are low 

and definitely tuberculate at the areoles, with broad, shallow 

furrows between the ribs and between the tubercles. The color 

of the surface is pale green. 

areoles: Oval to circular in shape and rather large. The 

young areoles have much short white or yellowish wool. This 

gradually disappears with age so that old areoles are almost 

or quite bare except for the floral areole just above the spines 

which remains as a persistent tuft of wool. The areoles are up 

to 1/4 of an inch apart on the mature sides of the stems. 

spines: There are 12 to 38 radial spines which radiate evenly 

all around the areole. They are straight and rigid, and interlock 

with those of adjacent areoles. They may recurve back 

toward the plant slightly on some specimens, but when young 

they spread out from the plant before they assume their 

strictly radiating mature position. The upper 4 to 6 of them 

are short and weak, 1/4 of an inch or less in length. There is a 

gradual increase in size going around the areole, the laterals 

being about 1/2 inch long and the lower ones sometimes longer, 

even up to 3/4 of an inch. The upper radials are usually white, 

while the laterals and lower ones vary greatly in color, sometimes 

being white, yellowish, purple-red, or even variegated 

with white or light bases and the rest of the spine red. 

There is great variation in the centrals in this species. On 

the typical form there are 3 to 6 centrals on mature areoles. 

These spread from the center of the areole and are not arranged 

in a straight line. They are stout and rigid, somewhat 

translucent, and usually somewhat curved. A typical areole 

on a typical mature plant will have 1 or 2 upper centrals 

which are only 1/4 to 1/2 inch long and point upward. These 

are usually red or white with red tips. Then there will usually be 

2 centrals spreading laterally, straight or curved, about 3/4 of 

an inch long and all red or red with whitish or yellowish 

bases. Below this is one long central pointing downward and 

often curved, which is almost always lighter colored, white 

sometimes with a reddish tip, stout, rigid, and 3/4 to 11/4 inches 

long. Some plants have an extra central or two besides these. 

Young plants do not grow their centrals at all until they are 

4 inches or so in height, adding them gradually after that, so 

that it is easy to find good-sized plants with none or with 

only a couple of centrals. All of the spines have bulbous bases, 

but the bases of the radials are usually covered, until they are 

very old, by the wool of the areole. 

flowers: Funnel-shaped, not opening widely, 1 inch in diameter 

by about 11/4 inches long, very dark green or yellowishgreen. 

The outer petals have brownish midlines and green 

edges. The inner petals are dark green in the midlines with 

lighter edges, but are often suffused with brown. The petals 

are linear, not broadening throughout their lengths, the edges 

entire, and the tips sharply pointed. The filaments are light 

green and the anthers cream-colored. The pistil is long, green, 

and ends in 8 dark green stigma lobes. The areoles of the 

ovary have white wool and white spines about 1/4 to 1/2 inch 

long upon them. These flowers are produced on the sides of 

the stems, usually from one-half to two-thirds of the way to 

the top, but sometimes lower. 

fruits: Small, greenish, very spiny. They are usually about 

1/2 inch long and almost spherical. 

Range. A small area of southern New Mexico in Luna and 

Dona Ana counties, specifically from Cook’s Peak and near


Rincon through the Organ and the Franklin mountains into 

Texas and Mexico. In Texas occurring in scattered mountain 

areas from El Paso east about as far as Van Horn, apparently 

being limited to El Paso and Hudspeth counties, except for a 

separate variety isolated in Brewster County. 

Remarks. This cactus was first described by Engelmann in 1856. 

Typically, it is a beautiful, tall, and slender column of long, 

rigid, varicolored spines, these partly obscuring the surface of 

the stem and spreading in all directions, giving the plant an 

interesting unkempt appearance in contrast to the usual precision 

of armament of other Echinocerei. It has small green, yellow-green, 

or bronze-green flowers produced on the sides of the 

stems, very similar to those of E. viridiflorus. This is a comparatively 

localized form, however, growing in the mountains from 

about a hundred miles northwest of El Paso to about the same 

distance southeast of that city. 

E. chloranthus is one of those cacti which are very difficult 

to distinguish from their relatives, and I find for more confusion 

among cactus fanciers about it than about any other member 

of this genus. Somehow the names of this and the previous 

species were exchanged in popular usage in west Texas many 

years ago, and even some dealers’ lists offer them reversed in this 

way. In addition, another species has been entirely lost for 

many years by being included under this one. 

The striking similarity of E. chloranthus to E. viridiflorus is 

the main cause of the confusion. It is easy enough to distinguish 

between the typical E. viridiflorus var. viridiflorus, the northern 

cactus, and E. chloranthus. The northern plant is very small 

and squat, has elongated areoles with either no central spine or 

only 1 per areole, and has flowers with rounded petal tips. E. 

chloranthus, on the other hand, is tall and slender, has up to 

5 spreading centrals not in a row, rounded areoles, and sharply 

pointed petals. These differences are plain enough, and the 

widely different ranges of the two, separated by almost half 

the length of New Mexico, makes it easy to regard them as very 

separate forms. 

But the trouble lies with the form of E. viridiflorus called 

variety cylindricus by Engelmann, which grows in the same 

range as E. chloranthus and on into the Big Bend. This variety 

is typically cylindrical also, but somewhat stouter than E. chloranthus, 

with elongated areoles and with 1 to 3 centrals in a 

straight row. These two are close, but they can be told apart by 

the shape and size of the areoles and the difference in number, 

length, and arrangement of the central spines on mature specimens. 

Immature specimens are much alike, but can be recog- 

nized by their areoles. 

After one has learned to recognize the two forms the possibility 

of confusion is not yet over, because the names used for 

them have not remained standard. Marshall and T. M. Bock 

have proposed the combining of E. viridiflorus and E. chloranthus 

entirely as synonyms. Backeberg, on the other hand, chooses 

to combine this form with the other as E. viridiflorus var. chlo- 

ranthus. Future study may bring a combination of some sort, 

but there can be no more than conjecture about what the proper 

relationship of the two is, without new evidence, which is not 

yet at hand. In the meantime, it seems, any conscientious student 

of cacti will have to look very carefully at areoles and spines 

and come to know this interesting little cactus. 

Echinocereus chloranthus var. chloranthus (Eng.) 


stems: As the species, except growing to only about 8 inches 

tall. 

areoles: As the species, except to only about 3/8 of an inch 

apart. 

spines: As the species, except always spiny and never hairy, 

the radials only 12 to 23 in number, and the centrals only 3 

to 6 in number. 

flowers: As the species. 


Range. Extreme southern New Mexico in Luna and Dona Ana 

counties, into El Paso and Hudspeth counties, Texas, and on 

into Mexico. 

Remarks. This is the typical form of the species, but it has a 

restricted range, and far fewer people have seen it than suppose 

they have. 

Echinocereus chloranthus var. neocapillus Weniger 


stems: Cylindrical, up to 10 inches high and 21/2 inches thick. 

It is usually single, but occasionally branches above the 

ground. It has 12 to 18 ribs, low, with distinct tubercles. The 

color is pale or yellowish-green. 

areoles: Oval, about 3/16 of an inch long, covered with much 

white or yellowish wool when young, bare when old except 

for a very small tuft which usually remains at the upper end 

of the areole where the flower is produced. The areoles are 

up to 1/4 of an inch apart. 

spines: There are 30 to 38 straight, slender radial spines. 

These radiate evenly around the areole, being often so crowded 

that they touch their neighbors most of their lengths, and 

they interlock with spines from other areoles. The upper ones 

are very slender and often only 1/8 of an inch long. From 

this the length increases around the areole, with laterals being 

up to 1/2 inch long and the lower ones only slightly shorter. 

They are clear translucent yellow or chalk-white, all of an 

areole being the same color, this usually forming bands of 

yellow and white on the older plants. There are 5 to 10 central 

spines, all heavier and straight. They spread in all direc-


tions from the crowded center of the areole. The uppermost 

ones are 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch long, and slender, while the rest 

of them are heavier and 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch long. They may 

be all translucent yellow, often with a reddish tip, or occasionally 

all reddish. All spines have bulbous bases. Immature 

plants or new branches have no spines at all, but have 

instead a thick covering of white, very fine, flexible hairs 

from 1/4 to 1/2 inch long, about 40 hairs to the areole. When 

the plant is 1 to 2 inches tall spines begin appearing at the 

tip of the stem. The juvenile hairs can often be seen on the 

bases of older specimens. 

flowers: Apparently identical with those of the species. 

fruits: Similar to those of the species. 

Range. A very small area including only two ranches 5 to 10 

miles south of Marathon, Texas. 

Remarks. This cactus was noticed by A. R. Leding in 1932, and 

he published an article on it in the Journal of Heredity in 

August, 1934, which included pictures of it. At that time he 

called attention to the unusual form of the juveniles, which are 

covered with long white hairs instead of spines, but he did not 

distinguish between the mature form of the plant and the typical 

E. chloranthus or state whether the typical form has hairs 

when young. He did say that comparison of plants from different 

localities and the discovery of whether the hairy condition 

is inherited might show that the form deserves specific or at 

least varietal rank. 

This article by Leding was reprinted in the October-November, 

1942, number of the Cactus and Succulent Journal of 

America, with an added note by the author, but no new conclusions 

were drawn. 

The immature plants of this variety are very striking, having 

no rigid spines at all, but being covered with much long white 

hair which is 1/4 to 1/2 inch long and produced usually 40 or so 

hairs to each areole. This hair is their only armament until the 

plants become about 11/2 inches high. At that size they suddenly 

begin producing the regular armament of yellow or white 

spines as described above. The bases of plants 11/2 to as much 

as 4 inches high will often show a belt of this white wool, with 

the typical spines above, but this hair is gradually replaced by 

normal Spines. 

The spines of adults of this form are very similar to those of 

E. chloranthus, but not identical. There are 30 or more radials 

where the typical form has only 12 to 23. These very numerous 

radials obscure the surface of the stem much more than do those 

of the typical form. Also, the centrals of this variety are more 

numerous and shorter. But the major difference between the 

two is in the juvenile stage. The young plants of typical E. chloranthus 

never have hairs at all, but are covered from the beginning 

with rigid spines. There is no possibility of confusing 

the two in this stage. 

E. chloranthus var. neocapillus is found growing in a very 

restricted range encompassing some hills from about 5 to about 

10 miles south of Marathon. Where undisturbed the plants 

grow in quite great numbers, but they have been removed almost 

entirely from much of their range. Fortunately, some of 

them are upon ranchland which is closed to all cactus digging, 

and so they still survive. 

Since the nearest occurrence of the typical E. chloranthus is 

about 150 miles northwest, there is little danger of confusing 

these two in the field. The many more spines, as well as the 

spine color and the areole shape easily set this variety off from 

E. viridiflorus var. cylindricus. 

Echinocereus russanthus Weniger 


stems: Cylindrical, up to about 10 inches tall and 21/2 inches 

thick. These stems almost always branch to form clusters of 

up to a dozen stems. They have 13 to 18 ribs, which are low 

and narrow with indistinct tubercles. The color of the surface 

is medium green. 

areoles: Round at first, then broadly oval. About 1/8 of an 

inch long, with white wool when young, situated from 1/8 to 

3/8 of an inch apart. 

spines: All spines are very slender and somewhat flexible. 

There are 30 to 45 slender to very slender and bristle-like 

radial spines, which are very crowded and which interlock 

with those of adjacent areoles, giving the plant a very dense 

spine cover. There is a tuft of small ones at the summit (upper 

edge) of the areole, which are only 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch 

long. Moving laterally around the areole the radials become 

longer, the lower laterals being 1/2 to 5/8 of an inch long. All 

radials are white or straw-colored. There are 7 to 12 central 

spines spreading in all directions from bulbous bases. The upper 

ones are small, similar to the larger radials in size. The 

lower ones are from 3/4 to 11/4 inches long, though still slender 

and rather flexible. While there is a complete gradation 

of spine sizes from the smallest radial to the largest central, 

the centrals are distinguished from the radials not only by 

their position but also by their color, having at least the tip, 

often the upper half, and sometimes the whole spine reddish 

or purplish in color. 

flowers: About 1 inch long, funnel-shaped, not opening 

widely and so only about 1/2 inch in diameter. They are rustred 

in color sometimes with darker midlines. All segments are 

linear in shape, with the ends somewhat pointed, but not 

sharply so. The bases of all segments are lighter and the center 

of the flower is greenish. The stamens are pale yellow. 

The style is long and yellowish. There are 8 to 10 green 

stigma lobes. 

fruits: About 1/2 inch long, oval to almost spherical. They 

are covered with clusters of slender white spines, 10 to 12 on 

each areole.


Range. A small area of southwestern Brewster County, Texas, 

including the northern part of the Chisos Mountains and the 

country northwest of these to just past Study Butte, but not 

seen as far west as Terlingua or south to the Rio Grande. 

Remarks. I have often found it rewarding to examine the 

thousands of specimens which the Texas dealers in cacti have 

in their bins. Even a slight variation stands out when it is lying 

among dozens of its supposed fellows. Several times I have 

found in such places something new to me and have been able 

to trace it back to its location and discover what it was. 

In piles of E. viridiflorus var. cylindricus from the Texas Big 

Bend we repeatedly found one or two unusual specimens with 

far too many and too long and flexible spines to be that cactus. 

Usually the assortment was being sold as E. chloranthus, but the 

bulk of them were clearly the Big Bend forms of E. viridiflorus. 

These few obviously different specimens were all that could be 

seen to explain the confusion of names. 

These unusual specimens did have the round or oval areoles 

of E. chloranthus, and noting their long central spines I assumed 

at first that they were that cactus. They have been going under 

that name for a long time. 

But when I saw the actual E. chloranthus, which does not 

grow at all in the Big Bend, it was obvious that the two plants 

were really very different. All authorities have given the radial 

count for E. chloranthus as between 12 and 23, while this cactus 

has 30 to at least 45. That cactus has 3 to 6 centrals which 

are up to 3/4 of an inch long, while this one has 7 to 12 which 

are up to as much as 11/4 inches long. 

Such differences as these have usually been deemed sufficient 

to distinguish varieties in this group, and I thought at first that 

this would prove to be a Big Bend variety of E. chloranthus. 

But when the plants bloomed the new one presented a flower 

different in most respects from that of the other cactus. These 

flowers are smaller, with more narrow and linear petals, and 

are rust or russet-red in color. No flower of E. chloranthus ever 

approaches the color or the texture of these flowers, which are 

also the smallest I have seen on any Echinocereus. On E. chloranthus 

the flowers are yellow to brown or occasionally almost 

chocolate brown in color, but never with any reddish coloring, 

and their petals are firm, opaque, and glossy to the point of 

being almost waxy. On this Big Bend plant there is no green in 

the flower beyond the greenish center, the rest of the petals 

being essentially pale reddish, and these petals are soft, thin, 

somewhat translucent, and dull of surface instead of glossy. 

There is no mistaking the two plants when in flower, and these 

being so different, it seems clear that here is a species entirely 

separate from E. chloranthus. 

Once having concluded this, I cast around for what the cactus 

might have been named, but in all of the species and varieties 

listed for this group in the U. S. I have found no descrip- 

tion of this cactus. 

I did discover Engelmann’s description of a cactus from 

northern Mexico which seemed almost identical to this one. It 

was his E. longisetus. His only statement about the flowers of 

that cactus was “flower… said to be red.” When I saw that 

the type locality of his plant was in the Santa Rosa Mountains, 

which form the lower end of a continuous mountain chain of 

which the Chisos Mountains, where our cactus grows, is the 

northern end, I immediately thought that the two might be the 

same species and that it might range over this whole mountain 

chain. 

Following up this idea, several of us made trips into these 

difficult mountains of northern Mexico. We observed and collected 

E. longisetus in its type locality, where it grows in clusters 

of up to thirty sprawling stems, each up to 12 inches long. On 

the many plants observed we found the radial number always 

16 to 21 per areole and the centrals up to 2 inches long. These 

differences alone indicate that the plants are not the same. And 

when the true E. longisetus bloomed, there was no further 

question. It presented beautiful rotate flowers 2 to 21/2 inches 

in diameter, claret in color with white centers. They looked like 

a more reddish version of the E. berlandieri flowers, surely as 

different from the flowers of our Chisos Mountain plant as 

could be. 

We were unable to locate E. longisetus growing north of its 

type locality in the Sierra de Huacha or Sierra del Carmen 

ranges, and assume that it does not grow up into Texas. Neither 

did we find our cactus growing south of the northern slope of 

the Chisos Mountains. I assume, therefore, that these two separate 

species occupy only their respective escarpments of this 

large mountain system. 

E. russanthus is left, therefore, as what appears to be a separate 

species which, however, has always been thrown in with 

E. chloranthus. It occupies its own small range, where that 

cactus never grows, and is actually a much more beautiful plant 

than most of its close relatives. 

Echinocereus caespitosus Eng. 

“Lace Cactus,’ “Purple Candle,” “Classen’s Cactus” 


stems: Spherical when very young, quickly becoming oval 

and then, when mature, cylindrical. These stems occasionally, 

in some locations, grow to 12 inches tall and 31/2 inches thick, 

but the typical adult size is 4 to 8 inches tall by 2 to 21/2 

inches thick. There is a form which never exceeds 3 inches 

tall and one inch thick. A plant may remain a single, erect 

stem all of its life, while its neighbor a few feet away may 

offset and branch to form a cluster of a dozen or so upright 

stems. This clustering habit is so common as to provide the 

basis for the name. There are 10 to 19 ribs which are narrow 

and definite and divided into distinct tubercles. The flesh is 

dark green.


areoles: Small, rather oval, and quite woolly when young, 

becoming greatly elongated vertically and bare of wool when 

older. These areoles are 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch long and almost 

touching on shrunken, dormant plants, but up to 3/16 of an 

inch apart on active, well-watered ones. 

spines: There are 12 to 36 rigid but slender radial spines. 

They radiate evenly, lying almost flat over the surface of the 

plant. Crowded around the elongated areole in this flat position, 

they look, on each side of it, much like the teeth of 

a comb, and so are often described as being pectinate. Those 

at the top of the areole are very tiny, often almost bristlelike 

and only 1/32 to 1/8 of an inch long. The lateral ones are 

robust and 3/16 to 5/16 of an inch long. The lower 1 to 3 are 

somewhat smaller again. The spines of adjacent clusters 

may interlock on the longer spined forms, but do not reach 

each other on the shorter spined individuals. These spines may 

be pure white, white with brown tips, yellowish with brown 

tips, or all brown, or, in one form, have the outer half of 

each spine shining black or purplish. The plant may be somewhat 

banded by variations in these colors, but the spines of 

any single areole are never variegated. 

Most commonly there is no central spine, but on many specimens 

in some locations one can find areoles with 1 central 

standing straight out or 2 centrals, one above the other in the 

center of the areole. An occasional plant will have such centrals 

on the majority or even all of its areoles. These centrals 

are stout and firm, but only 1/32 to 1/8 of an inch long. 

flowers: Very large and colorful on all but the dwarf form, 

being 2 to 5 inches tall and 2 to 4 inches in diameter, and 

brilliant purple or rose pink. The flower tube is covered with 

white, cobwebby wool to at least 1/4 of an inch long and 

clusters of 10 to 14 very fine, hairlike, white, gray, or black 

spines, 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch long. Above these the outer segments 

of the flower lengthen gradually, with greenish or 

brownish midlines and pink edges. The petals, of which there 

are 30 to at least 50, arise from usually narrow reddish or 

reddish-brown bases (which may, however, be bright green 

instead) to broaden to 1/4 of an inch or more wide above. 

This upper part of each petal is purple or rose-pink. Its edges 

are more or less ragged and often notched. The tips vary from 

erose and rather blunt to almost entire and definitely pointed. 

The filaments are reddish at the bases, fading above; the 

anthers, cream-colored. The style is long and reddish or pinkish, 

crowned by 8 to 22 large, dark green stigma lobes. The 

dwarf form has the same flower but with a marked reduction 

in size and number of almost all flower aspects. 

fruits: Egg-shaped or almost spherical, covered with the 

slender spines and wool of the ovary. It remains green until 

it dries and splits open by one or two vertical slits. 

Range. As Engelmann stated, this is the most eastern of the 

Echinocerei. Found in hilly, mostly limestone regions from near 

Ponca City to near Durant, Oklahoma, on the northeast, and 

from there on south to the edge of the coastal plain just west of 

the Brazos River. Industry and Cat Spring, Texas, mark its 

southeastern limit. From this line—which, as Engelmann observed, 

approximately parallels the 96th longitude—it occurs 

wherever the proper conditions are found throughout central 

and western Oklahoma and into southeastern Colorado, as well 

as over all of northwestern Texas and into a little of eastern 

New Mexico. The southern limit of its range runs west through 

Texas just south of San Antonio to Eagle Pass, where it dips 

into Mexico; from there it curves northwest past the vicinity 

of Sonora and Big Spring, Texas, to just east of Carlsbad and 

Roswell, New Mexico. Although it occurs in only widely scattered 

locations in eastern New Mexico, its western limit runs 

approximately from Carlsbad north into eastern Colorado. 

Remarks. The lace cactus is probably one of the most collected, 

most fancied, and best known of all cacti. Almost anyone 

the world over who grows cacti has this plant, and it is often 

the favorite of the collection. The high regard in which it stands, 

is well earned by the beauty of the plant body with its truly 

lacy spines and the exquisiteness of its flowers, which are produced 

in profusion by a healthy plant. This cactus is well- 

known because it is very widespread in range and so prolific 

in its natural habitats as to be readily available to any dime 

store or nursery which wants to stock it. Furthermore, it is 

tolerant of the rigors of cactus culture after it is in the collection. 

It is the common cactus of two-thirds of Oklahoma and 

all of central Texas. It is not found everywhere in this wide 

area, but the right sort of limestone or gypsum hill often sup- 

ports a population of literally hundreds of individuals. 

The fact that this cactus has been so commonly seen has not, 

as one might have hoped, made for less confusion concerning it. 

Even yet a variety of names are bantered back and forth and 

each new work on cacti still is unable to make an air-tight case 

for what the plant really is and what its official name should 

be. Knowing this, I have made special effort to study thousands 

of specimens from all possible locations within its range, and 

have growing before me specimens from each general area in 

which it is found. 

Several quirks of history make for two major problems in 

dealing with this cactus, and each leads to its own type of confusion. 

I will attempt here to give as simple an account as possible 

of what has happened in the past in order to evaluate the 

conflicting views which exist today about E. caespitosus. 

The plant was undeniably studied by Engelmann, who wrote 

up several very complete and detailed descriptions of it between 

1848 and 1856. He originated the name Echinocereus 

caespitosus for his cactus. But Terscheck had in 1843 named a 

plant from Mexico Echinocactus reichenbachii. His description 

was very incomplete and could, as many have since pointed out, 

fit any one of several cacti in more than one genus. 

It is very doubtful whether the two names would ever have 

been associated at all except that Prince Salm-Dyck, in 1844,


referred to some plants in European collections as Echinopsis 

pectinata var. reichenbachiana. He wrote Engelmann about the 

possibility that these might be the same as Engelmann’s plant, 

and Engelmann mentioned this speculation in one account of 

E. caespitosus. 

Early writers to and including Coulter all used Engelmann’s 

name, E. caespitosus, which is the earliest name with an indisputably 

adequate description, for the plant. Things might have 

remained this way and all would have known what plant they 

were talking about, but in 1893 F. A. Haage, Jr., changed Terscheck’s 

useless Echinocactus reichenbachii to Echinocereus 

reichenbachii, and later Britton and Rose adopted this as the 

name they used when referring to our cactus. 

It is true that by the rules of nomenclature the earliest name 

applying to a plant must be used, but Terscheck’s description 

does not any more link his name to this plant than to a dozen 

others, while Prince Salm-Dyck’s usage of the name as a variety 

of E. pectinatus leads definitely away from our plant. It 

would therefore seem that the resurrection of Terscheck’s name 

and the adoption of it for our plant was probably not required 

by the rules. It has certainly led to continuing confusion since 

that time. 

But once done, Britton and Rose’s beautiful and popular 

books carried the name E. reichenbachii so well into general use 

that what cactus E. caespitosus actually was has been forgotten 

by almost everyone. Yet any serious student coming across this 

name so definitely set forth by Engelmann would have to do 

something with it. Some merely regarded it as a synonym of 

the other, but others tried to prove that there were two separate 

plants for the two names. And here the confusion had its second 

effect and led to the second large problem encountered in understanding 

this cactus. 

Engelmann pinpointed the eastern range of this cactus almost 

exactly when he said it corresponded to the 96th meridian, and 

he very well indicated the western extent of its range in south 

Texas when he said it goes no farther west than the San Pedro 

(Devil’s) River. But he badly underestimated the extent of its 

range northward and westward in the northwestern quadrant 

of its area when he said it occurred only to about the 100th 

meridian and the Canadian River. In a later note he did add 

that it grew from the Arkansas River to Saltillo, which exactly 

corrects the range northward, but he did not ever seem to know 

that it occurs west of the 100th meridian. Actually, the plant is 

found well past the western edge of the Texas and Oklahoma 

panhandles to the last hills east of the Pecos River in New 

Mexico. 

Now, as one might expect, over the huge extent of this 

range from east to west and north to south there are certain 

gradients of characteristics in this cactus. And since Engelmann 

apparently had only eastern specimens to examine—his type 

came from the farthest southeastern location where it grows— 

his descriptions are definitely slanted toward the characters 

most commonly found in the eastern populations and do not 

allow for extremes found commonly only in specimens from 

the part of the range he did not know existed. For example, 

eastern specimens almost always have 20 to 30 radial spines and 

only extremely rarely—I estimate from my experience maybe 

in one plant out of a thousand—does one find fewer than 20 

radials. Yet in the plants from far western Oklahoma, northwestern 

Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado, while radial counts 

of 12 to 32 are found, many localities have a vast majority 

showing fewer than 20 radials and only a rare plant with more 

than 20. Throughout central Oklahoma we find all numbers 

from 12 to 32 commonly on the same hillside. Also, western 

plants usually have less wool on the growing stem areoles and 

shorter spines than eastern ones. There are other less obvious 

gradients as well. 

So when students who took the name E. reichenbachii for the 

common eastern forms began to notice the lower spine numbers, 

shorter spines, and smaller amount of wool of the far northwestern 

forms, they tended to think they had in these northwestern 

plants something worthy of a name. Britton and Rose 

made up some new names such as E. perbellus for these forms, 

but others, by a strange reversal, called them E. caespitosus. 

Boissevain and Davidson seem to have initiated this in their 

work on the Colorado cacti, and others have followed them. 

Backeberg, in a 1941 article, made a case for a plant from the 

Wichita Mountains of Oklahoma as being the true E. caespitosus 

because of its extreme amount of clustering, but in his later 

works has placed that plant correctly as a form of E. baileyi. 

However, he still keeps E. caespitosus as separate from E. 

reichenbachii, saying that the spine clusters of adjacent areoles 

on E. caespitosus do not intertwine, while those of E. reichenbachii 

do. I have checked this character specifically at dozens 

of locations all over the range of these cacti, and have found 

growing together, wherever there is a large population of 

plants, specimens with spines interlocking and specimens with 

spines not interlocking. Coulter made this variation clear many 

years ago, saying that on E. caespitosus, “Spines may or may 

not interlock.” 

It seems obvious, therefore, that we have one definite species 

with a very large range over which there is gradation. The 

species description in respect to spine number and so forth is, 

therefore, broadened in order to include specimens from the 

part of the range Engelmann did not see. The only question 

really remaining is which of the two proposed names is legitimate, 

and since I cannot honestly tell whether Terscheck meant 

this cactus by his Echinocactus reichenbachii, while it is obvious 

that Engelmann did with his Echinocereus caespitosus, I 

use that name here. 

Engelmann noticed that the spine color of individual specimens 

of this cactus varied from pure white to chestnut-brown 

or rosy. He called the brown ones E. caespitosus var. castaneus. 

This would be the form called by collectors the “brown lace.” 

Later an attempt was made to transfer this variety to E. pectinatus, 

a related species, and then to equate it with E. pectinatus


var. rubescens. However, other characters such as the long wool 

and the hairlike spines of the flower tube quickly distinguish it 

from E. pectinatus and show this sort of combination to be in 

error. The fact that almost any large population of E. caespitosus 

studied shows a complete range of colors from white to 

brown with all sorts of intermediates, and each local population 

varying only in proportionate numbers of the various 

colors, indicates that the color of individual plants is only a 

simple genetic character and not worthy of varietal name at all. 

At one time members of the Oklahoma cactus society collected 

and studied large numbers of these cacti from the Arbuckle 

Mountains of that state, where this species is very common. In 

doing this they found several specimens which bloomed with 

yellowish instead of violet flowers and one plant with white 

flowers. For these specimens they proposed the variety names 

aureiflora and albiflora, respectively. There is no report of these 

flower colors being seen again, and they are not listed as true 

varieties. 

If we can look beyond all this confusion, we have in this 

species a beautiful cactus, the lace cactus, white to brown in 

spine color, which is deservedly a favorite of all. It is most 

easily confused with E. pectinatus. Sometimes individual plants 

of the two are very hard to tell apart by spine and stem characters, 

although the spines of E. caespitosus are typically not so 

extremely pressed against the plant nor quite so heavy as those 

of the other. But for absolute identification of the two one must 

sometimes wait for the flowers to appear. There are various 

differences here, the most obvious being that—on the flower 

tube and remaining on the fruit—E. caespitosus has much long 

wool and extremely thin, flexible, hairlike spines up to 3/4 of 

an inch long, while E. pectinatus has shorter wool and comparatively 

thick, rigid spines up to only 3/8 of an inch long. 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. caespitosus (Eng.) 

Description Plates 3, 7 

stems: As the species. 


spines: As the species, except that it has 15 to 36 radial spines 

which are usually long enough to interlock with those of adjacent 

areoles. In most of its range only a very rare plant has 

the radials fewer than 20 in number. However in the extreme 

northwestern part of the range individuals with 15 to 

20 radials become the majority in some populations. 



Range. From approximately the 96th parallel in Texas and 

Oklahoma west to near Del Rio, Big Spring, and Amarillo in 

Texas and throughout central and western Oklahoma to the 

base of the Oklahoma Panhandle, but hardly if at all entering 

the Oklahoma Panhandle itself. The most northwesterly records 

of this form we have are Alabaster Caverns, Woodward, and 

Shattuck, Oklahoma, and Sanford and Palo Duro Canyon in 

Texas. 

Remarks. I take this to be the typical form of the species. It is the 

form discovered and described by Engelmann, from specimens 

taken in southeast Texas, as E. caespitosus. It is the form of the 

species which clusters the most, the name applying well for this 

reason. It is also the largest form the species assumes. 

I have broadened the spine count included in this variety 

from Engelmann’s 20 to 30 radials because in populations over 

the whole of the range given above we find occasional individuals 

exceeding his limits in both maximum and minimum to 

the extent we have indicated. Specimens with the lower numbers 

make up a larger proportion of the population the farther 

northwest one goes, but individuals falling entirely within his 

range of spine numbers are found all the way to the edge of the 

area we have indicated. I feel the plants over this wide area 

comprise one form varying in a continuous gradient from southeast 

to northwest. I consider it the typical variety. Those segments 

of this species which vary from this typical variety I list 

as separate varieties. 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. minor Eng. 


stems: As the species, except that it is very much smaller, 

apparently reaching a maximum of only 3 inches tall and 1 

inch in diameter. 


spines: As the species, except that no centrals have been seen. 

flowers: Small for the group, being 2 inches tall and 11/2 to 

13/4 inches in diameter. They are pale lavender-pink in color, 

and are otherwise as those of the species, except that the 

petals are smaller and only 15 to 25 in number, and the 

stigma lobes 8 in number. 

fruits: As the species, except smaller. 

Range. Known only from the vicinity of Stockdale, Wilson 

County, Texas. 

Remarks. Engelmann thought it necessary to set this dwarf 

form of the lace cactus apart as a variety, and so it seems to be. 

The diminutive size of its body is striking and the reduction of 

its flower parts from the typical numbers is consistent. 

Warning should be given, however, that not every small lace 

cactus discovered is this variety. Engelmann spoke about how 

precocious E. caespitosus is in blooming, and it is not unusual 

to find a 2-inch specimen of the typical variety in bloom. In 

certain areas, notably around the granitic region of Llano and 

Ink’s Lake, Texas, are found many clusters of very small stems. 

These, however, all bloom with the typical huge, many-petaled


purple flowers, and when grown in the garden will in time take 

on full stem size. 

The cactus meant by variety minor is different in that it does 

not grow larger in any situation, and its flowers are small, with 

only around 20 petals as opposed to the 30 to 50 of the typical 

form of the species. 

Engelmann gave no range or location for his dwarf form. 

We have encountered it only in Wilson County, Texas, where it 

grows in some fields in rather dense stands. 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. perbellus (B. & R.) 


stems: As the species, except that it is not over 4 inches tall, 

with ribs numbering 13 to 15. 


spines: As the species, except that the total radial number is 

only 12 to 15 and the central spine is always missing. 

flowers: As the species, except that they are not as large as 

the flowers of the species sometimes become. They are usually 

about 2 inches tall and wide. 


Range. The type locality is Big Spring, Texas. Individuals are 

found occasionally, associated with typical E. caespitosus populations 

north of this point in Texas, along the western edge of 

Oklahoma as far as Majors County, west into New Mexico as 

far as the Pecos River, and on into Colorado. A pure population 

of the form, unmixed with any other, has been found only 

near Muleshoe, Bailey County, Texas. 

Remarks. This is at best a doubtful variety, and certainly not 

a separate species. Its existence at all as a separate entity would 

probably never have been advocated except for that unfortunate 

failure of Engelmann to have Specimens from the northwestern 

part of its range when he drew up his description of 

E. caespitosus. Limited as he was to specimens from the east, he 

gave as the radial number for his species 20 to 30, which is the 

number on almost all examples found in central Oklahoma and 

Texas. But even here a rare plant will show 15 to 20 or more 

than 30 radials, giving us a hint that his spread is too narrow. 

This fact was apparently not realized for many years. 

So when Britton and Rose were confronted with small specimens 

from Big Spring, Texas, with only 12 to 15 radials, they 

immediately set up a new species, calling it E. perbellus, although 

all of its other characters which they listed equaled 

those of E. caespitosus. 

Later authorities appear to have seen no specimens of this 

form except the originals, and the species has stood as Britton 

and Rose described it until this time. 

In this study I have made great effort to collect this species 

in its type locality and to study it. Two extensive collecting 

trips into the Big Spring area netted numerous specimens of E. 

caespitosus with radials from 17 to 24 in number, but not those 

with the 12 to 15 of Britton and Rose. Finally, on a third extensive 

search of the area we collected two specimens, both 

small plants identical to the previous ones, but both with 12 to 

15 radials. We had apparently re-collected E. perbellus at last. 

But in the process we had established that specimens with 

fewer than 20 radials but more than 15 were common in the 

area, as they are in the surrounding countryside. We began to 

suspect that intermediates could be found linking these two 

numbers entirely and that we had no separate species here after 

all. Later collections throughout northwest Texas, western Oklahoma, 

eastern New Mexico, and Colorado established that the 

range of radial numbers throughout the area was 12 to 30, the 

most common being 17 to 26, these latter numbers appearing in 

the populations at almost any good location. 

At one location in Majors County, Oklahoma, we found 

specimens with radial counts as low as 12 and as high as 23. 

This was the same location where Caryl, in 1935, reported the 

first collection of E. perbellus in Oklahoma. But what we had 

here was no separate population of a separate form, but instead 

just some specimens of E. caespitosus with the lower extreme of 

spine number, mixed with typical specimens. At this discovery 

we were ready to follow Mrs. Lahman, no doubt the greatest 

student of Oklahoma cacti, who also in 1935 wrote, “In the 

meantime, I have crossed E. perbellus from my list of Oklahoma 

cacti until I find someone who really knows what it is.” We had 

about decided that Britton and Rose’s taxon had arisen out of 

Engelmann’s failure to realize the scope of his species and that 

it should be entirely relegated to the synonymy. 

This may still be the case, and the name may yet be dropped, 

but since then we have discovered a population of cacti in 

Bailey County, Texas, near Muleshoe, in which all of several 

dozen plants examined have 12 to 14 radials and no centrals. 

These bloomed with flowers typical, although small for the 

species, and have no other obvious character to distinguish 

them from that species. Since this is a pure population of this 

form, perhaps it should be recognized after all. It certainly 

cannot be considered a separate species, and may be only a 

clone. In the meantime, in the complete absence of any experimental 

evidence concerning any of the relationships of these 

plants, the most logical way to treat it so that it will not be lost 

and will be available for future study is to call it a variety of 

the species. 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. purpureus (Lahman) 

“Black Lace” 


stems: As the species, except that it is smaller in maximum 

size and clusters more sparingly.

evalution -> evaluation 



spines: 14 to 22 radials and 0 to 3 centrals, as the species, 

except that the outer part of each spine is shiny purplish or 

glistening black in color. 

flowers: As the species, except that they are always purple 

in color. There were 12 stigma lobes on all specimens seen. 


Range. The Wichita and Glass (Gloss) mountains of western 

Oklahoma. 

Remarks: This cactus was found at Medicine Park, Oklahoma, 

on the eastern edge of the Wichita Mountains, and described by 

Mrs. Lahman, who studied the cacti of Oklahoma extensively. 

It is very rare and has been seldom seen again. Mr. Charles Polaski 

of Oklahoma City, who has the finest private collection 

of cacti I have seen, supplied the first specimen of it which I 

had the privilege to study. This specimen came from the Glass 

Mountains about 100 miles north of the type locality at Medicine 

Park. Mr. Polaski, who grew up in the Wichita Mountains 

near Medicine Park says he has never seen it there, and I have 

searched the type locality without finding either it or any form 

of E. caespitosus. A large area of Medicine Park is now under 

the waters of Lake Lawtonka, and perhaps it grew in this nowflooded 

area. 

The Glass Mountain plants show the strikingly beautiful, 

purple-black coloring of the spines described by Mrs. Lahman. 

They show all of the other characters of her plant, except that 

the variation of radial spines is from 14 to 22, which raises the 

maximum number 4 spines beyond her report. This does not 

seem significant in the light of the variations in spine number 

we have already seen in this group. The large flower is as she 

describes, a very beautiful deep meadow violet, except that the 

throat may be reddish instead of green as she described it. This 

also seems unimportant, since we find other specimens of E. 

caespitosus with flowers with either green or reddish throats. 

The stigma lobes on all specimens seen were 12 in number, which 

is strikingly regular for this group. 

An evaluation of all the characters of this plant seems to show 

only the dark coloration of the spines to distinguish it from the 

typical E. caespitosus. Everything else falls within the known 

range of the species, when it is interpreted in the broad way 

made necessary by including specimens of all its range. This 

spine color does not seem sufficient grounds for considering it 

a separate species, so I place it here as a variety. Whether even 

this is justified remains to be determined after further study. 

The coloring of the plant body is very beautiful, and so conspicuous 

as to prompt special exclamations when it is seen in a 

collection. We have no other cactus with this striking coloration. 

It is so dark that the term, “black lace,” arises spontaneously 

for it. Even this shows how closely it is related to the 

more common lace cactus. Unfortunately it is very rare. Much 

ranchland must be covered to discover a single specimen. It 

would be a good cactus to be distributed by the trade. 

Echinocereus melanocentrus Lowry 


stems: Almost spherical to oval when young, becoming 

cylindrical. Single, or when very old, sometimes branching to 

include two or three side-branches. Each stem may reach a 

maximum of about 61/2 inches tall and about 2 inches thick. 

There are 10 to 13 ribs of definite, confluent tubercles. The 

surface color is very deep green. 

areoles: Practically touching to 1/8 of an inch apart. They 

are oval when young to elongated when old, and woolly at 

first, becoming bare. 

spines: There are 17 to 20 slender radial spines lying pectinate 

close to the plant surface. The upper ones are only 1/32 to 1/16 

of an inch long, the lateral ones gradually lengthening to a 

maximum in the lower laterals of 1/4 to 1/8 of an inch. The 

lowermost spines are somewhat shorter again. Spines of adjacent 

clusters may or may not interlock. There is one central 

spine on each areole standing out, perpendicular to the plant 

body, or turned slightly upward. It is straight and slender, 

like the radials and rises from a bulbous base, black or mahogany 

in color. It is 3/16 to 3/8 of an inch long. 

flowers: 2 to 3 inches across and tall. They are showy rosepink 

in color, with reddish centers. The petals are almost linear 

or slightly broadening over their upper parts, their ends more 

or less ragged. They recurve greatly as the flower ages, leaving 

it open extremely wide by the second day. The style is pinkish, 

the stigma lobes green and 12 or 13 in number. The ovary 

has on it cobwebby wool and very black or brown and white, 

very slender, flexible, hairlike spines 1/4 to 1/2 inch long. 

fruits: Unknown. 

Range. Very localized in sections of Jim Wells and Kleberg 

counties, Texas. 

Remarks: E. melanocentrus is one of those rare little cacti we 

find growing in extremely localized situations here and there. 

It is found under the extremely heavy brush of the small amount 

of uncleared territory there is left around Alice and Kingsville, 

Texas. Even here it is only found in certain spots. Much of this 

territory is in ranches where the owners are extremely jealous 

of their rights to keep outsiders out, and so few had seen this 

cactus until recently. Perhaps this is fortunate, because at the 

same time that this keeps the plant out of the public eye it 

preserves it in its natural setting. But the ranchers are using 

clearing devices and now spraying with brush-killing chemicals 

more and more, so the plant is not safe in any case. A few 

Texas dealers have found an accessible location and in the past 

few years I have seen possibly a hundred of the plants being 

distributed. 

This species is very similar to E. caespitosus in general appearance. 

It looks much like that other species with one conspicuous 

black central stuck on each areole. However, E. caespitosus 

does not grow anywhere within over 100 miles of the


location of E. melanocentrus, and the general aspect of the 

flowers of the two plants are somewhat different. 

The flowers of E. melanocentrus are apparently identical to 

those of E. fitchii, and there are other similarities to this species 

found farther west in south Texas, but the two will hardly be 

confused, since E. fitchii has 3 to 7 spreading centrals instead 

of only one, and its radials are not pectinate. 

E. melanocentrus is a little known specialty of an area which, 

having none of the more common representatives of this group, 

boasts its own 

Echinocereus fitchii B. & R. 


stems: Upright and usually single, sometimes putting out 

only 1 or 2 side-branches when very old. These stems are to 

6 inches tall and 2 inches thick, medium to dark green in 

color, having 10 to 14 ribs of low, confluent tubercles. 

areoles: Round when young, becoming oval on the sides of 

the plant. They are small in size, almost touching to 3/16 of 

an inch apart, and woolly when young, becoming bare. 

spines: There are 20 to 25 radial spines which are white with 

brown tips to tan with reddish-brown or black tips. They are 

slender and not pectinate, but spreading outward somewhat 

from the plant surface. The uppers are very short, the lower 

laterals becoming 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch long. There are 3 to 

7 slender central spines which are the same color as the radials, 

rising from slightly bulbous bases, 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch 

long and spreading to the sides instead of standing out in one 

row. 

flowers: Large and showy, pink, always with dark burgundy 

centers. They are about 21/2 inches tall and 2 to 4 

inches across. The flower tube possesses much cobwebby wool 

and 10 to 17 hairlike, yellowish or white, dark-tipped spines 

to 1/2 inch long. There is much variation in petal shape, as 

there is in this whole group. They run from linear to spatulate, 

and the ends are blunt or pointed, ragged or entire. Usually 

the petals recurve when the flower is completely open. The 

long style is pink, and there are 12 or 13 green stigma lobes. 

The flowers are fragrant. 

fruits: Spherical to oval, 1/2 to 1 inch long. They remain 

green and covered with white wool and spines. 

Range. Along the Rio Grande and away from it only a few 

miles from near Rio Grande City northwest past Laredo to not 

quite as far upstream as Eagle Pass, Texas. 

Remarks. E. fitchii seems to be an immigrant to us from Mexico, 

appearing as it does just along a stretch of the Rio Grande, but 

it appears not to be widespread in north Mexico either. I have 

collected paralleling its whole range about 50 miles within 

Mexico without seeing one specimen of the plant that far south. 

It does occur in Mexico, and there are other forms farther down 

in that country whose relationship to this must be close, but 

within our own territory it has only a tenuous foothold on 

gravelly hillsides overlooking the Rio Grande. Much of its territory 

was flooded by the huge Falcon Lake, and it is now possible 

to collect this cactus literally from the boat, when that 

lake is high. It is found to the northwestern edge of Webb 

County, but hardly farther in that direction, its range stopping 

almost too abruptly to believe, about 30 miles below the lower- 

most collection point of E. caespitosus. 

E. fitchii is easily distinguished from the other cacti of this 

group by the fact that its spines spread outward instead of lying 

neatly pectinate. This is a slight difference, but apparently a 

sufficient one, as one never hears this cactus called a lace cactus. 

Its numerous spreading centrals also distinguish it. 

Its spines are arranged very nearly like those of E. dasyacanthus, 

and it does look much like a small, delicate version of 

that cactus, but every other character is different, and no one 

should confuse them. 

It also shows a superficial similarity to E. pectinatus, but, 

besides the differences in the spines, the flowers are different. 

The ovary with its wool and hairlike, flexible spines is entirely 

unlike that of E. pectinatus, which lacks the long wool and has 

rigid spines. 

There is much variation in the spine colors of E. fitchii, as 

indicated in the description, but all spines on any plant are the 

same, so there is no banding. The difference is from individual 

to individual. The extreme on one side is almost pure white, 

with only pale brown tips on the spines; the plant of the opposite 

extreme has spines all tan or honey-colored below, with the 

outer half of each spine red-brown or black. Most plants in 

between these extremes present a sort of salt and pepper appearance 

over-all. 

The species is easy to grow and presents beautiful flowers. 

These flowers vary remarkably, however, in size and petal characters; 

there is hardly any variation in their fine, delicate col- 

oring. 

Echinocereus baileyi B. & R. 


stems: Globose or oblong at first, becoming cylindrical with 

age. They sometimes remain single, but usually form clusters 

which may become very dense with up to 30 stems when old. 

Individual stems measure up to 8 inches tall and 31/2 inches 

thick. They are medium green in color, with ribs narrow and 

somewhat tuberculate. 

areoles: Oval when young, and very woolly, becoming 

elongated when older. They usually become bare when very 

old, but may for a long time have a mass of dirty white or 

tawny wool at the upper edge of the areole, and some plants 

relatoinship -> 

relationship


have been seen on which the areoles remained rimmed with 

wool. They are 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch apart. 

spines: There are 12 to 28 slender but rigid radial spines 

which are not pectinate, but spreading outward from the 

plant and interlocking with those of adjacent areoles. The 

upper ones are very small and weak, the lateral ones become 

progressively longer until the lower laterals are 5/8 to 1 inch 

long. There are 0 to 5 centrals, these often very small, sometimes 

only 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch long, but on those plants with 

well-developed centrals they may be 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch 

long. When there are several centrals they spread from 

crowded bases almost lined up vertically in the middle of the 

areole. The spines vary in color from pure white to yellowish, 

straw to rust-brown, or even rosy reddish, but all on any 

given plant will be the same color, giving a fine variety of 

colors in most stands of the species. 

flowers: Large and showy, 2 to 3 inches tall and 21/4 to 31/2 

inches in diameter. They are fuchsia in color. The petals arise 

from narrow red bases and their upper parts are broad and 

fuchsia in color, with the ends ragged or erose. The stamens 

are very short, and the style is short for the group. There are 

10 to 21, but most commonly 10 to 12, dark green stigma 

lobes. The ovary surface is covered with a great deal of long 

white wool and also has 5 to 15 hairlike, white to rusty spines 

1/4 to 3/8 of an inch long on each areole. 

fruits: Egg-shaped, 3/8 to 1/2 of an inch long. They remain 

green and covered with wool and bristles until they dry and 

split open laterally to scatter the seeds. 

Range. Apparently restricted to the Wichita Mountains of 

southwestern Oklahoma. 

Remarks. This is one of the most attractive of the Echinocerei, 

yet it is very restricted in its range and, therefore, is not so well 

known as some of its relatives. It is an inhabitant of the unique 

granitic region of southwest Oklahoma comprising the Wichita 

Mountains. There have been occasional reports of its having 

been collected outside these mountains in adjacent areas of Okla- 

homa and even in nearby Texas, but those reports which it 

has been possible to check have all proved to deal with E. caespitosus 

instead. As one enters the Wichita Mountains from the 

east, near Lawton, Oklahoma, E. baileyi is found immediately, 

growing in beautiful stands, often of hundreds of plants together, 

upon the undisturbed granite-strewn slopes and ledges. 

It is found in profusion almost throughout the Wichita Mountains 

Wildlife Refuge and north of it a few miles, then northwest 

to Quartz Mountain and its attendant hills. The last of this 

mountain chain on the northwest is Granite Mountain, arising 

all alone above the town of Granite, Oklahoma. All over this 

huge pile of red granite, in the crevices of the main mass and 

in between the huge boulders, are clumps of E. baileyi, but beyond 

this, as in every other direction from these mountains, 

stretch the ordinary hills and plains of Oklahoma, where E. 

caespitosus takes over. 

E. baileyi is easily distinguished from its relatives by the profusion 

and length of its spines. These cover the whole plant and 

stand out from its surface in all directions, giving it a distinctly 

unkempt appearance when compared with the majority of the 

Echinocerei. Only E. longisetus from far-off northern Mexico 

has such long and unruly spines, and those are extremely slen- 

der and flexible, while these of E. baileyi are strong and rigid. 

The flowers of E. baileyi are similar in many ways to those 

of the lace cactus, but are not quite as big and flamboyant, and 

are rose-red rather than purple. 

When a whole population of this cactus is viewed on any 

good mountainside in its range, it presents a remarkable selection 

of spine colors. There is no variation on the individual 

plants and, therefore, no banding at all; but individual plants 

vary greatly from each other in color, the range of colors running 

from pure white through yellowish, tan, brown, and rusty 

to rose-red. The effect of all these colors together in a thick 

stand is very attractive. Also presented is quite a variation in 

number and length of radial spines, from as few as 12 to as 

many as 28, and the longest of these from as little as 5/8 of an 

inch on some plants to as much as 1 inch on others. Central 

spine number varies also, from none on some plants to 5 on the 

most heavily armed ones. 

All of these variations, with the exception of the radial number, 

seem to present gradients through the range, the majority 

of the plants in the east being white or light color and averaging 

shorter spines and fewer centrals, while on the western edge of 

the range at Granite, the majority are rusty or reddish, have 

spines averaging longer, and usually have several centrals in 

each areole. One cannot set up ranges for these variations within 

the over-all range, however. These are only averages. For 

instance, the darkest colored, rosy-tipped spines I have seen 

were on a plant growing within inches of a pure white neighbor 

near Medicine Park, at the eastern edge of the range, while the 

shortest spines I measured were on a white individual on far 

western Granite Mountain. These variations thus appear to be 

the result of simple quantitative inheritance within one major 

unit population. 

Britton and Rose first named and described this cactus. Unfortunately 

they had the benefit of only a few specimens to 

examine, brought to them by Mr. Bailey; and, therefore, they 

had no concept of the actual limits of the species’ characters. 

This fact has caused much confusion, especially since most more 

recent students have apparently seen no more representative 

series of the plant than they did, and so have attempted to follow 

Britton and Rose’s too narrow description. Backeberg, for 

instance, goes to quite some trouble, apparently in order to 

agree with Britton and Rose who say the plant has no centrals, 

to try to make a case that on older areoles the spines arising 

in the middle of the young areoles all finally assume radial 

positions. This is unfortunate, as on every mountainside, even 

among the predominantly central-less specimens of the east, there 

is an occasional plant with a distinct central or two, and in the


west the vast majority of plants have 2 to 5 unmistakable centrals 

up to 3/8 of an inch long. Similarly, Britton and Rose give 

“about 16” as the number of radials, while the number actually 

varies from 12 to 28. In the description given above I have 

broadened the limits to include the whole range of characters 

found in studying the whole population over its entire known 

range. This seems the only way to understand it as the contin- 

uous entity that it is. 

Probably because of Britton and Rose’s too limited description, 

attempts have been made to segregate parts of this population 

as separate species. Mrs. Lahman, noticing specimens which 

did not conform to the original description, described and attempted 

to set off E. oklahomensis, distinguished by having 20 

to 24 radials only 5/8 of an inch long and 0 to 2 centrals. She 

also set up E. longispinus, with 14 to 16 radials up to 1 inch 

long. Specimens with both these sets of characters are easily 

found on almost any undisturbed slope in the Wichita Mountains, 

and it does not seem that they deserve even varietal designation. 

They just represent two extremes of the plant, un- 

known to Britton and Rose. 

A more recent attempt has been made by Backeberg to break 

up the species. In an article in 1941, attempting to show that 

there was a difference between E. caespitosus and E. reichenbachii, 

he turned to some white, very greatly clustering specimens 

of E. baileyi sent him from Oklahoma and described them 

as the true E. caespitosus, rediscovered after all this time. He 

was impressed by the dense clusters of these specimens and 

thought Engelmann must have meant something like this in 

using the name he did for his plant. It is, however, obvious that 

Backeberg’s specimens could not be Engelmann’s E. caespitosus, 

since nothing like the Oklahoma plant grows within hundreds 

of miles of Industry, Texas, which was the type locality of E. 

caespitosus. It is equally obvious to anyone knowing Oklahoma 

cacti that Backeberg’s photo of his plant showed only a shortstemmed, 

clustering specimen of E. baileyi. Backeberg, in his 

more recent work, Die Cactaceae, has recognized this, and now 

calls this plant E. baileyi var. caespitosus. It seems unnecessary 

to maintain even this varietal distinction, as everywhere in the 

Wichita Mountains the whole range of variation exists together, 

from single-stemmed, tall specimens to greatly clustering 

plants. The largest cluster I myself have counted had 30 stems 

5 to 6 inches tall, and grew less than two feet from a plant, 

identical in every respect except that it was a full 8 inches tall 

and showing signs of old age without offering to ever become 

more than a single stem. 

Backeberg has also set up a set of varieties based almost entirely 

on spine color, as follows: E. baileyi var. brunispinus 

having long, chestnut-brown spines; variety flavispinus with 

soft and pale yellow spines; variety albispinus (Lahman) Backeberg 

having white spines; and variety roseispinus having long 

but soft spines, rose at the tips. This sort of thing appears to be 

useless in a case of quantitatively varying characters in which 

there are all possible intermediates. We could as well have eight 

varieties on color basis as four, once this sort of thing is started. 

If one can look beyond the minor differences, he will see 

whole hillsides of granite boulders in the crevices of which 

grow beautiful spiny columns and clusters of columns, from as 

red as the rocks themselves to as white as the snow which 

covers them here in the winter. This is E. baileyi, one of only 

two or three cacti unique to Oklahoma, and surely one of which 

the state can be proud. 

It is also necessary to report here what appears to be an even 

more rare and remarkable variant of this variable species. Years 

ago Oklahoma’s outstanding cactophiles, Mr. and Mrs. Charles 

Polaski, discovered a strange cactus on Headquarters Mountain, 

near Granite, Oklahoma. Only one individual was found, 

and much searching of the mountain has never revealed another. 

But Mr. Polaski is an expert at cactus culture, and he has propagated 

this individual vegetatively for many years by grafting. 

He most kindly gave me a cutting of it, as he has to others. 

The plant presents real peculiarities. The grafted cuttings 

have become cylindrical, clustering from the base, some stems 

up to 2 inches thick. The surface is in very indistinct ribs composed 

of almost separate tubercles. The areoles have 15 to 20 

short, spreading, whitish spines, but are more remarkable for 

having, besides the spines, a mass of fine, white wool. The 

whole plant remains covered with this woolly development, 

under the spines. I puzzled over my cutting of this plant for a 

number of years, while I tried to persuade it to bloom, but it 

finally died without responding that much to my care. 

In 1965, Curt Backeberg described this form as a new species, 

calling it Echinocereus mariae, and with his article is a photograph 

of its bloom, which appears much like the typical E. 

baileyi flower. 

What actually is this plant? After much reflection, I feel that 

this individual specimen found upon Headquarters Mountain 

is only an aberrant, atypical individual of E. baileyi, which 

grows in its typical form all over the mountain. Note that the 

spines are much like those of E. baileyi in everything except 

length-they are shorter. Note also that the growing tip of 

E. baileyi has the same sort of woolly areoles, the wool later, 

with maturity, falling off. Add to this the fact that the ribs in 

the growing tip of E. baileyi are, as in most cacti, markedly 

tuberculate, only flattening out later; that Backeberg’s photo 

shows a flower in no visible character contrasting with those 

of this species; and that the grafted cuttings greatly surpass the 

2.3 centimeters maximum he gives for the stem diameter of the 

original specimen, and approach the typical stem size of E. 

baileyi. Notice that all of these unique characters of this cactus 

can be interpreted as a retention of juvenile or immature form. 

This makes it seem that we have here a plant retarded in some 

way, and the flower, when it was finally seen, not being unique, 

I feel it should be considered an atypical individual of E. 

baileyi. 

I therefore do not list this as a separate species here. This 

decision is also influenced by the following consideration. It


does not seem proper to erect new species upon only one individual, 

and I understand that this plant was never re-collected. 

If the modern concept of the species as a population had 

been followed in the past, numerous names based upon one 

atypical specimen only would never have been proposed, and 

the study of cacti would be much simpler. While the knowledge 

of this specimen and its existence for all these years in several 

collections stands as a fitting tribute to the surpassing abilities 

of Mr. and Mrs. Polaski in collecting and culturing cacti, it 

seems the one individual can hardly constitute a formal taxon. 

Echinocereus albispinus Lahman 


stems: Densely clustering. Individual stems are cylindrical 

arid 3 to 6 inches tall, while to only 1 inch thick, with 12 to 

14 narrow, tuberculate ribs. 

areoles: Oval, very woolly when young. The wool persists 

for a long time, but very old areoles are bare. 

spines: 14 to about 20 radial spines, not pectinate against the 

plant surface but deflected evenly outward all around the 

areole. They are very slender, the uppers the shortest, being 

only 3/16 of an inch or so long, while the laterals are from 

3/8 to 1/2 inch long. There are no centrals. All spines are pure 

white, or sometimes white with light brown, translucent tips. 

flowers: Very pale pink or rose-pink, 11/2 to 21/2 inches tall 

and 1/4 to 3 inches in diameter. They usually open very 

widely so that the petals are curved backward. These petals 

arise from very narrow, brownish bases and broaden only 

slightly to a maximum width of only 1/4 of an inch. The upper 

parts of the petals are whitish-pink. The upper edges of the 

petals are very ragged, but they are pointed at the apex. The 

Style is white, and there are 7 to 11 light green stigma lobes. 

The ovary surface has much white wool and clusters of 12 or 

more hairlike spines up to 1/4 of an inch long, in shades of 

white, grays, tans, browns, to black. These flowers are usually 

produced below the apex of the plant and may appear well 

down the sides of the stems. 

fruits: Almost spherical, 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch across, green, 

said to be edible. They split open when ripe. 

Range. The type locality of this species is near Medicine Park, 

Oklahoma, in the eastern end of the Wichita Mountains. It had 

not been found outside of the type locality until, during this 

study, it was collected on a single granite ridge a few miles 

northwest of Tishomingo, in Johnston County, Oklahoma. 

Remarks. When Mrs. Lahman made her study of the cacti of 

the Wichita Mountains, she spoke of most of her new forms as 

variations of E. baileyi, even while giving several of them new 

species names. But two forms which she discovered she set apart 

most definitely from that species. After listing her five variations 

of the E. baileyi species, she then said, “Also there are two 

others which appear to be separate species and are here described 

as E. purpureus and E. albispinus.” We have seen that 

her E. purpureus was in fact separate from the E. baileyi varieties, 

since it appears instead to be a form of E. caespitosus. 

Therefore I would assume that her E. albispinus is accurately 

set off from E. baileyi also, instead of being just the white form 

of that plant. 

The cactus which fits her description will not be confused 

with E. baileyi by any observer who sees it in a living condition. 

Its spines are shorter, and while they are not pectinate, 

they stand out around the areole evenly at the angle found on 

some specimens of E. caespitosus. It has the manicured appearance 

of that species and none of the disheveled look of E. 

baileyi. In fact, it is much nearer in appearance to a longspined 

E. caespitosus than to a short-spined E. baileyi. Even 

from Mrs. Lahman’s photograph this is clear. 

However, it seems distinct from both. Its mature stems are 

more slender as well as shorter than those of either of the others, 

and its flowers are different. They are smaller and the most 

pale in color of any related Echinocereus. The exaggerated way 

in which they open back until the petal tips almost touch the 

outside of the ovary is also unique, as well as the low position 

on the stem from which the flowers usually, but not always, 

sprout. 

E. albispinus is probably the most rare of Oklahoma cacti. 

We have seen no evidence that this cactus has actually been 

observed alive by any student since Mrs. Lahman until this time. 

Her description and photos of it are usually reprinted without 

any elaboration. Backeberg, however, quickly assumed that she 

referred to the common white-spined E. baileyi, and so appropriated 

her name for his series of color-dictated varieties, 

making it E. baileyi var. albispinus. Not only does this sort of 

variation based on color alone seem ill-founded, but the use of 

this name in this way ignores the already-mentioned differences 

which set this plant off from all the E. baileyi forms. 

Thanks to the aid of Drs. Bruce Blauch and Claude Gatewood 

(until recently of the Oklahoma State University), we have 

collected a number of specimens of a cactus which fits Mrs. 

Lahman’s description very well. We feel that it is distinct from 

any other and stands best as a separate species between E. 

baileyi and E. caespitosus. 

It was truly surprising when this cactus turned up on a single 

one of the many granite ridges near Tishomingo, Oklahoma. The 

area in which the plant grows in that location is only a few 

acres and the total population is probably no more than 100 

plants. This is fully 100 miles from the type locality of E. albispinus 

or from any known collections of E. baileyi. E. caespitosus 

grows in profusion not many miles away, but is not found 

associated with this plant. This is one of those surprising turns 

of distribution found so often in cacti.


Echinocereus chisoensis Marshall 


stems: Columnar, to 8 inches tall, but remaining rather slender, 

the greatest diameter seen being two inches. They are 

almost always simple, but may, very rarely, branch above the 

ground. They have 13 to 16 ribs composed of very distinct 

tubercles almost completely separated from each other by 

broad valleys. The color of the surface is deep green or bluishgreen. 

areoles: Very small for the group, being about 1/8 of an 

inch or less across. They are circular and woolly at first, becoming 

oval and naked when older. These areoles are about 


spines: There are 10 to 15 very slender radial spines which 

radiate evenly around the areole and lie almost parallel to 

the plant body. They are white or gray below with the upper 

part red-brown or maroon. The uppermost ones are very small, 

only 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch long, and bristle-like. The lateral 

ones are progressively longer, until the lower laterals are 1/4 

to 3/4 of an inch long. There are also 1 to 4 central spines. 

One is porrect or nearly so and 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long, 

while the others are more or less spreading and shorter. They 

are all very slender and straight, from bulbous bases. They 

are black or dark red-brown, usually with whitish bases. 

flowers: Rose in color, with reddish centers, about 21/2 

inches long, but never opening widely, and so only 1 to 2 

inches in diameter. The petals are long and these would be 

big flowers of 3 or more inches across if they opened back, 

but the petals remain almost perfectly upright. They are oblong, 

the bases deep red and the upper parts rose, with entire, 

pointed tips. The pistil is short and white. The stigma is composed 

of 10 small, green lobes. The surface of the ovary has 

some white wool and clusters of 8 to 14 white to brownish, 

hairlike spines. 

fruits: Elongated, 1 to 13/8 inches long and about 1/2 inch 

in diameter. They are red and fleshy when ripe, but covered 

with wool and bristles. When older they become dry and 

split open. 

Range. Restricted to the Chisos Mountains within the Big Bend 

National Park, Brewster County, Texas. 

Remarks. This cactus was first described by Marshall in 1940. 

It is an obscure species, perhaps best described as retiring in 

both habitat and appearance. Even among those living and 

working at the Big Bend National Park, it is mostly unknown. 

The reasons for its remaining so little known are clear. It 

hides shielded in the middle of clumps of brush and never seems 

to dare to expose itself on ledges or open spaces. Among the 

stems of protecting bushes its small, upright column is well 

camouflaged and so is seldom seen. Even its flowers are strikingly 

reserved for an Echinocereus. They are as large as many of 

the flamboyant ones, but discreetly remain almost closed even 

during the few hours of the afternoon when they are open at 

all, showing only the pale rose color of the outer petal surfaces. 

There is bright color within them, but it is deep in the center 

where only the bees see it and it attracts no one else. 

Although almost unknown, the cactus is not rare in its area. 

Marshall spoke of examining over three hundred specimens, and 

I found it easy to locate dozens of them, once I knew how to 

search for them. 

The relationships of the plant to other Echinocerei are difficult 

at best to determine. Marshall discussed its similarity to 

some forms of E. fendleri, but concluded that they were only 

superficial. On the other hand, characters of the ovary surface, 

rib and areole arrangement, and spine form all relate it more 

closely to E. pectinatus or E. caespitosus than to E. fendleri. 

E. chisoensis is a delicate cactus, rarely seen, but a unique 

resident of the Big Bend National Park, where it is, fortunately, 

protected and so should be with us long after many of its more 

flamboyant relatives are decimated through a combination of 

conspicuousness and lack of protection. 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. wenigeri Benson 

“Comb Hedgehog” 


stems: Single, or sometimes in old specimens 2 or 3 to one 

plant. They are egg-shaped to stoutly cylindrical, growing to 

10 inches tall and 31/2 inches thick. Rows of distinct but confluent 

tubercles make up shallow ribs on the stems. The num- 

ber of ribs on Texas plants is 13 to 18. 

areoles: Broadly oval and woolly when growing at the tip 

of the plant, but becoming narrowly oval or elongated and 

bare when older, on the sides of the stem. These areoles are 

from almost touching to 3/16 of an inch apart. 

spines: There are 15 to 20 radial spines which are pectinate, 

spreading over the surface of the plant, the laterals actually 

to some extent recurved back into the grooves between the 

ribs. They are medium strength to rather heavy and very 

rigid. The upper ones are most slender and short and the 

laterals longer, to between 3/8 and 1/2 inch. There are 2 or 3 

central spines standing in a vertical row in the center of each 

areole. They are stout, but very short, only 1/16 to 1/8 of an 

inch long. All spines are white with pinkish or purplish tips. 

flowers: Very large and striking in appearance, 3 to 5 inches 

tall and broad. The outer one-half or less of each oblong, 

broad, blunt petal is lavender pink in color. Below that is an 

expanse of white extending to the narrow bases of the petals, 

which are green. This gives a unique, three-colored flower, 

pink around the edges with a distinct white zone making up


sometimes half of the flower, followed by a greenish center. 

The stigma is whitish and supports 9 to 12 large, dark green 

stigma lobes. The ovary surface bears some short, white wool 

and 6 to 18 rigid spines, white or white with dark brown 

tips and measuring to 3/8 of an inch long. 

fruits: Spherical or nearly so, about 1 inch in diameter. 

Fleshy at first, becoming bronze or brown in color, after 

which they dry and split open. 

Range. A local form of a Mexican species encountered only 

occasionally in Texas, from Del Rio on the east to just beyond 

Sanderson on the west, in a strip not over twenty miles wide 

along the Rio Grande. It is not reported from the Big Bend in 

Texas, but has been reported from the southern edge of New 

Mexico, although the report has not been confirmed. 

Remarks. The species E. pectinatus grows widely in Mexico, but 

can be regarded as established in only two areas of the U. S. It 

is well represented in Arizona, one form coming from that state 

into the extreme southwest corner of New Mexico as well; and 

the form just described is rare but can be found in a limited 

strip of Texas from Del Rio to Sanderson. Strangely, it seems 

to be missing in the wide expanse of the border between these 

locations. This leaves the Texas form of it isolated from the rest. 

It is never common even in that area. A full day’s tramping 

over the hills just north of the Rio Grande in the vicinity of 

the lower Pecos and Devil’s rivers will yield at best one or two 

specimens, if the searcher has good eyes and better luck. 

The Texas range of the cactus begins just west and south of 

the southwesternmost range of E. caespitosus and extends west 

just to the beginning of E. dasyacanthus. It is sandwiched be- 

tween these its two closest relatives. 

The Texas specimens of this cactus have some differences 

from the typical specimens from Mexico, namely, fewer ribs; 

more oval, more woolly, and more widely spaced areoles; 

whiter spine coloring; and a lower maximum number of both 

radial and central spines, as well as heavier spines. At first, I 

did not distinguish it from the Mexican E. pectinatus, but after 

I became familiar with the Texas plants and after I had studied 

literally hundreds of Mexican specimens coming from that 

country through our Texas cactus dealers, and had collected 

the plant in various parts of Mexico myself, without finding 

one specimen to match ours, I became convinced that we have 

here our own distinct form. L. Benson erroneously refers my 

specimens of variety ctenoides from Mexico to this variety and 

so credits me wrongly with having collected the variety in 

Mexico as well as in Texas. 

The cactus may well be Hooker’s E. pectinatus var. texana, 

but there is no way to know, and, therefore, that name has not 

been recognized by any recent writers. L. Benson finally described 

and typified the form, naming it after the author. I 

feel it deserves varietal rank, as he indicated. 

E. pectinatus var. wenigeri can easily be distinguished from 

E. dasyacanthus because its radials are rigidly recurved and 

appressed to the surface of the plant instead of spreading outward, 

and because its centrals are very short, and are always 

in one vertical line instead of being longer and spreading outward. 

The typical Mexican E. pectinatus is actually much closer 

to E. dasyacanthus than is variety wenigeri. It is equally easy 

to distinguish from the typical E. caespitosus, which also has 

more outward-standing, finer spines, and often no centrals at 

all. But some specimens of E. caespitosus have very nearly as 

recurved radial spines and 1 or 2 short centrals in the middle 

of the areole. It is then very hard to distinguish the two by the 

plant body alone. But if one has the opportunity and patience 

to observe the flowers of the two the distinction is obvious: 

E. pectinatus presents a flower tube with short wool and short, 

rigid spines, while E. caespitosus always has long wool and 

long, flexible, hairlike spines on its flower. The white zone is 

also always present in the flower of E. pectinatus, while the 

flower of the other always lacks it, since its darker purple pet- 

als deepen to a reddish or greenish center. 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. rigidissimus (Eng.) Rümpl. 

“Arizona Rainbow Hedgehog,” “Cabeza del Viejo” 


stems: Thick columnar to 8 inches tail and 4 inches thick. 

They may be single or rarely branched, with 18 to 23 nar- 

row, tuberculate ribs. 

areoles: Elongated, and from practically touching to 1/4 of 

an inch apart. 

spines: There are 15 to 23 radial spines which are pectinate 

and recurved to lie fiat on the surface of the plant. They are 

very heavy and rigid. The upper spines of each areole are 

small and a translucent tan, amber, or gray. The laterals and 

lower spines are to 5/8 of an inch long, tan or amber, amber 

with red tips, or sometimes all red. The plant usually presents 

a banded appearance due to successions of these spine colors. 

There are no central spines. 

flowers: Identical to those of previous form except the outer 

parts of the segments fuchsia and often having 13 stigma 

lobes. 

fruits: As those of the previous form. 

Range. Extreme southwest New Mexico and south Arizona in- 

to Sonora, Mexico. 

Remarks. This is now regarded as a variety of E. pectinatus. It 

presents the same large, white-zoned flowers and the same 

general appearance, being, however, distinguished from the 

typical form of the species by its heavier spines and its larger 

stem size. The spines are always all radials, and are the longest 

and heaviest of this species. They interlock, and the plant body 

is usually hidden under this thick, rigid armament lying flat 

Rumpl. -> 

Rümpl. 

Veijo -> Viejp

profilic -> 

prolific 


upon it. This seems also to be the only one of this group to 

present a variegation of the spine color on a single areole. Typically, 

the upper, smaller spines of each areole are lighter, while 

the lower ones are more or less red. These characters make it 

easily distinguishable from the other varieties of the species. 

It will be noticed that the pattern of coloration of the spines 

is almost the same as those of E. viridiflorus. Because of this I 

have seen this cactus confused by beginners with large, robust, 

short-spined specimens of E. viridiflorus var. cylindricus of the 

Big Bend in Texas. If closer observation does not clear up this 

error, the big purplish flower is surely a surprise when it appears 

where the little greenish one was expected. 

The flower of variety rigidissimus is identical with that of 

the species. It seems, however, to be a more prolific bloomer 

when cared for, and so is a great favorite of growers. Numerous 

photographs of this plant in its glory with many of the 

striking flowers open at once have been printed in various 

books and magazines. 

This cactus seems to be limited in its natural range to the 

mountains of the southwest corner of New Mexico and southeastern 

Arizona, coming up out of Mexico in only that one 

area. Coulter once stated that it was found in west Texas, but 

this seems doubtful. It is a beautiful form, just managing to 

enter the corner of our area. 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. ctenoides (Eng.) 


stems: Single or sometimes clustering to half a dozen stems, 

each heavily cylindrical and to 6 inches tall by 3 inches in 

diameter, having 15 or 16 ribs greatly interrupted by tubercles. 


spines: As the species except that the radial number is only 

14 to 22 and the centrals always number 2 to 4. The spines 

are white with very light brown tips. The plants are never 

purplish or banded with color. 

flowers: A large and showy orange-yellow, 21/2 to 4 inches 

long and wide. The petals are almost linear to narrowly 

spatulate, the ends erose. The upper part of each petal has a 

bright orange midline. The lower one third of each petal is 

green, and the center bright green. The style is greenish white, 

and there are 13 dark green stigmas. The outer ovary surface 

has a little short white wool and 14 to 16 short, rigid spines, 

which are white with dark brown tips, per areole. 

fruits: 1/2 to 11/8 inches in diameter, spherical or egg-shaped. 

They are green, turning to greenish-brown when ripe, and 

covered with short wool and rigid spines which, however, 

become deciduous when the fruit ripens. 

Range. Given originally as from Eagle Pass to the Pecos in 

Texas and south to near Santa Rosa, Coahuila, Mexico. It is 

said to exist westward in Mexico into Chihuahua. Apparently 

it is now extinct in Texas. 

Remarks. It is a real indication of the thoroughness of the early 

collectors and of Engelmann’s studies that this plant was collected 

and described over one hundred years ago. I am persuaded 

that none of the more recent students of cacti since 

Coulter have seen it at all, but this has not kept them from 

writing about it, and so the confusion is extensive, as can be expected. 

Engelmann described the cactus in detail and pictured it well, 

including the flower. He had specimens from Bigelow, collected 

at Eagle Pass and near Santa Rosa, Coahuila, and those of 

Wright, collected by the lower Pecos River, which is not far 

from Eagle Pass. He stated that the plant “looked distinct 

enough from C. dasyacanthus,” and then he stated that “the 

flowerless plant so closely resembles C. pectinatus that it can 

hardly be distinguished from it except by the fewer ribs.” 

In spite of this, later students have, probably because of its 

yellow flowers, tried to link this with E. dasyacanthus, and in 

their enthusiasm they have published some pictures of several 

different forms under this name. Backeberg finally grew bold 

enough to come out and call the cactus E. dasyacanthus var. 

ctenoides. 

In making this study, we recognized that this plant was one 

of the least known of all in our area and needed clearing up 

more than almost any other, so we early made attempts to collect 

and study it. For four years we made field trips regularly 

to the Eagle Pass vicinity and the area of the lower Pecos River 

looking for it. In this time I believe that I myself covered almost 

every undisturbed acreage along the Rio Grande from 

below Eagle Pass to the Pecos looking for this cactus, and it is 

not now to be found. We believe the form is now extinct on 

the north side of the Rio Grande—if indeed Engelmann meant 

to imply that it was on this side of the river in the first place. 

Still wanting to find out what the plant really was, we then 

extended our field trips into the adjacent part of Coahuila, 

working down toward the Santa Rosa Mountains, which was 

the other location where Engelmann reported the plant as growing. 

We found nothing for many miles below Eagle Pass, but in 

the rugged mountains northwest of Santa Rosa (now called 

Ciudad Muzquiz) we suddenly found stands of small, white 

Echinocerei almost exactly like E. pectinatus, except for their 

whiter spines. We noted that they were much more inclined to 

cluster than any E. pectinatus we had seen, and then, noting the 

regularly 15 or 16 ribs and 2 to 4 centrals, we began to hope 

that we had found ctenoides. When the plants bloomed, they 

presented large, light-orange flowers, and we had our confirmation. 

It is obvious, as it should have been from Engelmann’s description 

and his illustrations, that this is a form of E. pectina


tus. It bears no characters half so close to E. dasyacanthus, except 

the flower color, and we now know that that species has 

flowers ranging from yellow to magenta. With this we have the 

parallel situation of E. pectinatus with flowers from orange- 

yellow to fuchsia. 

The question of whether this cactus should even remain listed 

as a separate variety will doubtless now become the order of 

business. We do not separate the yellow, pink, and magenta- 

flowered strains of E. dasyacanthus this way. But it seems that 

this plant has other consistently maintained characters setting 

it off from its species: such as its greater clustering tendency, 

its smaller size, its fewer ribs, and so forth. 

We apparently are faced here with the first cactus form rendered 

extinct from our area of the United States in the past 

hundred years. Very much of the land around Eagle Pass is 

farmed and the majority of the range areas which look undisturbed 

have actually been cleared in one way or another in the 

past, so this is not really surprising. But may we take warning 

from this and cherish our other cacti found in limited areas 

more actively? 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus Eng. 

“Texas Rainbow Cactus,” “Golden Rainbow Hedgehog,” 

“Yellow-Flowered Pitaya” 


stems: Oval at first, soon becoming cylindrical. They grow 

to a maximum of 14 inches tall and 4 inches thick. These stems 

often remain single, but old plants quite often branch to 

form several heads. They have 12 to 21 narrow, tuberculate 

ribs. 

areoles: Round and with tan wool at the growing tip of an 

active stem, becoming oval or elliptical and bare when older. 

They are 1/8 to 3/8 of an inch apart. 

spines: There are 15 to 25 radial spines per areole, all spreading 

outward at various angles from the surface of the plant 

and interlocking with those of adjacent areoles, so that the 

plant surface is heavily covered by them. They are rigid and 

of medium thickness, the upper ones very short and the laterals 

to 1/2 or even 5/8 of an inch long. There are also 2 to 5 

robust centrals usually 1/8 to 1/2 inch long, but occasionally 

3/4 or even 1 inch long. These centrals stand spreading in all 

directions from the center of the areole, and are not lined up 

in a vertical row. All spines are white, yellowish, or tan, 

with their tips reddish or rust-brown. The variations in color 

shades are often found in zones up and down an individual 

plant, giving the typical specimen distinct bands of color, 

although some specimens are of one unvarying color and so 

are not banded at all. 

flowers: Very large and showy. 3 to 51/2 inches long and 

wide, in colors they range from yellow through pink to violet 

and magenta. The very long petals are spatulate, with the 

ends ragged and variously notched or pointed. Their bases 

are green. The style is long and white. There are 12 to 22 

large, deep green stigma lobes. The long flower tube has some 

short wool and 7 to 18 rigid spines to 1/2 inch long and pure 

white to white with reddish tips upon each areole. 

fruits: Spherical, 1 to 2 inches in diameter. They are covered 

with spines until ripe, when these become deciduous and the 

fruit becomes red-brown or purplish. 

Range. Southeastern New Mexico through southwestern Texas 

and the Big Bend. On the east it extends to near Sanderson and 

Fort Stockton, and into the Guadalupe Mountains of Texas. It 

follows these mountains a short distance north into New Mexico. 

It is common in the Big Bend and around El Paso, Texas. 

It has been said to extend west all the way into Arizona, but I 

cannot verify this. 

Remarks. E. dasyacanthus is the largest member of this group, 

the most robust in every feature. It likes to stand unprotected 

by the shade of any other plant on the thin soil of rocky slopes, 

where its thick spine cover gives it protection from the severe 

elements as well as from all enemies. A colony of fine old plants 

on a Big Bend hillside, many of them to at least a foot tall and 

varying from almost white to reddish or rusty brown, often 

banded with these colors, is a proud and handsome sight. They 

bloom with huge flowers, often opening well down on the sides 

of the plants. These flowers come in all shades from pale yellow 

to reddish, pink, and even deep magenta. 

It seems obvious that no varieties can be set up within this 

species on the basis of flower color. Other variations found 

within the limits of this species, such as banding or lack of 

banding with color, do not seem any more significant. Miss 

Clover set up the name E. steereae for the whitish, nonbanded, 

violet-flowered population found in the Chisos Mountains of 

the Big Bend, but this does not seem warranted. Rumpler tried 

to make this E. pectinatus var. steereae, but the radials are not 

pectinate, nor are the areoles elongated. If made a variety, it 

would have to be E. dasyacantha var. steereae, as Backeberg 

lists it, but even this does not seem supportable since we would 

have only the flower color to distinguish it. 

Whether or not the limits of this species have been drawn 

widely enough is another question. Coulter found a cactus somewhere 

in southeastern New Mexico which he called E. dasyacanthus 

var. neo-mexicanus (note that this is not the same as 

Wooton’s E. neo-mexicanus). Coulter described his plant as having 

areoles 3/8 to 9/16 of an inch apart, with stouter, “spreading 

radials and 4 stout centrals and larger seeds.” He apparently 

did not see the flowers of this plant. 

No one has since been sure what this cactus of Coulter’s 

really was, and the name should probably be eliminated, since 

it seems impossible to know. Most have found it irresistible to 

speculate, however, and I would add my own theory. Coulter 

Glover -> 

Clover 

Rumpler: see 

bottom of page 

“ E. pectinatus v. steereae Rumpler” is an impossible 

combination. Probably a name confusion


did not know that E. dasyacanthus could have any flower color 

except yellow. He even used this flower color to key this plant 

from its relatives. So he automatically set both the species and 

his variety of it off from all of its red or purple-flowered 

relatives and apparently never thought to compare characters 

between the two groups he had set up, yellow-flowered and 

purple-flowered. Since we now know that this division will 

not stand, when we disregard flower color, we find that the 

characters of his E. dasyacanthus var. neo-mexicanus and those 

of the red-flowered E. roetteri are practically identical. Remembering 

that they are similar enough so that Engelmann had 

first called E. roetteri by the name of E. dasyacanthus var. 

minor, and that Coulter did not know the flower color of his 

variety, I find it likely that his variety neo-mexicanus was 

nothing but E. roetteri. Beyond this sort of speculation we can- 

not go. 

Benson decided to combine E. dasyacanthus with E. pectinatus 

as a variety of that other species, and since by the rules of 

nomenclature, one must use an earlier variety name for such a 

combination if one exists, he calls our cactus E. pectinatus var. 

neo-mexicanus in place of E. dasyacanthus. Even in doing this, 

he commented that this was unfortunate, and so it surely is, as 

it would leave us for our most well-known rainbow cactus only 

an obscure name which refers to no one knows what for sure. 

It seems that the species is distinct enough from E. pectinatus 

anyway, and the combination need not be made in the first 

place. 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. dasyacanthus (Eng.) 



areoles: As the species, except always round. 

spines: As the species, except that the centrals are not seen 

less than 3/8 of an inch long. 



Range. Southeastern New Mexico and southwestern Texas east 

to the Guadalupe and Davis mountains and to near Sanderson, 

Texas. From these areas it ranges into Mexico. It is also said to 

range west into Arizona, but I have been unable to confirm 

this definitely. 

Remarks. This is the common, typical form of the species which 

is so widely appreciated by almost everyone who looks at cacti 

at all. It is a dominant part of almost every collection from 

western Texas or southern New Mexico. However, most specimens 

grown in gardens come from along the highways instead 

of from farther south in the nearly inaccessible mountains along 

the Rio Grande, and so most people see only yellow-flowered 

individuals. 

There is actually a gradient of flower color in the wild population. 

Nearly all plants growing in New Mexico and around 

El Paso bloom yellow or orange-yellow. In the Big Bend of 

Texas pink is more common; and in the lower and eastern part 

of the Big Bend red and purplish are almost the rule. The full 

range of colors is found south and west of Sanderson, with 

some populations there being almost entirely magenta. I saw a 

beautiful collection of over one hundred local specimens in a 

rock garden in Sanderson in which all the range of colors were 

blooming together, but with yellow the most rare. Each specimen 

I have seen has presented only one color of flower, but 

Marshall reported seeing a specimen bloom with yellow and 

purple flowers simultaneously. 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. hildmanii Arendt 


stems: Ovate to tapering cylindrical, single at first but soon 

clustering to at least 6 or 8 stems, each of these to 10 inches 

tall and 3 inches in diameter. The flesh is dark green, and 

the stems have 12 to 16 very tuberculate, narrow ribs. 

areoles: Round to oval, woolly when young, then bare. 


spines: 15 or 16 radials to 3/8 of an inch long, white or gray 

at the bases with maroon or brownish tips. There are 3 to 5 

centrals 1/8 to 5/16 of an inch long, from the same color as the 

radials to completely maroon or dark red-brown. The spines 

do not band the plant with color. 

flowers: 4 inches tall, 31/2 inches across, deep orange-yellow, 

with 15 to 19 stigmas. Otherwise they are as the species. 

fruits: Not observed. 

Range. The Davis and Apache mountains of west Texas to near 

Pecos, Texas. 

Remarks. This form is very close to E. dasyacanthus, yet is sufficiently 

distinct from it to be set apart from it even by amateurs 

who don’t have any name for it. It is never a rainbow, 

having no banding of colors. The fewer spines do not cover 

its body so entirely, so the dark green flesh is always visible. 

Although the individual stems are smaller, the cactus is definitely 

a clustering one. I have actually yet to see an unbranched 

specimen, and the largest I have seen had 8 stems loosely clumped 

in a cluster well over a foot in diameter. This sort of growth 

is never seen in the typical E. dasyacanthus. Yet the flowers of 

the two are almost indistinguishable, and the other character differences 

between them are so minor that it seems no more than 

a variety. 

Since Arendt described it in 1892, it has, probably, not been 

seen by any student until now. Schumann did not mention it, 

and Britton and Rose seem to have confused it with E. fendleri

Rumpl -> Rümpl 


var. bonkerae, in which Backeberg followed them. It should be 

noted that their description when discussing the plant is of specimens 

collected in the Santa Catalina Mountains of Arizona, 

and so not of this plant. Arendt described it definitely as a 

Texas cactus. It is a rare form, and limited to the Davis and 

Apache mountains and the hills northeast of them to near the 

Pecos River. 

Echinocereus roetteri (Eng.) Rümpl. 


stems: Single, at first rather egg-shaped, but becoming cylindrical, 

up to 6 inches tall and about 3 inches in diameter. The 

surface is bluish or grayish-green, and there are 10 to 13 ribs 

which are composed of definite tubercles. 

areoles: Oval or sometimes round, with some tan wool when 

young, but naked when old. These areoles are 1/4 to 1/2 inch 

apart. 

spines: There are 8 to 15 radial spines, the variation due to 

the plant’s frequent addition of very tiny bristle-like radials 

at the top of the areoles. These upper radials are only 1/8 to 

3/16 of an inch long. The lateral radials are of medium thickness, 

straight, and up to 1/2 inch long. The lowermost radial 

is a little shorter and weaker than the laterals. There are also 

2 to 5 centrals which are stout and straight, 3/8 to 1/2 inch 

long, and spreading in all directions. All the spines are opaque 

and ashy brown or almost maroon, with the tips blackish, 

and their bases are bulbous. 

flowers: Brilliant purplish in color, but only 2 to 3 inches 

long and not opening widely. 

fruits: Almost round to elongated egg-shaped, and small, 

being only 1/2 to 7/8 of an inch long. 

Range. Originally given by Engelmann as from El Paso, Texas, 

south in the sand hills, and said by Coulter to range from there 

west into Arizona and south into Chihuahua. But the only records 

in recent times have been from southeastern New Mexico. 

Remarks. This is a very obscure and difficult cactus. It has been 

surrounded by confusion from the beginning. Engelmann first 

described it as E. dasyacanthus var. minor, but later withdrew 

that connection and called it Cereus roetteri. Coulter probably 

studied it more thoroughly than anyone else, having at hand 

plants from Texas, Arizona, and Chihuahua. Britton and Rose 

seem to have been misled by Engelmann’s first linking of the 

plant with E. dasyacanthus. Their specimen collected at El Paso 

is a tiny thing only 11/2 inches tall, which seems to have no centrals 

at all, and appears to be a seedling of E. dasyacanthus. 

Their specimen from Arizona has 1 or 2 very short centrals, 

apparently in a row, and appears to be one of the E. pectinatus 

group. At any rate, since I have seen living plants of E. roetteri, 

their preserved specimens do not seem to me to be this plant. 

This may explain why their description of the cactus is erroneous 

in several respects. More recently Backeberg has realized 

the close relationship of this cactus with E. lloydii, and com- 

bines these two, calling that other cactus E. roetteri var. lloydii. 

It does seem obvious that these latter two are closely related. 

How closely is not clear. However, on the basis of the very few 

specimens of this rare cactus I have seen, I feel it is too soon to 

combine them. E. roetteri seems to be a much smaller, nonclustering 

form with other vegetative characters strikingly similar to 

the more robust E. lloydii. But the flowers and fruits of E. 

roetteri are very much smaller than those of the other, and its 

flowers show none of the firm, lasting characters of the claret- 

cup group, which those of E. lloydii display. 

E. roetteri is today an extremely rare cactus. The few known 

specimens recently collected all have come from southern New 

Mexico. It is surprising that with the large amount of recent 

study of Arizona cacti this one has not been reported there since 

Coulter. It is not so surprising that it is not seen around El 

Paso, which is its type locality, since the real estate, farming, 

and military developments there have already greatly reduced 

several much more common species of the area. For this reason 

it appears that it cannot be found in Texas today, surviving only 

farther west, in less disturbed areas. 

Echinocereus lloydii B. & R. 


stems: Simple at first, but clustering and branching slowly 

to form clumps of up to about six stems when old, the single 

stems attaining a large size before clustering. Mature stems 

grow to 12 inches high and as much as 41/2 inches thick, and 

are cylindrical and bright green to gray-green in color. The 

ribs are 11 to 13 in number, broad, interrupted, and extremely 

tuberculate, being formed of broad thickenings at the areoles. 

There are deep furrows running down the sides of the ribs between 

these broad bases of the tubercles. The vertical furrows 

between adjacent ribs on the older parts of the stem are the 

deepest I have seen on any Echinocereus, being up to at least 

3/4 of an inch deep. 

areoles: Medium to large, oval to circular, with much white 

wool when young, but becoming practically bare with age. 


spines: When mature all ashy-gray to reddish-gray, but when 

young and growing they are a brilliant purplish-red, this color 

often remaining for many years on the tips of the spines. All 

spines are of medium stoutness, round, and straight from 

bulbous bases. There are 14 to 17 radial spines, the lower 

and lateral ones being 1/2 to occasionally 7/8 of an inch long. 

The upper radials are very much more slender, and much


shorter-down to 1/4 of an inch long. There are 4 to 8 central 

spines identical to the larger radials standing perpendicular 

to the stem and spreading slightly from the crowded 

center of the areole. 

flowers: Large and very beautiful, usually being 3 inches 

long and 2 to 31/2 inches in diameter. There is much variation 

in their color. They are most commonly scarlet, but I have 

specimens with petals coral-pink instead. The outer petals are 

greenish in the midline with entire edges and pointed tips. 

The inner petals are long, spatulate, with entire edges although 

these are sometimes somewhat notched at the tips. 

There are 9 to 14 green stigma lobes. The filaments are pinkish, 

the anthers extremely small and pinkish or rose in color. 

The ovary tube bears some white wool and clusters of 7 to 12 

firm, reddish spines which are almost equivalent in arrangement 

to those on the stem areoles, except that they are more 

slender. 

fruits: Egg-shaped and 11/4 to 2 inches long. They are densely 

covered with spines; when the fruit is ripe, these spines 

loosen fairly easily, but do not seem to fall unless brushed 

off. The ripe fruit is greenish-orange in color and fleshy. 

Range. Known only from the type locality, Tuna Springs, 

Texas, which is about 20 miles east of Fort Stockton in Pecos 

County. 

Remarks. This cactus was named by Britton and Rose in 1922 

from plants collected by Mr. F. E. Lloyd, in his honor. Mr. 

Lloyd collected many cacti in the area around Tuna Springs, 

and there was no other label of location on his plants but that. 

Tuna Springs has not existed as a town and is not on most 

Texas maps, so during all these years it has been impossible for 

interested people to go and find this cactus. The long period 

of time in which the plant has been lost has not been completely 

unfortunate, because this has meant that no one has 

collected it. Consequently it has grown undisturbed and rather 

commonly in its small area, when most of our rare species 

whose locales have been known are nearing extinction. But recently 

the fact that Tuna Springs was once a stagecoach stop 

a short way east of Fort Stockton has become known, and dealers 

have been rapidly bringing out the plants. Its continued 

survival under these conditions is doubtful. 

This is a heavy-stemmed, clustering Echinocereus possessing 

an interesting set of characteristics, which make it unique. In 

areoles, spines, and stem shape it is very close to the scarlet- 

flowered E. triglochidiatus-E. polyacanthus-E. coccineus group, 

and its flowers show certain similarities to these (such as in 

the pink anthers). Yet there are definite differences from these 

and the flowers are more purplish and less waxy or longlasting 

than those of the claret cups, making it appear rather 

intermediate between those and the purple-flowered groups. 

The theorists will surely play with this one, but in the meantime, 

it is a rare and beautiful Texas cactus recently redis- 

covered. 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus Eng. 

“Claret-Cup Cactus,” “Strawberry Cactus,” “King’s Cup 

Cactus” 


stems: Globular to cylindrical in shape with 5 to 9 broad, 

rounded ribs having wide, shallow grooves between them. 

These stems may be from 3 to 18 inches in maximum length 

by 21/2 to 41/2 inches thick. The surface of the stems is very 

soft, often markedly wrinkled, and from dark to pale green 

in color. These stems cluster in different numbers in different 

varieties, usually producing fewer than a dozen heads, but in 

one form an old plant occasionally becomes a large mat of 

up to around 50 heads. In all cases, however, the stems are 

loosely and irregularly clustered, a plant being made up of 

various-sized stems, standing or partly reclining in an irregular 

clump. 

areoles: Circular, varying greatly in size within the species 

from no more than 1/8 of an inch to sometimes over 1/4 of an 

inch in diameter. They also vary in distance from one 

another. The areoles always have much white wool when 

young, but usually become bare in age. 

spines: Yellowish or red when growing, becoming opaque, 

ashy-gray to almost black when old. They vary within 

the species in number, size, and shape, the range being as 

follows: radials from 2 to 9 in number and centrals 0 or 1, 

all these variously from 3/8 to 21/2 inches long, from rather 

slender to very thick, rounded to greatly flattened, angular, 

or channeled, as well as either straight or curved. 

flowers: 2 to 23/4 inches long and 1 to 11/2 inches in diameter, 

rigid, waxy, and remarkable among the cacti for their 

persistence, often staying open for several days and nights. 

The stiff, blunt petals are scarlet-red or orange-red from narrow 

green or whitish bases. The stamens are as long as or 

slightly longer than the petals, with filaments greenish below, 

becoming fuchsia above. The anthers are very tiny and 

fuchsia. They are about the same length as the style, so that 

they sometimes partly enclose the stigma, which has 5 to 11 

green lobes. The ovary surface has small areoles upon it, each 

with a fleshy scale-like segment, a little white wool, and 2 

to 6 slender, white, or white-tipped brown spines. 

fruits: Varying within the species. They are round or oval 

and from 3/4 to 1/2 inches in largest measurement, somewhat 

tuberculate to practically smooth, with some spines which 

usually become deciduous with ripening. In color they are 

from green to green with a pinkish cast or else bright red 

when ripe. 

Range. Taken as a species, this plant ranges over a very wide 

area from near Kerrville in central Texas, west through all of 

the Texas Big Bend to near El Paso, then north through central 

New Mexico into Colorado and northwestern Arizona. 

Remarks. There has probably been more confusion about E.


triglochidiatus than about any other Echinocereus. It is mostly 

due, I believe, to the fact that this name is the oldest among 

the red-flowered Echinocerei. Because of this the descriptions 

given under the name have been broadened from time to time 

to include every new form which has been put with it in combination. 

This process has gone on until the extreme is reached 

by L. Benson’s description in the Cacti of Arizona, where he 

describes E. triglochidiatus as having stems from 8 to 24 inches 

high and spines from as few as 3 to as many as 16 per areole. 

This sort of description is obviously drawn up to include everything 

in the red-flowered Echinocereus group. It really has 

little to do with the E. triglochidiatus as it was described by 

Engelmann. Since we have all degrees between these two extremes 

in the literature, it is not hard to see why the confusion 

is so great. There will never be anything but confusion here 

until we see how this problem came about. 

There exists a whole series of Echinocerei all of which have 

flowers similar in that their firm, long-lasting petals are scarlet-red 

with no blue pigments in them and their stamens light 

magenta. They are often called the “claret cups” because of this 

remarkable flower coloration. The shape of the flower and its 

parts is essentially the same in all of these forms, with the only 

difference between their flowers being minor variations in the 

proportions of some of the floral parts. 

In size, manner of growth, and details of stem and spines, 

however, these forms show easily as much variation as is found 

between many other recognized cactus species, and far more 

than between some. To give a general description broad enough 

to encompass all of them is almost to repeat the broad characteristics 

of the entire clustering, sparsely ribbed group of Echinocerei. 

This problem has caused disagreement as to how to treat these 

forms from the very start. On the one hand, there have been 

authorities who have described them all as separate species 

because of their diversity of stem and spine characters; on the 

other hand some have placed most of them together as varieties 

within large species groupings because of their flower similarities. 

A few have even proposed uniting them all into one large, 

variable species complex. Almost every authority has his own 

system at least slightly different from every other, often with 

different names for the same plants—and sometimes the same 

author has changed his system from publication to publication. 

All of this makes E. triglochidiatus one of the most difficult 

groups of cacti to understand. Synonymous names are often 

taken to mean different plants, and on the other hand, doubtful 

combinations have been made where some definite characters 

or other have been overlooked. This has led to the reporting of 

some of these forms from areas, and even from states, where 

they do not really occur. On the basis of this sort of thing, 

several of them have been almost lost sight of altogether. It has 

even been maintained by some that they cannot really be distinguished 

at all, but intergrade entirely. 

After much observation of the plants in their habitats and 

after study of available herbarium materials and the literature 

on them, I have concluded that, once erroneous and incomplete 

descriptions and doubtful records based on these are eliminated, 

most of the major forms long ago described in this group do 

exist within definite ranges and can be distinguished by con- 

stant characters. 

What are they then? Most of them are too widespread to be 

clones. Several of them are found in identical or very similar 

environments in overlapping ranges, and I have seen them preserve 

their distinctive characters perfectly in the uniform environments 

of gardens and greenhouses. Therefore, they do not 

seem to qualify as ecotypes or environmental modifications of 

a single taxon. This leaves their differences as rather clearly 

genetic, and the crucial questions here would be: What are 

their genetic relationships? Are they close enough genetically to 

be varieties or distinct enough, after all, to be species? But these 

are the questions no one can yet answer, because of a twofold 

lack. First, there is no standard degree of genetic relationship, 

at least in cacti, one side of which is a variety and the other 

side of which is a species. The thing has just not been worked 

out to this degree as yet. And, more important, we know nothing 

so far concerning the genetic relationships of the Echinocerei. 

There has been absolutely no biosystematic research reported 

upon them; not even chromosome numbers are known 

for these forms. So at the present time no one can say categorically 

from any research data that these are either species 

or varieties. Any decision is a purely arbitrary, philosophical 

one. 

So we continue to get different treatments of these forms determined 

entirely by each author’s concept of species. This accounts 

for the highly confusing spectacle we have today of two 

leading authorities on cacti so completely at odds that while 

Benson regards the claret cups all as varieties of one vastly enlarged 

species, Backeberg treats them just as confidently as 

separate small species. It is still no more than a philosophical 

argument. 

Faced with the necessity of taking a stand on this question, 

I am following a middle course. It seems clear that some of 

these forms are too close to be totally separate species. I am, 

therefore, following Benson in listing as varieties under the 

species name, E. triglochidiatus, all those forms which are close 

enough to the typical form that their inclusion does not cause 

the original species description to be altered basically. But I 

agree with Backeberg that the lumping of everything with the 

one characteristic of a firm, long-lasting flower into one species 

is unnecessary, and so I am leaving separate from that species 

all of those forms whose vegetative characters are so far removed 

from the original, typical form that their inclusion would 

cause the species to become something basically different from 

the original. This decision, like any made at this time about this 

group, is arbitrary, and we look forward to the day when someone 

will be able to give us experimental evidence to decide these 

questions.


From this position, then, we move on to discover and understand 

the varieties of this fine species. 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. triglochidiatus (Eng.) 


stems: Clustering or branching only slowly to form small 

clumps often of no more than two or three stems, with an 

apparent maximum of a dozen or so stems per plant. The 

stems are of unequal lengths and loosely clustered, each one 

cylindrical, dark green, and usually somewhat wrinkled, the 

largest being up to about 8 inches high and about 3 inches in 

diameter. There are usually 7 ribs, but occasionally there may 

be 6 or 8, and they are broad, with slight swellings at the 

areoles and with very shallow grooves between them. 

areoles: Circular, but not large for the group, with white 

wool persisting on them, 7/8 to 11/2 inches apart, these being 

the more widely spaced areoles found in this group. 

spines: Ashy-gray to almost black, from 1/2 to 21/2 inches 

long. They are very stout, most of them being about 1/8 of an 

inch in diameter for most of their lengths. They have very 

much enlarged bases and are very flattened or angled, with 

distinct ridges or grooves running the length of the spines, the 

top surfaces of them even being concave in most cases. Some 

of the spines are straight, but some of them at least are curved, 

in every specimen I have seen. There are 2 to 6 spines to an 

areole, all of them radials, but a fair share of the areoles on 

any plant usually have the 3 spines from which comes the 

name of the plant. 

flowers: As the species, except to 11/4 inches long; the petals 

broadest at the tips and very blunt. 

fruits: Oval or egg-shaped, 1 to 11/4 inches long and 3/4 to 

1 inch in diameter. They are tuberculate. Fruits I have watched 

remained green until about January, when they rotted 

without coloring. The areoles were on the upper ends of long, 

broad tubercles about 1/8 of an inch wide at the top and 1/2 

inch wide at their bases. Each areole possessed a pinkish, 

fleshy scale and 2 to 5 stout, persistent spines which showed 

under magnification the same angled, channeled, and twisted 

character as the plant’s major spines. Britton and Rose, as 

well as Boissevain, have described the fruits as red, with 

deciduous spines, but it is worth remembering that these authors 

had already combined this with other forms known to 

have red fruits, so their descriptions may be of those other 

forms. There is no description of the fruits of this form by 

earlier authorities before the confusion of combinations had 

begun to enter the picture. 

Range. Northern New Mexico from near the upper Pecos River 

west to just beyond the Arizona boundary and north into Col- 

orado. Its southern limit seems to be near Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. 

Remarks. In the process of combination which has been practiced 

the form originally described by Engelmann as E. triglochidiatus—with 

its stems only up to 8 inches high and its spines 

very long, very heavy, greatly angled, and all radials—has almost 

been lost sight of, as witnessed by the fact that its range 

is often given today as being from Arizona throughout New 

Mexico and trans-Pecos Texas. When the form originally circumscribed 

by Engelmann is considered, however, I find it to 

be the form described above, and this specific cactus has a definite 

range much less wide than is often ascribed to it, due to 

the inclusion of other forms under the too-broad descriptions. 

When this is once understood, the confusion vanishes. 

The easternmost report of this plant is still Engelmann’s report 

of it on the Gallinas River just east of the upper Pecos, which 

would be near Las Vegas or Anton Chico, New Mexico, and the 

westernmost report of it from Fort Defiance, just within upper 

Arizona. It seems most common about the mountain slopes from 

Albuquerque to the Gallup area of New Mexico and north 

from there into south-central Colorado. Coulter cites a supposed 

collection of it in Texas by Wislizenus in 1846, and on the 

strength of that places its range as extending that far into Texas, 

but it is significant that Engelmann in 1856, having worked 

over Wislizenus’ material, did not mention any collections of it 

in Texas. This one Texas report may have led later students to 

mistake for it variety octacanthus, which does grow widely in 

Texas, and may be the reason for the survival of the idea that 

it grows in Texas. In much collecting throughout far west Texas 

and in lower New Mexico, I have never seen it growing there, 

nor found anyone who had, in spite of the fact that thousands 

of plants have been shipped out of Texas erroneously called by 

this name. 

The plant is a handsome cactus, one of New Mexico’s finest. 

It is very hardy, and its dark green looks its best half buried 

in a snowbank. It is, of course, most beautiful in the spring 

when it has its fiery red flowers. Their character, shared with 

the other red-flowered Echinocerei but unique among other 

cacti, of staying open for several days and nights at a time, 

makes the plant a favorite of all. 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. gonacanthus (Eng.) B. & R. 

“Claret-Cup Cactus,” “King’s Cup Cactus” 


stems: Cylindrical, clustering very slowly and sparingly, 

usually only 2 or 3 stems to a plant and the most I have seen 

in one cluster being 6. Each stem has 7 to 9 ribs which are 

somewhat rounded, with shallow grooves between them and 

with distinct, rounded swellings of the ribs at the areoles. 

There are two separate populations of this form identical ex-


cept for size. In the widespread northwestern population the 

stems are only 3 to 6 inches high and to about 21/2 inches 

thick, but there is a localized population restricted to the 

vicinity of the White Sands National Monument, where the 

stems grow to a maximum of at least 18 inches tall by 41/2 

inches thick. 

areoles: These are very large for the group, 1/4 to 3/8 of an 

inch in diameter, with a great deal of wool when young, but 

losing much of it with age. They are about 1/4 to 3/4 of an 

inch apart. 

spines: The spines of this cactus are most striking. They are as 

heavy as or heavier than those of variety triglochidiatus, and 

there are more of them. At least some of them are always 

curved, bent, and twisted, and they are conspicuously angled, 

ridged, and furrowed—the largest ones often having 6 or 7 

flattened surfaces and deep grooves. They are yellowish, 

mottled or tipped with black, when young, and then gray to 

almost black when old. There is commonly one very heavy 

central spine which usually has 6 or 7 angles, and is curved 

and twisted, 1 to 21/2 inches long, and around 1/8 of an inch 

thick. There are 6 to 8 radial spines, the lower 7 radiating 

fairly evenly and being the shortest of the spines. The upper 

radial is usually about equal to the central spine and may be 

even longer. It is often mistaken for a second central because 

of its size. 

flowers: As the species, except that they are larger, being 

about 21/2 inches long, with the petals widening more gradually 

from their narrow bases and their tips not as broad as 

those of the plant’s relatives. The ovary surface has slender 

white bristles at least 1/2 inch long upon it. 

fruits: Unreported by anyone except Earle, who describes 

them as spiny, globose, and green with a pink blush. 

Range. This cactus is always rare, and is found in a comparatively 

small area around Zuni and Gallup, New Mexico, extending 

from there to just within Arizona and into the southwestern 

corner of Colorado around Cortez and Dolores. There 

is also a separate population of the variety in southern New 

Mexico, where it grows in the White Sands region between the 

San Andres and Sacramento mountains. 

Remarks. This is a very beautiful cactus, yet one rarely seen. 

Its spines are very remarkable and set it off from any of its 

relatives. They are heavy enough to be worthy of some massive 

barrel cactus. It is closest to variety triglochidiatus, but the 

spines are always much more numerous and much more ridged, 

grooved, and flattened. 

Since its discovery, the study of this cactus has gone through 

a history of confusion. It was named by Engelmann; and, at 

first, Coulter followed in keeping it distinct. But later Coulter 

and Nelson broadened their description of it to include characters 

of variety triglochidiatus, and they were followed in this 

by others. Plants with fewer ribs and spines were then called by 

this name, and of course when plants which were really variety 

triglochidiatus were called E. gonacanthus, the supposed range 

of variety gonacanthus was enlarged. Britton and Rose then 

took the step which logically followed from the blurring of 

distinctions between the two plants and placed E. gonacanthus 

for the first time as a variety of the other. Different combinations 

were also made. Boissevain and Davidson, in their Colorado 

Cacti, picture and describe a cactus collected near Corte, 

Colorado, which appears to be this form, but which they call 

E. coccineus var. octacanthus. This confuses the cactus with that 

very different cactus from a far-off part of Texas. But even 

today the idea persists that E. gonacanthus occurs in Texas. 

This seems to be a perfect example of what happens when 

details of stem and spine structure are regarded as insignificant, 

for this is a constant form occurring in a definite, small range, 

which any person interested in cacti would want to be able to 

identify and refer to specifically. Yet, because of the confusion, 

I have found typical specimens of it, collected near its type 

locality, in herbaria under four different names. It is probably 

best considered as only a variety of the larger species, but un- 

less it is kept distinct no order will be possible in this group. 

Throughout its range in northwest New Mexico and Colorado 

variety gonacanthus grows as a small plant with stems only to 

about six inches tall, precocious only in its spination. But there 

is a strange quirk in its range and its response to a different 

environment. 

A cactus was collected long ago by Wooton at the White 

Sands area of southern New Mexico, which had 7 radial spines 

and one much-flattened central, and which he, therefore, called 

E. gonacanthus. I have seen this specimen, and in its preserved 

state it certainly could pass for our plant. However, its occurrence 

so far from the ordinary range of the variety seems 

strange and might make us doubt that it is our plant. Our 

doubts are increased when we find that the White Sands cactus 

grows to a majestic 18 inches tall by 41/2 inches in thickness, 

making it probably the largest Echinocereus in our Southwest. 

I went into the study of this White Sands cactus with these 

doubts. I studied the cacti growing in their natural habitat. 

They have been fairly common and are still to be found here 

and there within the White Sands National Monument, but 

they have for the most part been eliminated in the rest of their 

territory, which lies mostly within the military’s missile range, 

from wide areas of which the vegetation seems to have been 

systematically eliminated. 

After observing numerous specimens of the cactus I was forced 

to conclude that they are identical to the much smaller variety 

gonacanthus in every respect but stem size and I wondered 

how one could explain the great difference in size alone. 

Fortunately this question was answered when cactophile friends 

in both Albuquerque and Colorado showed me what had 

happened to specimens of the White Sands cacti which they had 

brought out and planted in their gardens. In each case, during 

one year in their gardens, stems 12 inches or more tall when


collected had shrunk to half that size or sometimes even smaller, 

and then had proceeded with the slow, limited growth and 

branching seen in the northern wild population. 

Obviously, we have at the White Sands a local population of 

variety gonacanthus isolated some way in a very unusual habitat 

which enables it to grow to sizes it cannot match or even 

maintain anywhere else. This makes it probably the most remarkable 

example of environmental effect upon growth of any 

cactus within our area. Except for this, the variety is a smaller, 

heavy-spined cactus, a rare and beautiful resident of the north- 

west corner of our area, where it grows in small clumps under 

the cedar trees on the higher, sandy hills. 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. octacanthus (Muehlenpf.) 

Marshall 

“Strawberry Cactus,” “Claret-Cup Cactus” 


stems: Branching or clustering to form clumps, of from 2 or 

3 to sometimes as many as 50 stems in some old plants. The 

stems are globular to cylindrical, bright green or pale, yellow- 

green, and plump, with shiny surfaces. They are of varying 

heights and somewhat loosely clustered within the clump. 

There is a distinct but gradual increase in the maximum size 

of the plants from one end of its range to the other, the sterns 

hardly ever exceeding 5 inches in height in the northern part 

of the range, but often standing 9 to 12 inches high in the 

southern part, particularly in the eastern Big Bend and along 

the Devil’s River. They are always comparatively thick, the 

largest ones being 41/2 inches in diameter. They have 5 to 9 

wide, shallow ribs with slight enlargements at the areoles, but 

with no—or only slight—cross-furrows between areoles. 

areoles: Round, about 3/16 of an inch across, and 3/8 to 11/4 

inches apart. At first they have much short white wool on 

them, but later they become bare and are entirely filled by 

the swollen bases of the spines. 

spines: All spines on this plant are slender or medium in 

thickness, actually measuring from only 1/32 to 1/16 of an 

inch in diameter, always round and straight or nearly so, 

and having very bulbous bases. When young they are yellowish, 

often with distinct red streaks and shadings, especially 

toward the bases. When old they may remain yellowish 

or darken to gray or almost black. The amount of darkening 

seems to depend upon how much sun they get: I have collected 

plants from sunny ledges which had almost black 

spines, only to have the new spines remain yellowish or gray 

when grown with some shade. There are 3 to 9 radials, very 

nearly equal in size on any areole, or with the upper ones 

only slightly smaller. They are from 1/2 to 11/4 inches long. 

There may be one central spine standing out at a right angle 

to the stem, 5/8 to 11/2 inches long, round and scarcely any 

heavier than the radials, but many plants lack the central 

entirely. 

flowers: As the species, except for the following limitations: 

they are smaller, being only 11/2 to 2 inches tall, with the 

petals short and blunt; the ovary tube has almost no wool, but 

has clusters of 2 to 6 slender spines up to 1/2 inch long; the 

stigma lobes are 5 to 8 in number and light green. 

fruits: Round, smooth, red, edible berries about 3/4 to 11/2 

inches in diameter. They have a few spines which soon fall 

off, leaving them naked by the time they are ripe. 

Range. A band of territory about 100 miles wide from central 

Texas west through the Big Bend, perhaps to near El Paso. Specifically, 

the northeastern limit of this strip is just east of the 

Colorado River near Lampasas, Texas, the southeastern limit 

about Kerrville, Texas. From there it is found quite commonly 

westward past junction and Del Rio. The northern edge of the 

range proceeds on south of Fort Stockton to the Davis Mountains, 

while the southern limit, after dropping into Mexico at 

Del Rio, takes in all of the Big Bend. The western limit of the 

range is not so definitely known, due to confusion of the names 

and incompleteness of the older records. The most western 

strictly verifiable reports seem to be from Presidio County on 

the south and near El Paso on the north. 

Remarks. This plant was first named Echinopsis octacanthus 

in 1848 by Muehlenpfordt, from a plant collected by Dr. F. 

Roemer in Texas. In 1849 Engelmann described the same Texas 

plant and named it Cereus roemeri. Muehlenpfordt had in the 

meantime named an entirely different New Mexico plant Cereus 

roemeri, and from here on one can anticipate confusion. 

In 1896 Coulter wrote of a plant fitting this description, 

calling it Cereus octacanthus, but stating that it occurred from 

extreme southwestern Texas around El Paso northwestward 

through New Mexico into Utah. It seems impossible now to 

guess what plant he was referring to. But from this time on it 

was assumed that Echinocereus octacanthus, as Britton and Rose 

called it, occurred in New Mexico. Perhaps the reason lies in the 

coincidence of both a Texas plant and a different New Mexico 

plant having been given the same name, Cereus roemeri, and 

in the superficial similarity between the Texas plant and a Colorado 

and New Mexico cactus called E. coccineus. To add to the 

confusion, Boissevain and Davidson, in their Colorado Cacti, 

mistook for variety octacanthus both variety gonacanthus, a 

primarily Colorado cactus which can have the same number of 

ribs and spines but which is vastly different in most other details, 

and E. mojaviensis, another similar species which reaches 

from the West into the corner of Colorado, and called their 

amalgamation of these two E. coccineus var. octacanthus. 

As a start in putting the confusion straight, I will say that I 

have not seen a plant definitely known to be from either Colorado 

or New Mexico having the combination of characters set


out in the early, carefully circumscribed descriptions and outlined 

above for this plant. I believe it to be entirely a Texas 

cactus, except for an extension into northern Mexico. 

A further confusion was building, however. In 1856 Engelmann 

created a name, E. paucispinus, for a Texas form with 5 

to 7 ribs and 3 to 6 round, slender radials. This form he said 

usually lacked a central, but might have an occasional round, 

porrect one. 

It was soon noticed that the rib and spine numbers of the 

new E. paucispinus matched those of the New Mexico E. triglochidiatus, 

which also lacks centrals. Soon the differences between 

the two were overlooked, and the Texas plant was being 

spoken of as E. triglochidiatus. However, when both plants are 

seen together the difference between them is obvious. The color 

and surface of the stems are very different. The spines of the so- 

called E. paucispinus are always round and not more than 1/16 

of an inch thick-truly insignificant on the broad ribs; while 

those of E. triglochidiatus are always greatly flattened, ridged 

or even grooved, and twice to four times as thick-easily the 

most striking thing about that plant. On these characteristics 

alone it is easy to separate them. 

As I have found no real intermediate between these two 

plants to confuse them, I have also found no specimens of either 

of them growing in that wide expanse separating the New 

Mexico E. triglochidiatus from the Texas E. paucispinus. There 

is about 200 miles between their known ranges. However, this 

difference in ranges means that few people have seen them together 

and realized the difference, with the result that in Texas 

this plant is almost entirely known under the name of the 

other. Britton and Rose are largely responsible for this confusion, 

since they united the two, but even in doing so they 

stated their opinion that E. paucispinus should perhaps be restored 

for the Texas plants. And they did us the service of 

picturing side by side a true E. triglochidiatus var. triglochidiatus 

and the Texas plant, even though their Texas specimen 

appears to be a badly damaged variety octacanthus. 

And here we may have a clue to unravel some more of the 

confusion. In erecting the species E. paucispinus, the Texas form 

with fewer ribs, fewer but round spines, and no central spine, 

Engelmann appears to have merely set apart and given a name 

to the lower end of variety octacanthus’ range of variations. 

For a long time I have tried to keep the two separate, but it 

just cannot be done. Too many times, on too many hills, the 

whole range of characters from 5 to 9 ribs, 3 to 9 radials, and 

1 or no central have been found growing happily together. The 

flowers and fruits appear to be identical, and it seems that the 

two must be combined entirely. 

So we have, when we see the whole picture, variety octacanthus, 

an entirely or at least primarily Texas cactus which 

was once called E. roemeri and so was confused with the true 

E. roemeri of New Mexico and Colorado. Then those of its individuals 

with fewer ribs and spines were called E. paucispinus 

and immediately confused with the very different New Mexico 

form, variety triglochidiatus. 

In the extreme northeastern part of its range, variety octacanthus 

is a small cactus with stems only 3 to 5 inches high, one 

of the weakest growths of any in this group. However, in this 

area it is adjusting to the wettest habitat any of the red- 

flowered Echinocerei succeed in colonizing, and this may be the 

price. But around Sabinal and Uvalde, Texas, one begins to 

come across clumps of this cactus much more robust in size of 

the stems. These specimens grow larger as one goes west through 

Del Rio, Langtry, and Sanderson, until from Del Rio west to 

south of Marathon and Alpine one occasionally finds majestic 

clumps with massive stems to at least 12 inches tall. This appears 

to be the plant’s response to the more arid conditions of 

this part of its range. If we are correct in our interpretation of 

the immense effect of the White Sands area’s conditions on 

variety gonacanthus, then we should not be surprised at a similar 

though less extreme and more gradual effect of the environ- 

ment on this related cactus. 

The spines in this western area are more uniformly dark gray, 

which one would expect, due to the more general exposure to 

the sun here. I was gratified to find that a specimen taken from 

a canyon south of Alpine, where it was shaded most of the 

day, had the same light, reddish-yellow spines as those growing 

under the shade of the eastern junipers, although it stood almost 

10 inches high, completely overshadowing its eastern counter- 

part in size. 

Variety octacanthus is definitely more resistant to rot than 

most others in this genus. I have seen plants of it growing and 

healthy beside rotted plants of E. enneacanthus and E. caespitosus, 

where their ranges all meet around Sabinal, Texas. For 

this reason it would probably be a better cactus for use in 

eastern gardens than many others of the genus. 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. hexaedrus (Eng.) 

Boissevain & Davidson 

Description 

stems: Few in the clump, each 4 to 6 inches high and 2 to 

21/2 inches in diameter, with 6 obtuse ribs having wide, shal- 

low grooves between them. 

areoles: Only 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch in diameter, which 

makes them among the smallest in this group. They are about 

1/2 to 5/8 of an inch apart, and woolly when young. 

spines: Slender, with bulbous bases, and distinctly angular 

or flattened. Each areole usually has 6 radial spines, but Engelmann 

says one specimen had 7 and another 5. The lower 

radials are the shortest spines, being 3/8 to 7/8 of an inch long, 

and yellowish-red in color. The upper radials are longer, 

about 5/8 to 11/8 inches long, stouter, and darker in color.


The central spine is missing, although there may be one, and 

Engelmann mentions finding one plant with two centrals. 

The centrals are 7/8 to 13/8 inches long and definitely flat- 

tened, but not very thick. 

flowers: Unknown. 


Range. Known only from about 15 miles west of Zuni, New 

Mexico. 

Remarks: This cactus was described by Engelmann from plants 

collected by Bigelow in 1853. No one has reported seeing it 

since that time. Coulter described it many years later from 

Bigelow’s preserved specimens. The writer has not seen these, so 

the description given above is a combination of Engelmann’s 

and Coulter’s. 

It is hardly possible to do more than guess about the real 

relationships of this cactus to the other forms it resembles, since 

we know so little about it; so I merely list it as did the only 

two authorities who had it before them. Since then various 

authors have given it as a form of one or the other related 

species, but little can be proved. 

I do find in the U. S. National Herbarium one specimen collected 

by Standley in the Tunitcha Mountains of New Mexico, 

not far north of Zuni, which fairly well fits Engelmann’s description 

of E. hexaedrus. It was labeled by Standley as E. paucispinus, 

but that is doubtful, since it has the very flattened 

spines which E. paucispinus (var. octacanthus) does not have, 

and it was collected very far from that plant’s area in Texas. 

It could be the only collection of variety hexaedrus since the 

type. 

It would be a real service for someone to rediscover and 

study this cactus, if it still exists. 

Echinocereus coccineus Eng. 

“Aggregate Cactus,” “Bunch-Ball Cactus,” “Turk’s Head 

Cactus,” “Heart Twister,” “Red-Flowered Hedgehog Cac- 

tus” 


stems: This cactus always consists of a cluster of short, equal- 

sized stems tightly packed to form a dense, hemispherical 

mass 1 to 6 feet in diameter and containing, in old specimens, 

up to several hundred heads. Each head or stem is from only 

2 to 6 inches high and up to about 21/2 inches in diameter, 

with 8 to 11 ribs which are either practically straight or 

often composed of pronounced tubercles or projections on the 

tips of which the areoles are found. 

areoles: These are large, circular to more or less oval in 

shape, and only 3/16 to 1/2 inch apart—the closest areoles 

among the clustering, few-ribbed Echinocerei. They are woolly 

when young, becoming bare. 

spines: All spines on one variety of this cactus are slender to 

medium in thickness, often almost bristle-like, straight, and 

round. In color they are white, gray-white, or straw; sometimes 

the centrals are brownish when new. On the other form 

of the species the central is stouter, darker, and definitely 

flattened. Due to the closeness of the areoles and the length 

of the spines, the general appearance is of a mass of whitish 

bristles, from which fact comes the common name, “hedgehog 

cactus.” There are 8 to 12 radial spines, 1/4 to 11/8 inches 

long, which all more or less stand out from the stem of the 

plant, the upper ones being the shorter ones. There are also 1 

to 4 centrals: in the one variety, these are always round, very 

slender to medium in thickness, 3/8 to 13/4 inches long, and 

standing out nearly perpendicular to the stem; in the other 

variety the main central is flattened, a little stouter, directed 

downward, and 1 to 3 inches long. 

flowers: Deep crimson to orange-red in color, around 11/2 

to 2 inches long and opening from 1 to 2 inches in diameter. 

The stamens are fuchsia and shorter than the petals. The 

stigma lobes are green and 6 to 12 in number. The tube surface 

has white wool and 8 to 11 slender white spines, 1/4 to 

1/2 inch long, in each areole. 

fruits: Red, juicy, with deciduous bristles. 

Range. Growing in a wide territory from Colorado south past 

Raton, New Mexico, down along the upper Pecos River to 

about even with Santa Fe and Albuquerque, and from there 

west into Arizona and Utah. 

Remarks. The “bunch-ball cactus” was among the first collected 

in our area and is distinctive enough, with its slender, 

round spines and its manner of growing as a tight, perfectly 

regular ball of stems that it has not been so much confused with 

others of the group as some. However, it also has had too many 

names applied to it. Engelmann first called it E. coccineus, and 

then, later, because of a change of genus name, he called it 

Cereus phoeniceus. He also had once named a plant Mammillaria 

aggregata, which he did not describe in any detail. Coulter, 

assuming correctly that this was our cactus, called our plant 

Cereus aggregatus. Later authorities got back to the first definite 

name, E. coccineus, until, in an attempt to combine this cactus 

with others by reducing it to a variety, L. Benson found it necessary 

to rename it yet again as E. triglochidiatus var. melanacanthus, 

resurrecting for it an obscure varietal name once coined 

by Engelmann but ignored since as referring to no form really 

distinct from the species. 

There has been much confusion of E. triglochidiatus var. octacanthus 

with E. coccineus because they both have round spines. 

Since the two do not grow at all in the same areas, the differences 

between them have been easily overlooked, but they are


very different plants, with hundreds of miles and other forms 

separating their ranges, and when they are closely compared it 

is hardly possible to confuse them. 

Echinocereus coccineus var. coccineus (Eng.) 


stems: As the species, except that the ribs undulate by having 

definite and pronounced tubercles at the areoles. 

areoles: As the species, except that they are to only 3/8 of 


spines: As the species, except that all spines are round, the 

centrals all slender, spreading, and to only 7/8 of an inch long. 

flowers: As the species, except that the stigma lobes number 

only 6 to 8. 


Range. As the species. 

Remarks. This is the typical form of the species. It was apparently 

very common in northern New Mexico at one time, growing 

equally well under the trees on the lower mountains and in 

grassy valleys, forming huge mounds of dozens of stems. It has 

been a great favorite in that area because of the beauty of the 

large, symmetrical clumps it forms, its brilliant flowers, and its 

hardiness. For this reason many plants were dug up, and most 

of them were allowed to languish and die in boxes and planters. 

As a result it is now much easier to find it growing in gardens 

of the cities of that area than on the range, and one has to 

search long in remote spots to find an old specimen rounded up 

into a massive hemisphere. All one usually finds in any easily 

accessible place are young specimens of only a few heads, which 

give little clue to the magnificent things they could become if 

left unmolested. 

Echinocereus coccineus var. conoideus Eng. 

“Beehive Cactus” 


stems: 3 to 6 inches high, 2 to 21/2 inches in diameter, the tips 

being markedly smaller in diameter, this giving them a conical 

shape. When old, they form large, rounded mounds of 30 

to 40 nearly equal stems, somewhat similar to but larger in 

individual stem size than those of the typical species form. 

There are 9 to 11 ribs on each stem, which are almost straight 

with at most very small swellings at the areoles and with 

rather deep furrows between them. 

areoles: Large, woolly when young, later almost bare, 1/4 to 

1/2 inch apart. 

spines: There are 9 to 12 slender radial spines which are very 

uneven, the upper 2 or 3 being only 1/4 to 1/2 inch long, while 

the lateral and lower ones are larger, up to 11/8 inches long. 

They are all round, with enlarged bases, and are white to 

straw-colored. There are 3 or 4 central spines. The upper ones 

are as the radials in shape and color and not much if any 

longer than the longest radials. The lower central, however, 

is directed downward, instead of standing perpendicular to 

the stem, and is usually somewhat curved. This lower central 

is a little stouter than the other spines, although still slender 

for the group, and different from the other spines on the 

areole in being definitely flattened, often to the point of being 

quadrangular. It is darker in color, often being yellowish 

with a brown base, or else ashy-gray. It is 1 to 3 inches long. 

flowers: These are a little larger than some in this group, 

being about the same length and color, but opening all of 2 

inches in diameter, and there are 9 to 12 green stigma lobes. 


Range. From along the upper Pecos River in north central New 

Mexico north into southern Colorado and west into Arizona. 

Remarks. Variety conoideus is very close to variety coccineus, 

and there seems more justification for uniting these two, as Britton 

and Rose suggested but did not do, than any of the other 

forms listed here. Boissevain and Davidson stated that transitional 

forms existed between these two but kept them as separate 

species, a position which seems hard to maintain. However, 

the typical forms of the two are so different that it seems there 

must be some distinction made between them, so we are going 

back to Engelmann’s first opinion and placing this plant once 

again as a variety of the other. Variety conoideus has the longer 

spines and less tuberculate ribs, with more widely separated 

areoles, and it is a larger, more robust plant in general. In particular, 

the long, flattened, and darker central spine serves to 

identify it quickly. 

The plant was first named Cereus roemeri by Muehlenpfordt, 

but Engelmann did not seem certain about Muehlenpfordt’s description; 

and besides he had in the meantime applied the name 

roemeri to the Texas cactus we know as E. triglochidiatus var. 

octacanthus, so he was obliged to rename this New Mexico 

cactus. He used the name Cereus phoeniceus var. conoideus, 

and later, when he decided to elevate it to species rank, Cereus 

conoideus. Muehlenpfordt’s description seems very clear, however, 

and his name, being the oldest, is the one which should 

be used if the plant is treated as a species. The Texas plant can- 

not go under this name. 

But since the plant we are considering seems much more accurately 

placed as a variety, by the rules of nomenclature it 

must carry the first varietal name applied to it. This is quite 

clearly Engelmann’s variety conoideus. 

Most of what was said about the growth habits of E. coccineus 

would apply to this cactus as well, except that it seems 

to grow in higher mountains and on more rocky locations. This


one has also been gathered from the field too widely and is now 

hard to find growing wild. 

Echinocereus polyacanthus var. rosei (Wooton & Standley) 

“Red-Goblet Cactus,” “Pitahaya” 


stems: This is another cactus forming flat, loose clumps of 

unequal stems. The clumps may become large, with up to 50 

stems, but this is rare and they are usually smaller, with only 

a dozen or fewer heads. Each stem is cylindrical, but somewhat 

tapering over almost the whole length toward the smaller, 

rather pointed tip. They grow to at least 10 inches long 

and 4 inches thick at the base, when in ideal situations, but 

remain much smaller in poor environments. The color is a 

lighter or paler green than some of its relatives. The number 

of ribs is variable, from 9 to 11, these broad with very shallow 

grooves between them on the older parts of the stems, 

but sharp with fairly prominent tubercles or swellings at the 

areoles and deep, narrow grooves between them at the tips. 

areoles: This plant has probably the most conspicuous areoles 

of the group. When young they are about 1/4 of an inch 

across, circular, bulging outward, with much white or yellowish 

wool covering the bases of the new spines. As they get 

older they become more typical, nearly flat, and lose much 

of their wool. They are from 3/8 to 1 inch apart. 

spines: The spines of this cactus are undoubtedly the most variable 

in size of any in the group. I have seen plants with large 

centrals over 2 inches long and other plants with no spines 

over 1/2 inch long. In spite of this variation, the spines are 

constant in being straight, of medium stoutness, and always 

round. There are 7 to 10 radials 3/8 to 1 inch long, radiating, 

the lower ones usually almost twice as long as the upper ones. 

There are 3 to 5 centrals on mature plants. Young seedlings 

always have only 1 central per areole, and in some mature 

specimens occasional areoles will have only the 1 central, but 

this is never typical of the whole mature plant. These centrals 

may be 1/2 to 2 inches long, depending upon the specimen, 

but they are always round, from somewhat enlarged 

bases, and spreading at various angles from the areole. All 

spines are reddish, ashy-gray, or occasionally dark, purplish- 

gray, with the centrals usually somewhat darker than the 

radials. 

flowers: Variable in color, including tints from pale red to 

orange, these often in the same flower. These shades are unique 

among the firm, long-lasting flowers of this group. Otherwise 

the flowers are typical of the group, 11/2 to 21/2 inches 

long, with short, rigid petals broadening and blunt at the 

ends. They have fuchsia stamens and the stigma lobes number 

7 to 10. On the ovary are brownish or yellowish spines, 1/8 

to 5/8 of an inch long, with reddish tips, plus some short 

wool. 

fruits: 3/4 to 1 inch long, greenish-purple when ripe, with 

deciduous spines. 

Range. From Mexico northward over west Texas and much of 

New Mexico, into southern Colorado and southeastern Arizona. 

The northeastern limit of the known range is near San Antonio, 

Texas, and so far as is known the northern edge of the range 

runs past Rocksprings, Texas, to the Davis Mountains and then 

turns sharply north through the Guadalupe Mountains into 

New Mexico, where it follows the Pecos River, goes past Las 

Vegas, New Mexico, and along the eastern edge of the mountains 

into Colorado. The range seems to come back south out of 

Colorado east of the Continental Divide, and does not cross 

this demarcation until near Lordsburg, New Mexico, where it 

moves into southeast Arizona. 

Remarks: E. polyacanthus var. rosei is the most common red- 

flowered Echinocereus throughout southern New Mexico and 

far southwest Texas. It is easily found on the lower slopes of 

the Franklin and Organ mountains and in similar places west 

into Arizona. It is less common but may be found occasionally 

in the mountains of central New Mexico and north into Colorado. 

It is even less common, but has also been collected in the 

Texas Big Bend and the Davis and Guadalupe mountains. Its 

eastern limit is hard to establish, as occasional specimens which 

must be referred to this species have turned up in widely separated 

places over a very large area. I have a living specimen 

with very short spines but otherwise typical from near Rock- 

springs, Texas, and there is in the U.S. National Herbarium a 

specimen labeled as collected by Tourney at San Antonio in 

1897, but I cannot find it growing in the area now. 

Because of the variability of its spines and its very wide range 

this cactus has been widely confused with others of its relatives. 

In northern New Mexico and Colorado it is sometimes mistaken 

for E. coccineus, from which it can be distinguished by the facts 

that it never grows in the compact, dome-shaped clusters nor 

has such slender spines as that plant, or for E. coccineus var. 

conoideus, from which it can be told by the fact that its spines 

are never flattened as is the lower central of that plant. In 

Texas its immature growth and certain stunted, atypical specimens 

have been called E. triglochidiatus var. octacanthus, in 

spite of the fact that Engelmann in his early description was so 

thorough that he mentioned that the immature plants have only 

1 central per areole. The atypical forms can be distinguished by 

the fact that they have more ribs than variety octacanthus. 

Engelmann did leave room for confusion to enter by giving 

two slightly varying descriptions for the plant he named E. 

polyacanthus. His original description was of plants collected 

in Chihuahua, Mexico, by Wislizenus. This was a narrow description 

of a very localized cactus found only there. It is 

unique for the whole group of scarlet-flowered Echinocerei in 

having long wool on the flower tube. In his later writings En-


gelmann used the same name, but broadened the description 

somewhat, as well as the range. In the later descriptions he said 

the cactus was a common plant at El Paso, and did not mention 

the long wool on the flower. Since no specimens have ever been 

collected at El Paso or anywhere in the U.S. with this long 

wool, its seems clear that, after further study, Engelmann meant 

to include all of this form, whether having long or short wool, 

under this name. Coulter took it this way, and so included in 

the range of the species New Mexico and Arizona. 

Wooton and Standley returned to restricting E. polyacanthus 

to the local Chihuahuan form, and set up the New Mexico representatives 

having only short wool as two new species, E. rosei 

and E. neo-mexicanus. 

Britton and Rose faced the problem of relating these forms. 

Dr. Rose made the famous trip to the type locality of E. polyacanthus 

at Cosihuiriachi, Chihuahua, and collected specimens 

there, establishing to their satisfaction that the original type 

specimens were actually different from our forms, at least in 

having the long wool on the flower tube. They, therefore, followed 

Wooton and Standley in their names, E. rosei and E. 

neo-mexicanus, for the two U.S. forms which lack this unique 

character. Since then no one has used the name E. polyacanthus 

for any U.S. cactus except Benson, who ignores the distinction 

and calls the plants of New Mexico and Arizona E. triglochi- 

diatus var. polyacanthus. 

Helia Bravo, in her book, Las Cactaceas de Mexico, has a 

good illustration of the true E. polyacanthus. 

It seems necessary to follow most recent students in separating 

the U.S. forms in some way from the unique Chihuahuan cactus, 

which must carry the name E. polyacanthus. But it seems 

equally true that the U. S. forms are very close to it, close 

enough so that Engelmann had justification in lumping them all 

together. The best way to show the whole picture appears to be 

by regarding the U. S. forms as varieties of the species. Our 

common cactus of such wide range in the U. S. then becomes 

E. polyacanthus var. rosei. 

Echinocereus polyacanthus var. neo-mexicanus (Standley) 


stems: As those of variety rosei, except to only about 3 

inches thick and having 11 to 15 ribs. 

areoles: As those of variety rosei, but closer, being 3/8 to 


spines: Radial spines variable in number from 8 to 16, but 

usually 10 to 13. These are slender; straight; round; white, 

straw, or yellow; and to 5/8 of an inch long. The spreading 

centrals number 4 to 6 on mature plants, and are straight, 

round, slender, and usually 3/4 to 11/4 inches long. In color 

they are yellowish below with the outer parts or the tips 

reddish or blackish. 

flowers: As those of variety rosei, except usually smaller 

and of burnt-orange to yellow coloring. The petals are not as 

wide as those of the other variety and are, as Wooton put it, 

“almost acute,” if one emphasizes the almost. 

fruits: As those of variety rosei. 

Range. Fairly common around Las Cruces, New Mexico, and 

found occasionally at least to Socorro, in central New Mexico. 

Remarks. This plant is very close to the previous variety, but is 

easily recognized by the more numerous ribs and the more 

numerous, lighter colored, and more slender spines. Where va- 

riety rosei presents a gray or purplish-gray appearance, the 

spine covering of variety neo-mexicanus is always yellowish, 

and sometimes strikingly so. It does not appear to be a separate 

species, but it does definitely appear to stand in some way distinct 

from the other more widespread form. Collections made 

around Las Cruces are easily divisible into the two types. 

This is a beautiful cactus, usually large and impressive in 

growth, with the long-lasting flowers which make it a favorite. 

Near El Paso and Las Cruces, in the few areas which have been 

too remote for the casual collector or which have been in some 

way protected, there are still to be seen whole slopes dotted 

with the clumps of tall heads covered in April and May with 

beautiful goblet-shaped flowers, and here and there within the 

cities transplanted clumps are to be seen gracing yards and gardens 

most beautifully. Variety neo-mexicanus is cold-resistant 

and would be a good garden cactus in other colder areas, except 

that it is definitely a desert form and so must be protected 

from moisture more carefully than some of the other species of 

this group. 

It is worth mentioning, for the sake of any hobbyist who 

might be growing the plant inside to protect it from the winter 

dampness of their areas, that this cactus, like many other winter- 

hardy forms, must have some cold during the winter in order 

to trigger the blooms. In south Texas I have seen plants which 

had grown for several years without a suggestion of a flower 

bloom profusely for the first time after the stimulus of one of 

those freezes which are so destructive to southern cacti. 

Echinocereus enneacanthus Eng. 

“Strawberry Cactus,” “Pitaya” 


stems: 3 to 30 inches long and 11/2 to 4 inches thick, and 

cylindrical, tapering somewhat over the last one-third of the 

length to a rather pointed tip. These stems grow in loose 

clusters of a few to as many as 100 in a large plant. New 

stems multiply as side branches at or just above the ground 

level, so their first growth tends to be lateral, after which 

they turn upward. This results in all of the stems around the 

edges of a large clump being long and curving, the lower


part often lying flat on the ground and the upper part standing 

erect. In color they are bright green, and the flesh of the 

plant is soft, even flabby, giving them a more or less wrinkled 

appearance and causing them to appear actually withered 

in very dry periods or in the winter. There are 7 to 10 

ribs on each stem, which are low and broad with shallow 

grooves between them and with slight to rather pronounced 

tubercles or swellings at the areoles. 

areoles: Circular, about 1/8 of an inch in diameter, with 

much gray wool on them when young, some of which remains 

on the older areoles. These are placed 1/4 to 11/2 inches 

apart on mature stems. 

spines: All spines on this plant are rigid and slender to fairly 

stout, rise from enlarged bases, and are light-colored, being 

white to straw-colored or very light brown. All spines are 

distinctly translucent, having a horny appearance with age. 

When very young and while still growing, the spines are a 

delicate pink color which fades quickly as they mature. There 

are 7 to 12 white radial spines radiating evenly, straight or 

slightly curved back toward the stem, but varying greatly in 

length and thickness. The upper ones tend to be shortest, only 

1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long, while the lateral and lower ones are 

usually longer—1/2 to as much as 1 inch long. There is one 

stout central spine standing perpendicular to the surface of 

the stem or slightly deflexed. It has a very bulbous base and 

is round and white when young, but becomes darker, especially 

toward the base, and more or less flattened when old. 

On immature tips this central is very little longer than the 

radial spines, but with age it usually continues to grow, becoming 

heavier and longer, up to 11/4 or even 2 inches long. 

Many plants are found with 2 extra central spines above this 

main one, these spreading upward and remaining shorter. 

flowers: Large and beautiful, opening widely, 2 to 3 inches 

in height and about the same in diameter, purple-red in 

color. There are 10 to 20 short outer petals with brownish- 

green centers and pinkish, crinkled edges. The inner petals 

are in 1 to 3 rows, 12 to 35 in number and oblong, linear, 

or spatulate in shape. The edges of these petals are entire or 

toothed, and the tips pointed or blunt. The stamens are much 

shorter than the petals, the filaments greenish, and the anthers 

yellow. The style is white, the stigma lobes green, long and 

slender, 8 to 12 in number. The tube of the flower has white 

wool and white bristle-like spines up to 1/2 inch long upon it. 

fruits: About 1 inch long, almost spherical, greenish to 

brownish or purplish, with bristle-like spines which fall 

off easily. The flesh of the fruit is edible and very delicious. 

Range. Along the Rio Grande from near that river’s mouth to 

the Big Bend. It has seldom been found west of the Pecos River 

or more than 50 miles north of the Rio Grande in any area. 

However, there have been isolated reports of it from near San 

Angelo, Kerrville, San Antonio, and Raymondville, Texas, 

which would mark the northern and eastern extremes of its 

range. Coulter says it occurs west of Texas into Arizona, but I 

have found no record of it ever having been collected in New 

Mexico. 

Remarks. This is the common Echinocereus of a wide area of 

the lower Rio Grande Valley. It is found occasionally farther 

west, but only becomes common near Del Rio. It is very common 

from the Devil’s River to Eagle Pass, large clumps of it 

dotting the gravelly ground on the low hills just north of the 

Rio Grande wherever these hills have not been cleared. It is so 

common as to be a pest at Laredo and for about 50 miles north 

and east of there, with clumps under almost every bush on 

whatever of the range is well-drained and has not yet been 

cleared. The practice of “rooting” or “chaining” the range with 

large machinery in order to clear out the brush seems to do 

away with this, as well as with most other small cacti, although 

it merely does a favor to the large Opuntias of the region, 

whose pads are scattered by the machines and immediately take 

root as new plants. The result is that you now have to hunt for 

unspoiled range where the pitayas still are allowed to grow 

and the giant Opuntias have not taken over. Below Laredo this 

cactus is found commonly to near Rio Grande City, but below 

there it is found only rarely. 

E. enneacanthus was noticed and collected on the very early 

survey of the Rio Grande area by Wislizenus, and named by 

Engelmann in 1848. It is a distinct form which has seldom been 

confused with any other. However, there seem to be more or 

less distinct varieties within its population, which are listed 

below. 

When its clusters are covered with dozens of its large, lively 

colored flowers (usually during April), the species is a beautiful 

cactus, appreciated by almost everyone. It is most appreciated 

by those who take its common name of strawberry cactus literally, 

for the greenish-brown fruits have a flavor very similar to 

strawberries. Where it grows profusely the fruits are actually 

gathered, the spines brushed off, and the flesh eaten with cream 

and sugar. 

This cactus is fairly hardy, being able to stand a temperature 

considerably below freezing, but it cannot stand excess moisture. 

If it is in some way protected from winter rains and allowed to 

wither in dryness during the winter, it can live quite far north 

of its natural range. Then, when moisture is given to it again in 

the spring, the reward will be quick appearance of many large 

flowers. 

Echinocereus enneacanthus var. enneacanthus (Eng.) 


STEMS: As the species, except that they grow to only about 12 

inches long, 23/4 inches thick, and are much less flabby, with 

only slight tubercles at the areoles.



areoles: As the species, except that they are to only 1 inch 

apart. 

spines: As the species. 

flowers: As the species, except with only 10 to 15 outer 

petals and only 12 to 15 inner petals in one row. These petals 

are oblong or linear in shape, with edges entire and tips 

pointed. There are only 8 to 10 stigma lobes. 



Remarks. This is the typical variety of the species which is com- 

mon over all of its range. Its smaller stems to only 12 inches 

long are prostrate for only the first part of their length, and the 

plant tends to form rather tidy, firm clumps. 

Echinocereus enneacanthus var. carnosus (Rümpl.) 

K. Schumann 


stems: Becoming at least 16 and sometimes as much as 30 

inches long by 3 to 4 inches in diameter. These very flabby 

stems grow out laterally from the cluster and when large lie 

fully prostrate on the ground, only the very tips turning upward. 

There are 8 or 9 broad ribs on each stem, with rather 

pronounced tubercles. 

areoles: 3/4 to 11/2 inches apart. 

spines: There are 8 or 9 radials, the uppers only 3/8 of an 

inch long (often missing entirely), and the laterals 1/2 to 3/4 

of an inch long. There is usually only 1 porrect central 1/2 to 

2 inches long, but rarely there may be 2 short upper centrals 

besides. The centrals are round when immature and flattened 

when old. 

flowers: Very large and full. There are 13 to 20 short, greenish 

outer petals and 20 to 35 inner petals in 3 rows. These 

inner petals are spatulate, the edges crinkled and toothed, 

with the tips not pointed. The narrow bases are greenish, the 

broader upper parts fuchsia or reddish-purple. The style is 

white and short. There are 10 to 12 green, linear stigma 

lobes. 


Range. Occurring only about Laredo and Eagle Pass, Texas. 

Remarks. There is no experimental evidence to show the relationship 

of this form to the typical variety enneacanthus. Its 

range is entirely within that of the species, and there is no way 

at present to know how much of its distinctness is due to environment. 

It does exist as a recognizable form, however, and 

in its fullest development a very remarkable one. I have seen 

large plants fully five feet in diameter, their outer stems spreading 

over the ground like giant starfish arms. The sight of such 

green snake-like forms nearly a yard long running out from 

under a mesquite tree is unforgettable. The large, extremely full 

flowers of this form are as remarkable as the stems. With their 

several rows of petals they are truly the roses of the cacti. 

Small specimens of variety carnosus may be distinguished 

from the typical form by the excessive flabbiness of the stems, 

the more distant areoles and, of course, the surpassing flowers. 

This form has apparently been known by the name E. enneacanthus 

var. major Hort. 

Echinocereus stramineus (Eng.) Rümpl. 

“Strawberry Cactus,” “Organo,” “Pitaya” 


stems: Up to at least 10 inches tall and 31/2 inches thick, 

tapering gradually over most of their lengths to a rather 

pointed apex. They have 11 to 13 ribs, which are rather 

sharp, with fairly deep furrows between them and with slight 

tubercles or enlargements at the areoles. These stems cluster 

very freely by multiplying from the base, thus forming large, 

compact clumps of up to 100 or more equal stems. Such a 

large plant has the form of a hemisphere, often 2 or 3 feet 

across and nearly as high. 

areoles: On this cactus they are small, round, white, with 

much wool when young, and 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch apart. 

spines: All white to straw-colored and translucent, slender to 

medium in thickness from thickened or bulbous bases, covering 

the plant profusely. When very young at the tip of the 

stem, the spines are a very delicate pink in color, this becoming 

straw-colored for a while and then fading quickly to 

whitish. The radials vary in number from 7 to 14, and in size 

from 3/8 to 11/2 inches long, these extremes in size often being 

found on the same areole with the lower being the longer 

ones. They are all round and either straight or curved. The 

centrals vary from 2 to 5 in number and are to 31/2 inches 

long, slender for their length, and round or slightly flattened. 

They are usually a little darker than the radials, and may 

be straight or curved. Usually the lower central is perpendicular 

to the stem surface, while the others spread upward 

at various angles and interlock with those of other areoles. 

flowers: The flowers of this cactus are very large and beautiful, 

and are produced in large numbers. They are 4 to 5 

inches tall by 3 to 4 inches in diameter, and purple-red in 

color. There are 10 to 15 pointed outer petals with green 

centers and pink edges. There are 15 to 20 inner petals which 

are longer than the outer ones, with narrow bases and broadening 

to 1/2 inch wide or more toward the tips. These bases 

are a bright red which blends gradually to a bright rose toward 

the tips. The edges of these inner petals are ragged and 

toothed, and the blunt ends are sometimes notched. The fila- 

Rumpl -> Rümpl

Forster -> Förster 



ments are short and red. The anthers are yellow. The style is 

long and red, and on top of it there are 10 to 13 long, green 

stigma lobes. The tube of the flower is very long, with many 

white, bristle-like spines upon it. 

fruits: These are spherical, 11/2 to 2 inches long, purplish to 

red when ripe, with deciduous bristle-like spines. They are 

edible. 

Range. From El Paso almost to the lower Pecos River in Texas, 

and extending deep into Mexico. It is said to have been collected 

in southern New Mexico, but I have not been able to 

verify this. 

Remarks. E. stramineus is one of the most beautiful Echinocerei. 

Its domelike, compact manner of growth is shared by no 

other cactus within its range, and only by the more western 

and northern E. coccineus. It grows commonly only on the upper 

slopes of the sandy hills east of El Paso and on the limestone 

ridges in and around the Big Bend National Park. In these 

places its large clumps show up from a distance as glistening, 

whitish, or golden balls on the almost bare crowns of these hills. 

When it blooms in the spring its flowers form brilliant diadems 

of color for these otherwise drab rises. Its flowers are among 

the largest and most numerous of any Echinocereus. I have 

counted 40 of these brilliant purple blossoms on one clump at 

one time. Its fruits are also delicious, with a taste similar to and 

said by some even to surpass that of strawberries. 

I have not seen this cactus from anywhere west of the Franklin 

Mountains near El Paso, and there are no recent reports of 

its collection west of there, although there are old reports of it 

from southern New Mexico and even Arizona. It occurs only 

occasionally east of the Hueco Mountains of Texas, in an area 

south of Marfa, Alpine, and Marathon, Texas, extending into 

the Big Bend National Park, where it is once again almost as 

common as farther west. Near Langtry, Texas, seems to be its 

eastern limit. It grows widely in Mexico, and is considered by 

some to be the same as E. conglomeratus (Förster) Maths. of 

Mexico. 

This species must have the very dry, rocky conditions of its 

hillsides. For this reason it seldom survives when transplanted 

to gardens unless extra care is taken to give it sandy soil and to 

shield it from moisture. 

Echinocereus dubius (Eng.) Rümpl. 

“Strawberry Cactus,” “Pitaya” 


stems: Cylindrical, tapering at the upper end to a somewhat 

pointed tip. They are up to at least 15 inches long and 3 

inches thick, light green in color and very soft and flabby. 

They have 7 to 10 broad, rounded ribs with shallow furrows 

between them and very Slight enlargements at the areoles. 

These stems branch and cluster very slowly to form loose, 

irregular clumps which I have never seen with more than 8 

heads. The stems branch at all angles from about the ground 

level, and the heavy, flabby stems seem too soft to stand upright, 

so the clump is usually partly sprawling or semiprostrate—never 

rounded, compact, and regular as is that of E. 

stramineus. 

areoles: These are circular, about 1/4 of an inch in diameter 

and 1 to 11/2 inches apart, having much white wool when 

young, but losing all of it with age. 

spines: All of the spines are white to light brown and somewhat 

translucent when young, becoming opaque when old. 

They grow from enlarged bases. The radial spines are 5 to 9 

in number, often very irregular in size, being almost bristlelike 

to medium in thickness, 1/2 to 11/2 inches long, the upper 

ones shorter than the lower ones and these upper ones sometimes 

pushed aside or eliminated entirely by the large bases 

of the centrals. There are 1 to 5 very conspicuous central 

spines curving or spreading in all directions from mature 

areoles. They are very large, 11/2 to 3 inches long and from 

1/16 to 1/8 of an inch in thickness. They are also markedly 

flattened and sometimes ridged. It should be mentioned that 

the development of these centrals is very slow, so that young 

areoles often have only 1 or 2 shorter, round centrals, which 

makes them look almost exactly like typical E. enneacanthus 

spines. And when the plant is growing in conditions not entirely 

favorable to it these spines do not achieve their full 

development; thus large stems will sometimes have entirely 

juvenile spines. I have collected such plants, especially near 

the Devil’s River, which I would have taken for the other 

species except for the more robust, lighter green, and more 

flabby stems, and only after two full years in better growing 

conditions have these plants gone ahead to produce the typi- 

cal large growth of central spines. 

flowers: Magenta in color. Otherwise similar to those of 

E. stramineus, but not nearly so beautiful because they are 

much smaller in size, and because they fail to open widely 

and are produced in comparatively sparse numbers, each 

clump having only a few blossoms each year. They are only 

2 to 3 inches long and about 2 inches across. There are about 

10 outer petals, green in the centers with pinkish edges. There 

are about 10 inner petals with entire edges, narrow bases 

which broaden considerably and then end in a broad tip with 

a prolonged point at the apex. The bases are greenish with an 

orange area above that shading into magenta on the broader 

ends of the petals. The filaments are brownish and the anthers 

yellow. The style is long and white, while the stigma lobes 

are 8 to 10 in number, and green. The ovary tube has white 

spines 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch long, and has almost no wool upon 

it. 

fruits: Globular, 1 to 1/2 inches long, with many deciduous 

spines. It is said to be as edible as that of E. stramineus.



Range. Near the Rio Grande from near El Paso to the mouth 

of the Devil’s River, and extending into Mexico. 

Remarks. E. dubius is very closely related to E. stramineus, 

which grows in similar situations, but usually at higher elevations. 

E. dubius can hardly be mistaken for the other cactus, 

however, since it has fewer branches and ribs and poorer floral 

development, and it never grows in the huge, dome-shaped 

masses characteristic of E. stramineus. No authority seems to 

have suggested any combination of the two. E. stramineus is 

much more popular with collectors because only in the size of 

its spines does E. dubius excel; and yet, because it has more ribs 

and closer areoles, E. stramineus appears enclosed in its spines, 

while the stems of E. dubius are not obscured by its heavier, 

larger ones. Only on the hills just north of the Big Bend National 

Park have I seen these two species growing together; here 

the young plants are sometimes hard to distinguish, but the 

large, mature ones are easily told apart. 

E. dubius also is close to E. enneacanthus var. carnosus, in 

its stem structure, but it does not ever become so huge as that 

other form, and the flower developments of the two are the 

opposite extremes of the group. 

This cactus usually grows wherever the rocky hills spread out 

their lower slopes toward the Rio Grande. Its favorite place 

is the edge of the sandy river valley at the base of the hills. 

Just west of Sierra Blanca, Texas, where the highway starts to 

climb out of the sandy valley into the Sierra Blanca range it is 

very abundant. Along the Rio Grande below Presidio it is also 

common to beyond the Big Bend National Park. The specimens 

east of Presidio have longer, straighter, more stout and ridged 

central spines than those farther west, until one gets beyond the 

Park. East of the Big Bend Park it is very rarely seen, and the 

atypical specimens I found on the lower Devil’s River must 

represent its eastern limit, as well as its weakest spine development. 

Borg, in his book, Cacti, apparently is in error when he says 

that it is found in the sandy wastes of southeastern Texas, since 

there is no record of it anywhere except in the far southwestern 

part of the state. 

Echinocereus fendleri (Eng.) Rümpl. 

“Fendler’s Pitaya,” “Fendler’s Hedgehog Cactus,” “Purple 

Hedgehog,” “Strawberry Cactus,” “Torch Cactus,” “Sitting 

Cactus,” “Pink-Flowered Echinocereus” 


stems: This cactus grows as a small, loose clump of upright 

stems which may take various shapes, from short and almost 

oval to longer and cylindrical, usually tapering and therefore 

often somewhat conical. These stems are not usually 

over 12 inches tall, but may reach a maximum of 18 inches 

tall and about 4 inches thick in one variety. The surface is 

dark green and soft, often being wrinkled in appearance. 

There are 8 to 16 ribs, which are broad, somewhat wrinkled, 

and have rather conspicuous swellings around the areoles. 

areoles: Circular, not large, with some white wool when 

young, but later becoming bare. Up to only 1/2 inch apart on 

mature growth. 

spines: Rather stout from bulbous bases. This is the only 

purple-flowered Echinocereus I know within our area which 

has spines that can be called truly variegated in color. At 

least some of the spines on each plant have brown and white 

or black and white coloring in streaks along them. There are 

5 to 12 radial spines which are round or sometimes slightly 

angled and variegated brown and ashy-gray with white 

streaks. The lower ones are the stoutest and are 1/2 to 1 inch 

long; the upper lateral ones are bristle-like, usually white and 

only 1/4 to 1/2 inch long. The radial is missing entirely from 

the top of the areole. There is usually one central spine which 

is longer, more stout, round or only very slightly flattened. 

This spine is from 3/4 to 3 inches long, dark brown or black 

fading to gray when old, except in one variety where it 

reaches only 5/16 of an inch long. Some varieties of the species 

sometimes present 2 additional centrals. 

flowers: Large, to at least 3 inches in height and diameter, 

and a beautiful violet-purple. There are broad, greenish outer 

petals with violet edges. The inner petals are long, somewhat 

variable in shape, and violet-purple. The bases of these are 

narrow and dark purple-red, the petal broadening from this 

to a blunt or pointed tip. The filaments are green and the 

anthers light yellow. The style is whitish and only a little 

longer than the stamens. The stigma has 9 to 16 dark green 

lobes. The tube of the ovary has some white wool and many 

spines which are white or white with brown tips and mea- 

sure to at least 3/8 of an inch long. 

fruits: Almost spherical, 1 to 11/2 inches long, purplish, 

covered with spines which fall easily from it. It is fleshy and 

edible. 

Range. Extreme southwestern Texas, all of western New Mexico 

and into Arizona, Colorado, and Mexico. Its eastern range apparently 

stops at a line from near the upper Pecos River in 

New Mexico to just east of El Paso, to near Presidio, Texas. 

Within Texas it has been collected only in the Franklin Mountains 

just within the border of that state and in extreme western 

Presidio County. 

Remarks. E. fendleri is one of the most beautiful Echinocerei. 

Its flowers are large and of very delicate rose shades which are 

not matched by any of its relatives within our area. The colors 

of its spines are also unique for us, being truly variegated. The 

brown and whitish shadings in them I have not seen elsewhere 

except in some specimens of the more western E. engelmannii. 

The clumps formed by E. fendleri within our territory are not


large, and they do not flower as profusely as some, but it is a 

very worth-while cactus. 

Engelmann, in first describing and naming the cactus a hundred 

years ago, described a form of it with only 5 to 7 radial 

spines and no centrals, calling it variety pauperculus, but said 

also that on every specimen he had seen of this form some 

areoles had normal spines, so he suspected it was only an atypical 

growth. I have seen specimens from both New Mexico and 

Texas with this atypical spination, but each was a stunted or 

injured plant which could well have suffered some impairment 

to the spine growth, and each which I was able to grow under 

good conditions later put on typical spines. So I feel that this 

cannot stand as a distinct variety, and I therefore include this 

in the description of the species. 

E. fendleri must be considered as one of the more western 

Echinocerei, only dwelling a comparatively short distance into 

our territory. It reaches a great development in Arizona where 

there are at least four varieties besides the typical one. Our 

New Mexico plants, however, are mostly the typical form, as 

would be expected, since its type locality is near Santa Fe, New 

Mexico. Only in extreme southwestern New Mexico do we find 

one of these other varieties. 

Echinocereus fendleri var. fendleri (Eng.) 


stems: As the species, except that the stems are usually around 

6 inches tall and reach a maximum of 12 inches, with only 9 

to 12 ribs. 


spines: As the species, except that the radials number only 5 

to 10, and the single central is 1 to 2 inches long and usually 

curving upward. 



Range. As the Species. 

Echinocereus fendleri var. rectispinus (Peebles) L. Benson 


stems: Forming small clumps of up to 6 or 8 comparatively 

firm, columnar stems, up to about 8 inches tall. There are 8 to 

11 ribs on these stems, which are narrower than on the typical 

form and not tuberculate. 

areoles. Similar to the species. 

spines: There are 10 to 12 radials very similar to the typical 

except that they are usually lighter in color. There is 1 main 

central spine which is often accompanied by 1 or 2 upper 

accessory centrals. The main one is stout and porrect and 

straight instead of curving upward. It is 1/2 to 11/4 inches 

long. The accessory centrals are only 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch 

long. 

flowers : Similar to those of the Species, with stigmas numbering 

10 to 13. 


Range. Extreme southwestern New Mexico and extreme southeastern 

Arizona. In New Mexico reported, so far, only from 

western Hidalgo County. 

Echinocereus papillosus A. Linke 

“Yellow-Flowered Echinocereus,” “Yellow-Flowered Alico- 

che” 


stems: This plant consists of 2 or 3 to sometimes, in one 

variety, dozens of clustering and branching stems forming a 

very loose clump. The stems are slender, soft, and weak, apparently 

unable to entirely support their own weight, and so 

they lean and sprawl at awkward angles, although seldom 

being actually prostrate. Each stem is deep green in color, up 

to 10 inches long, and 1 to 23/4 inches thick. There are 7 to 9 

ribs which are extremely tuberculate, formed of series of 

conical enlargements about 3/8 of an inch high, with the 

areoles on the tips of them, these enlargements being separated 

by deep valleys which almost completely interrupt the 

ribs. 

areoles: Small, bare, 3/8 to 1/2 inch apart, crowning the 

tubercles. 

spines: Slender but rigid, straight, and round, from bulbous 

bases, white to brownish or yellowish in color. There are 7 to 

11 radial spines radiating evenly. They are whitish to yellow- 

brown, usually with brownish bases. The lower and lateral 

ones are longest and heaviest, being up to 1/2 inch long. The 

upper 2 or 3 are very much shorter and very slender, almost 

bristle-like. There is 1 central spine about 3/4 of an inch long, 

not much more stout than the radials, but having a very 

bulbous base and standing perpendicular to the stem surface. 

It is brownish to sometimes bright yellow, often with a dark 

brown base, a yellow zone in the middle, and a brown tip. 

flowers: Large, beautiful, and delicately fragrant, 21/2 to 4 

inches in diameter and height. The outer petals are oblong, 

reddish in their centers to yellowish at the edges-which are 

ragged. The inner petals lie in 2 to 4 rows, and are long, rising 

from narrow, bright orange-red bases, giving the center of 

the flower a striking red color. The upper part of the inner 

petal is much wider, with ragged edges and a tip either


somewhat pointed or blunt. This upper part of the petal is 

yellow, shading to almost white at the edges. The midline of 

each petal on the dorsal side has some unique feathery ridges 

and furrows extending almost to the tip. The filaments are 

reddish, the anthers light yellow. The style is white, and the 

stigma lobes are green, 10 to 13 in number, long, and broad, 

with a furrow running the length of the underside of each. 

The ovary surface has reddish scales and white spines up to 

about 1/4 of an inch long. 

fruits: Greenish, covered with short bristles. 

Range. A comparatively small part of south Texas bounded by 

a line from about 20 miles east of Laredo northeast into McMullen 

County, then southeast to near Alice, and from there south 

to within a few miles of Edinburg and back to Laredo. 

Remarks. In south Texas is found a cactus unique among the 

Echinocerei of the U.S. in having large, fragrant, yellow flowers 

with red centers. The plant itself is insignificant and not particularly 

attractive in its growth, but it is highly prized for its 

beautiful flowers. It would undoubtedly be a favorite with cac- 

tus collectors except for two facts. 

First, it grows in a comparatively small area of south Texas, 

and this not right along the Rio Grande where most collecting 

has been done. The center of its range is Duval, Jim Hogg, and 

upper Starr counties. From there it extends not quite to the Rio 

Grande Valley at any point on the west and south, and not 

quite to the coastal plain on the east. This interior country 

where it grows is dense brush country through which few 

people travel and in which fewer care to collect. This area presents 

some of the most difficult brush to move around in that 

I have encountered anywhere. And even here the cactus is an 

inconspicuous plant usually well-hidden under the chaparral or 

the tall Opuntias of the area. So it is seldom found except by 

the hardy. 

The second reason for its being so little known is that the 

plant is one of the most difficult to grow out of its natural 

habitat. It is found only on the light, sandy, limestone loam of 

the area. It cannot tolerate the darker soils of the Rio Grande 

Valley, or even of the bluffs overlooking the valley. Its range 

starts where this light sandy loam starts, a few miles to 50 

miles from the river, and at the same time it is unable to grow 

in the soils of the coastal plain on the east. I have the word of 

an experienced cactus dealer and grower in Laredo that it will 

not grow unprotected in that city only 20 miles from its natural 

range, and also that of a long-time grower of cacti in San Antonio 

that it will not live out-of-doors in that city less than a 

hundred miles above its range. I know of a grower much farther 

west who grows it with some success, but it is in desert soil and 

in real desert conditions. If conditions such as this are not painstakingly 

provided, the very soft flesh of the plant will rot almost 

overnight. I find it necessary, myself, to give it the most 

careful treatment to keep it alive and flowering, but the reward 

for this sort of care is great when one succeeds in getting a 

healthy plant to produce its huge yellow and red flowers. 

Long ago Hildmann described a variety of E. papillosus 

which he said has spines pink to red, passing to brownish. He 

called it variety rubescens. I have not found this variety, or 

seen anyone who knows it. Cactophiles might keep it in mind 

and try to discover whether it is truly a distinct variety. 

Echinocereus papillosus var. papillosus (A. Linke) 


stems: As the species, except each plant a clump of only up 

to 10 or 12 stems. 






Remarks. This is the typical form of the plant, and it is discussed 

above. Only in one small area will the dwarf form, described 

next, be encountered. 

Echinocereus papillosus var. angusticeps (Glover) Marshall 

“The Small Papillosus” 


stems: As the species except that it is markedly smaller, attaining 

the size of only 3 to 4 inches tall and 1 to 11/4 inches 

in diameter, but occurring in dense clusters of many stems. 

While 1 to 3 or 4 dozen stems to the plant is common, Miss 

Glover tells of one specimen containing 95 of these small 

stems. The stems are sprawling to upright. 


spines: As the species, except that they are shorter, the cen- 

tral spine reaching only 3/8 of an inch long. 

flowers: As the species except that they are usually slightly 

smaller and have a larger number of petals. The petals are 

usually more blunt at the tips. The yellow coloring is more 

greenish and the red paler. 


Range. Northern Hidalgo County, Texas. 

Remarks. While this cactus does not seem to be a separate spe- 

cies, it is definitely recognizable as a separate variety. It is a 

very interesting, dwarf-like form, found in only the portion of 

Hidalgo County above Edinburg, Texas, where it grows under 

mesquite and brush thickets.

Rumpl -> 

Rümpl 


Echinocereus pentalophus (DC) Rümpl. 

“Alicoche,” “Lady-Finger Cactus” 


stems: Light green and rather flabby, up to 12 inches long, 

but usually only 4 to 6 inches, slender, from 1/2 to 11/4 inches 

in diameter. The ribs number 4 or 5 on old stems, and are 

low, with very shallow furrows between them so that the 

stem in cross-section is almost a perfect square or pentagon. 

There are very low tubercles at the areoles. Young growing 

tips have much more pronounced tubercles and much more 

distinct furrows between the ribs, and in some specimens the 

stem does not flatten out much until very old. These slender 

stems branch and bud off new stems at any point and at any 

angle, forming an unorganized mass, most of which is prostrate 

on the ground. Young branches often are upright for a 

while, but soon bend over unless supported by something. 

These prostrate branches root at the areoles touching the 

ground and the whole mass thus grows rapidly, a very old 

plant becoming 10 or even 15 feet in diameter. 

areoles: Very small, less than 1/16 of an inch in diameter, 

with yellowish wool when young, then bare. They are spaced 

3/8 to 3/4 of an inch apart. 

spines: Very short and slender, but rigid, from bulbous bases. 

There are 3 to 6 radials which are 1/16 to 1/2 inch long, rosecolored 

when growing, then lightening to brownish with dark 

tips and finally becoming gray with dark tips when old. 

There is often no central, but one may be present, which is 

somewhat stouter than the radiais, darker in color, and from 

3/8 to 1/2 inch long. This central points upward if present, and 

sometimes the upper radial assumes this direction without 

moving from its position. 

flowers: 3 to at least 4 inches in diameter as they open 

widely. The outer petals have greenish midlines and pink 

edges. The inner petals are about 18 in number and long, their 

bases rather narrow and the upper part broadening to a 

maximum of 3/4 of an inch wide toward their tips. The edges 

are entire, the end of the petal blunt and often somewhat 

notched, but still having a small point at the apex of the 

midline. The basal third to one-half of each petal is white 

shading to yellowish, while the upper part is a light cerise. 

This results in a beautiful flower, cerise-pink with a large 

whitish center. The filaments are greenish, the anthers yellow. 

The style is composed of 10 to 16 linear, olive-green lobes 

with a yellow furrow on the ventral side of each. The ovary 

wall has much long white wool and many brown, bristle-like 

spines, giving it a woolly covering. 

fruits: Egg-shaped, green, 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch long, covered 

with white wool and brown spines. 

Range. Northeastern Mexico, extending across the Rio Grande 

into its lower valley up as far as Rio Grande City. It nowhere 

occurs over 15 or 20 miles north of the river. 

Remarks. The most common Echinocerei of deep south Texas 

and the lower Rio Grande Valley on both sides of the river are 

several forms of prostrate cacti. These all have very slender 

stems, usually 1 inch or less in diameter. They branch very 

profusely, forming masses of these stems, most of which lie entirely 

or partly on the ground, rooting where they touch the 

ground, and spreading the plant outward in this way. In some 

of them there are upright stems or tips of stems when young, 

but in all at least the old stems are prostrate. They are all known 

locally as the alicoches. 

In spite of the lowly forms of their growth, these are interesting 

cacti, and are justly famous for the beauty of their large 

pinkish flowers. These flowers, often 4 inches or more in diameter, 

are particularly startling when numbers of them appear 

upon a prostrate mass of these slender stems. 

The number of forms in this group is not large, but they were 

among the very early cacti described, and the differences between 

them not being strikingly obvious, there has been a his- 

tory of confusion over them. 

E. pentalophus was described very early, in 1826, by De 

Candolle. At that time he also described three varieties of it, 

variety simplex, variety subarticulatus, and variety radicans. It 

is very difficult to know today just what these varieties were, 

but we can see a hint here that the species is somewhat variable 

and that identification of these forms will be confusing. In 

1837, Pfeiffer ascribed the new names of variety propinquus 

and variety leptacanthus to the first two of De Candolle’s varieties 

respectively, and he was followed in this by Salm-Dyck 

in 1850. Then, in 1898, Schumann dropped the species name and 

spoke of Cereus leptacanthus. 

In the meantime, Engelmann had coined a new name for the 

plants he studied, calling them Cereus procumbens. We may 

perhaps understand why Engelmann did this if we notice a 

statement he made in his Synopsis of Cactaceae in 1856. He said, 

C. pentalophus is “…similar, but an erect plant.” Thinking 

this, he naturally gave the prostrate plants he had before him a 

new name. But it seems clear that in the variety simplex of E. 

pentalophus as described by De Candolle, there is a form with 

more numerous upright branches and with central spines, and 

that the variety subarticulatus was a more uniformly prostrate 

plant with no central spines on most areoles, which seems to fit 

Engelmann’s specimens. Accordingly, E. procumbens is considered 

widely to be a synonym of E. pentalophus, and perhaps 

more specifically, of E. pentalophus var. subarticulatus. 

More recently, there has been mentioned a Cereus runyonii 

from near the mouth of the Rio Grande. It has never been described 

completely, but it seems to have the same characters as 

E. pentalophus except for the fact that it has underground stems 

with areoles and short spines on them. I do not believe that this

Rumpl -> 

Rümpl 


species has been validly published, its mention being only in a 

list published in 1926 by Orcutt, but the area where it was 

found is one of very sandy coastal dunes, and since these cacti 

lie prostrate, it seems easy to account for the unusual occurrence 

of underground stems by the drifting action of wind-blown 

sand covering up the usual prostrate stems of the ordinary E. 

pentalophus. 

This is the cactus called the lady-finger cactus because of the 

small size of its stems, which are perhaps the slenderest of the 

genus. But anyone happening upon a clump of these stems, pros- 

trate and spreading over and under each other to cover the 

ground like a mass of green, intertwining snakes, might think 

of a less pleasant name for it. However, when this mass covers 

itself with dozens of large, cerise flowers it is a different matter. 

It is a favorite because of the beauty of its flowers and because 

it is among the easiest of cacti to grow. Wherever even a piece 

of it touches sandy, well-drained soil it roots and grows, and 

with its prostrate, spreading habit it soon fills a window box 

or overflows a pot. 

Echinocereus berlandieri (Eng.) Rümpl. 

“Berlandier’s Alicoche” 


stems: A sprawling, clustering, and branching plant with the 

older parts of the stems prostrate, but with the growing tips 

and sometimes complete stems erect. The stems are deep green 

to bright green and slender, not flabby, up to about 6 inches 

long and 1/2 to 1 inch thick, although not usually over 3/4 of 

an inch thick. There may be 4 to 6 ribs, composed of rows of 

distinct, conical tubercles at the areoles with rounded notches 

between them often interrupting the ribs entirely. These rows 

of tubercles usually spiral about the stem, and often stop and 

start abruptly, so that the upper part of the stem may have 

either more or fewer ribs than the lower part of it. 

areoles: Round, 1/8 of an inch in diameter, having much 

white wool when young, but becoming entirely bare with age. 

They are from 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch apart. 

spines: Slender to rather stout, round, from bulbous bases, 

very light yellow to white, and rather translucent, with 

slightly brownish bases and very minutely brown-tipped 

when young, becoming all gray and opaque when old. There 

are 6 to 8 radial spines, slender and yellowish white, some- 

times with tips and bases brownish. They are 1/4 to 11/4 inches 

long, the lower 3 being longest, and the upper 3 being much 

shorter and more bristle-like, except on areoles without a 

central, where the upper radial often is longer and heavier 

and moved into the areole almost to the position of an upward-pushing 

central. On typical plants there is 1 central 

on most areoles. It is much stouter and longer than the radials, 

being 1/2 to 11/2 inches long, and stands almost perpendicular 

to the stem or else turned upward. The areoles low on the 

stems tend to have short, weak centrals or none at all, while 

those toward the tips have robust, long centrals, which often 

gives the plant a curious top-heavy look. Some specimens are 

weaker in armament and on them centrals are found only on 

occasional areoles, but I have never seen a plant of this species 

wholly without centrals. 

flowers: Said to be 2 to 4 inches in diameter in some descriptions, 

but all I have seen were 3 to 5 inches across, while 

only 2 inches tall, opening very widely. The petals are in 

only one row, always very long and narrow, not usually over 

3/8 of an inch wide at any point. They have very gradually 

tapering, pointed tips with entire edges. The bases, and at 

least the lower one-third of the petals’ length are whitish, 

while the tips are cerise-pink. The stigma lobes are 7 to 11 in 

number. The surface of the ovary has very short white wool 

and many longer, weak, dark spines. 

fruits: Green, egg-shaped, about 3/4 of an inch long, covered 

with long, dark bristles, but having very little, and very 

short wool. 

Range. Throughout most of south Texas below a line drawn 

from the Rio Grande just northwest of Laredo to near Uvalde, 

Texas, then southeast to just below San Antonio and down to 

Corpus Christi. Most common along the Nueces River and the 

lower Rio Grande. 

Remarks. Berlandier’s alicoche is very close to the true alicoche, 

E. pentalophus, and has often been confused with it. However, 

it is a more northern form occurring over a wide area of south 

Texas, while the other is restricted very closely to a small section 

of the lower Rio Grande Valley. E. berlandieri was first 

discovered and described from along the Nueces River, where 

E. pentalophus never grows. It has flowers of the same color 

as the other cactus, but they are larger, with fewer, more narrow 

and pointed petals, fewer stigma lobes, and only short 

wool on the ovary surface. It also is a more upright-growing 

plant, never with all stems prostrate and never branching or 

rooting except near the base of the stems. Its stems are shorter, 

more slender, more tuberculate, and less flabby. It has longer 

and more numerous spines, usually with long and robust central 

spines on most areoles, while E. pentalophus usually has no 

centrals at all and at most sometimes produces a very much 

shorter and weaker one on an occasional areole. 

It must be admitted that there have been found plants which 

seem to be puzzling intermediates, if only such things as spine 

character are observed. The secret to this seems to be that it is 

not uncommon to find immature or stunted specimens of E. 

berlandieri which present only the shorter spines typical for 

E. pentalophus, but when I have grown such plants in good 

conditions they have, within a year, put on the greater arma-


ment typical of this species, as well as shown the narrower, 

more pointed petals and shorter wool on the flower tube which 

are a sure sign of this species. 

The two forms are so close that some have thought that perhaps 

they should be combined, but since we really know nothing 

experimentally about their actual relationship, any combination 

would be only conjectural at this stage. A combination 

here would make the nomenclature extremely confusing. It may 

well be that E. berlandieri is the plant referred to as C. pentalophus 

variety simplex by De Candolle and variety propinquus 

by Pfeiffer, since that form was supposed to have central 

spines. This could then be the plant referred to by Engelmann 

as the “erect” C. pentalophus. But if this is so, it is hard to see 

why he went on to give it a new species name at all. 

E. berlandieri has been further confused with the next species 

we will take up, E. blanckii. Britton and Rose went so far as to 

claim that these two very distinct and different species were 

synonymous. They even feature a clear photograph of E. berlandieri 

as E. blanckii, while at the same time having a correct 

color plate of E. blanckii. We do not know how much Coulter’s 

and even Engelmann’s descriptions of E. berlandieri were influenced 

by a failure to distinguish between these two species, 

since neither of those authors mentions E. blanckii at all. 

E. berlandieri, when once identified certainly and separated 

from its relatives, is a handsome plant forming small thickets 

of slender, sprawling stems standing at least 6 inches high. When 

blooming, a big clump of it will have dozens of the very large 

flowers with beautiful, two-colored, sharp-pointed petals. 

It may formerly have been common over its wide range, but 

it now is seldom seen anywhere (and then in only small clusters) 

except on the low banks overlooking the sandy plains of 

the Rio Grande delta below Brownsville, where it is still found 

under almost every bush. Still, an occasional specimen is found 

much farther north. I found a fine specimen growing 20 miles 

south of D’Hanis, Texas, which puts it only about 50 miles 

southwest of San Antonio. I have also found several nice specimens 

a few miles north and east of Laredo, Texas. These points 

apparently are near the extreme northwestward limit of its 

range. 

Echinocereus blanckii (Poselgr.) Palmer 

“Alicoche” 


stems: At first erect, but later sprawling. They are very soft 

and usually wrinkled, twisted, and contorted when old, 

bright green in color when in perfect health, but rapidly 

fading and turning yellowish-red when overexposed to the 

sun. The stems are 3/4 to 11/2 inches in diameter and to at 

least 14 inches long. There are 5 to 8 ribs. On young, growing 

tips these are composed of rows of practically unconnected 

tubercles, but on older parts of the stems these ribs are continuous, 

with the tubercles less prominent and with almost no 

depressions between tubercles or adjacent ribs, making the old 

stems almost perfect hexagons to octagons in cross sections. 

These ribs do not usually spiral, but individual ribs may stop 

or start at any point on the stem, increasing or decreasing 

the number of them. These stems sometimes branch above the 

ground, but not profusely. The plant produces most of its 

stems in clusters from its large underground root. Since they 

come forth from very small bases often only 1/4 of an inch in 

diameter at the ground level, if for any reason the soil is 

moved away from them, these young stems appear standing 

on very spindly bases, from which they abruptly widen to 

the typical size. 

areoles: Small, less than 1/8 of an inch in diameter, 1/4 to 1/2 

inch apart. They have a very little short wool when young, 

and then become bare. 

spines: Radial spines 6 to 9 in number, very slender and 

translucent, 3/16 to 7/8 of an inch long, radiating evenly. The 

3 radials on each side of the areole are the longest, and are 

white, sometimes with minute black tips when young. The 

lower radial is the shortest and is very weak, almost bristle- 

like. The uppermost radial is very dark brown when young, 

in striking contrast to the other white radials, and fades 

gradually to almost gray when very old, usually keeping at 

least a brown tip. There is 1 stouter central spine with a 

bulbous base. It stands perpendicular to the stem at first, but 

then turns downward and often is slightly curved downward. 

This central spine is from 1/2 to 2 inches long. It is 

translucent and variegated when young, with zones of very 

dark brown to light brown and almost white alternating 

throughout its length. When old it fades to almost the same 

gray as the other spines. 

flowers: Funnel-shaped, not usually opening widely. About 

2 inches tall by 21/4 to 31/2 inches across in their natural, 

partly spread state. The ovary surface has pointed, reddish, 

scalelike segments and clusters of white to brown spines on 

it, with a little short wool. The outer petals have purple 

midlines with lavender-pink edges, and are narrow and 

pointed, with smooth, unbroken edges. The inner petals are 

about 26 in number, widening a little to 3/8 or 1/2 inch across 

near the tips, their margins smooth and their tips sharply 

pointed. The upper four-fifths of each of these is light rose 

in color, while the base darkens to carmine, giving the flower 

a dark, reddish throat. The filaments match the center of the 

flower. The anthers are orange-yellow. The pink style is little 

longer than the stamens. There are 8 to 11 long, slender, and 

very light green stigma lobes. 

fruits: Practically unknown. There seem to be no descriptions 

of them except for the very general statement by Miss


Schulz in Texas Cacti that, “The fruit is greenish, globose, 

and covered with small spines.” 

Range. Northeastern Mexico and southern Texas, particularly 

in Starr and Hidalgo counties. Reported otherwise only once, 

and this from near Carrizo Springs, Texas, in Dimmit County. 

Remarks. E. blanckii is a very distinct species of prostrate 

Echinocereus. It was first named and described by Poselger in 

a German publication in 1853. Strangely, however, neither Engelmann 

nor Coulter mentioned it in their studies, so it was 

overlooked for many years. Then, in 1922, Britton and Rose 

confused it with E. berlandieri, stating that the two were 

synonymous. They published a photograph obviously of E. 

berlandieri as E. blanckii, but at the same time also published 

the best color plate of E. blanckii in bloom that I have seen. As 

a result of this, E. blanckii is still confused with the others of 

this group. I have seen numerous pictures of both E. pentalophus 

and E. berlandieri called E. blanckii in popular magazines and 

in catalogs but, due to its rarity, have not seen any good picture 

of the true species except the one of Britton and Rose, one in 

Borg’s Cacti, and one in Texas Cacti by Ellen Schulz. 

This species is easily distinguished from both E. berlandieri 

and E. pentalophus by the thicker stems with more ribs, the 

more numerous radial spines with the lower one smallest and 

the upper one dark colored. The downward-turning, variegated 

central spines are also very distinct from anything found in the 

others. When the flower is present there is no possibility of 

mistaking this cactus, as it has an over-all darker color with a 

dark center where the others have strikingly whitish centers, it 

opens only partly while they open extremely wide, and its 

petals are narrower, more pointed, and more numerous than in 

the other prostrate Echinocerei. Also, it normally blooms in 

February or March, about a month earlier than the others, but 

buds on disturbed plants may remain half-formed for more than 

two months and then open normally much after their usual 

season. 

E. blanckii is primarily a Mexican species, and it occurs in 

Texas mainly in Starr and Hidalgo counties. The only record I 

find of its occurrence outside these two counties is a single specimen 

which is incomplete but which appears to be of this 

species in the herbarium of The University of Texas. This is 

labeled as collected 18 miles southwest of the Dimmit-Frio 

county line, which would be near Carrizo Springs, Texas, well 

above Laredo. On the basis of this specimen its range would be 

rather large. Without it the range would be restricted to Starr 

and Hidalgo counties. But nowhere is it common, and, in recent 

years I know of only a dozen or so plants being brought in by 

professional dealers who comb the countryside continually. It is 

an exceedingly inconspicuous plant in the field, and it cannot 

stand much sun. The stems quickly turn yellow and red and 

wilt if exposed to the sun, so it is limited to the shady thickets 

where it is very hard to find. With the increase in the practice 

of clearing the brush cover, it will probably be one of the first 

species to become extinct on our side of the Rio Grande. This 

is unfortunate, as it is a beautiful cactus producing many fine 

flowers when given the conditions it requires. 

A possible reason for its scarceness may be this plant’s apparent 

inability to produce fruits. These have never been described 

except for the incomplete description given by Schulz, 

and the form may be practically sterile. A fine specimen forming 

a clump all of 10 feet across is fully protected within the 

Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, and over a number of 

years of observation this has been seen to bloom profusely, but 

has never set a fruit. The reason for this is unknown.

Genus Wilcoxia B. & R. 

The genus Wilcoxia was erected by Britton and Rose in 1909. 

Some earlier writers had included its members in Cereus and 

some in Echinocereus. Since 1909 the species in the genus have 

been dealt with in various ways. Berger placed them in the 

genus Peniocereus, while Benson returned both of these genera 

to the genus Cereus, and others have considered each of these 

a subgenus of that large genus. 

Whatever they have concluded about the genus, all recent 

writers have agreed that while these species seem to form a 

rather good grouping, the separation of the genus as such from 

other genera is not as clear-cut as they would like. Most say 

that any final word on the genus will have to await further 

investigation. With this word of caution about its status, we 

use the genus in the way most authorities are using it at the 

present time. 

Five species in this genus are usually recognized. They are 

almost entirely Mexican, only one species coming into the 

United States at all, and that one only into southern Texas. 

They are also inconspicuous cacti. In form they are very 

slender-stemmed, sparingly branched bushes. The stems, about 

5/8 of an inch or less in diameter, grow very long, but are weak, 

so the plants seldom attain much size unless they have trees or 

shrubs to recline upon. If growing in a thicket, they clamber 

over the other plants, some species then becoming up to three 

yards or more long. But the slender stems are usually well hid- 

den among the branches of the supporting plants. 

Each individual grows from a cluster of tuberous roots which 

provide the water storage for these cacti, whose stems are too 

slender to handle that function adequately. 

The spines are very short, 1/4 of an inch or less long, and are 

appressed to the stems. There is also more or less hair on the 

areoles. 

The flower is large and beautiful, bell-shaped or funnel- 

shaped, but with a short tube. It is reddish to purplish in color, 

and diurnal. The ovary surface is scaly, woolly, and covered 

with bristly or hairlike spines which remain on the fruits. The 

seeds are black. 

By way of summarizing the differences between the genus 

Wilcoxia and those genera closest to it encountered in our area, 

we can list the following points: genus Wilcoxia differs from the 

genus Echinocereus by having much more slender stems, by its 

clambering habit, by never being caespitose, by having fascicled, 

tuberous roots, by producing its flower from within its spine 

areole instead of from a rupture of the stem epidermis just 

above the areole, and by the difference of seed form. Wilcoxia 

differs from the genus Peniocereus by having even more slender 

stems with 8 ribs where that genus has only 3 to 6 ribs; by having 

fascicled tubers while that has a single extremely large taproot; 

by producing red to purple flowers with short perianth 

tubes, which open during the day, instead of white or very occasionally 

rose flowers with long tubes, which open nocturnally; 

by having fruit with wool and bristles instead of with rigid 

spines; and by the difference in seed form. 

Wilcoxia poselgeri (Lem.) B. & R. 

“Pencil Cactus,” “Dahlia Cactus,” “Sacasil” 


roots: A cluster of dahlia-like tuberous roots usually half a 

dozen or more in number. Each tuber is rather spindle-shaped, 

up to about 4 inches long and about 1 inch in diameter. 

stems: Long, very slender, and sparingly branched to form a 

very weak bush standing by its own strength sometimes to 

2 feet tall, but when supported by the branches of a thicket


sometimes attaining a height of 3 or even 4 feet. Each stem 

is round with 8 very low and inconspicuous ribs and is from 

1/4 to 5/8 of an inch thick. The upper parts of the stems are 

green, but the lower parts become brown and woody. 

areoles: Very small and very close together, with some white 

wool. 

spines: There are 9 to 12 very slender radial spines only about 

1/16 to 3/16 of an inch long. They lie perfectly flat against the 

surface of the plant and are white or gray in color. There is 

1 central spine about 1/4 of an inch long, which is turned 

upward against the upper radials. It is white, whitish tipped 

with brown, or sometimes all dark. 

flowers: Borne on the sides of the stems, very near to their 

tips. The flowers are funnel-shaped and 11/2 to 2 inches wide 

by 2 to 21/2 inches long, deep pink in color. The outer petals 

are narrow with greenish midribs and pink edges. Inner petals 

are broader but still linear and sharply pointed, deep pink or 

rose shading to lighter edges. The stamens are pale yellow. The 

stigma has 8 long green lobes. The ovary surface has reddish 

scales upon it and has a dense covering of long wool and 

black-and-white hairlike bristles. Each flower opens about 

noon and closes before night, usually for 2 or 3 days. 

fruits: Practically oval in shape, becoming nearly dry and 

remaining covered with the wool and bristles. The seeds are 

black. 

Range. From western Hidalgo County, Texas, along the Rio 

Grande to slightly beyond Laredo, Texas, and in adjacent Mexico. 

It has not been reported more than about 30 miles away 

from the Rio Grande on the U. S. side. 

Remarks: The pencil cactus is a fascinating member of this 

family, but so inconspicuous and actually camouflaged in its 

native habitat that few people have seen it. It is rather common 

in its range, but always grows in thickets where its slender stems 

lie upon those of the bushes and trees. The support of these 

thickets seems practically essential to it, since individuals un- 

fortunate enough to be growing in the open rarely attain a 

height of over a foot or so. Within thickets in the same area 

one finds many individuals 2 or 3 feet tall and sometimes even 

more. Yet these are extremely hard to see. I have found that 

almost any good thicket in the area will have one, but about 

the only way to discover it is just to sit down and study the 

tangle of branches until it becomes apparent. 

Once discovered, the cactus usually prompts exclamations of 

wonder. It presents the most slender stems of any U. S. cactus 

except Opuntia leptocaulis. These may extend for several feet, 

and branch, but they do not increase in size with age, remaining 

almost exactly the thickness of a lead pencil. Its common name 

is well chosen. But in spite of this slenderness, the plant may 

reach quite a good size, with a dozen or more branches. And once 

having gotten so large, it can really amaze us with the production 

of up to two or three dozen of its large, beautiful flowers 

at a time. 

Each plant grows from a cluster of fleshy roots. It does best 

in sandy, loose soil, and can be grown quite easily in cultivation 

if treated much like other cacti of the region. However the individual 

plants seem to lose vigor after a few years. While they 

may remain alive for up to ten years or so, they seem to largely 

stop growing or blooming after the first three to five years. It 

seems that there must be a maximum size and number of the 

fleshy tubers and that these are not replaced with age. Mrs. Roy 

Quillin (Ellen Schulz), long a student of these cacti, always 

keeps several beautiful specimens of this cactus growing in pots, 

but she keeps them vigorous by cutting off the upper branches 

every few years and, after rooting these for her new starts, 

throwing away the whole of each plant which has passed its 

prime. Others grow them very successfully to very large size by 

grafting them upon other cacti. 

Wilcoxia poselgeri has been known in the past as Echinocereus 

poselgeri Lem., and as Cereus poselgeri Coult. Even earlier it 

was known under the name Cereus tuberosus Poselgr. and Echinocereus 

tuberosus Rümpl. It is the only U. S. species of Britton Rumpl. -> 

Rümpl. 

and Rose’s genus Wilcoxia.

Genus Peniocereus (Berger) B. & R. 

This is another small genus erected by Britton and Rose. The 

name means something like thread cereus, referring to the slen- 

der stems of all the members. 

Before Britton and Rose made this separation, the group had 

been part of the large genus Cereus. It is very hard to show 

significant characters to distinguish this genus Peniocereus from 

several other closely related genera. Perhaps its standing as a 

separate genus cannot be well justified, but the old genus Cereus 

has been so subdivided and reduced that it would be impossible 

to weigh the question of putting it together again without a 

restudy of many Central and South American genera, and that 

places the question beyond the scope of this book. It should be 

noted that Benson, in his 1950 study, placed these small genera 

back into Cereus, but that at the same time Backeberg and 

others have gone on very rapidly carving new genera out of 

the territory formerly covered by the original genus Cereus. It 

appears to be a matter which will be decided by the turn of 

taxonomic philosophy. 

One cannot even state the number of species in the genus 

Peniocereus definitely or give an unequivocal set of characteristics 

for the genus, because these will be different depending 

upon whose limits to the genus one elects to follow. The number 

of species will be from two in the case of the most restrictive 

authors to seven in the case of Backeberg, who places back into 

this genus such things as Marshall’s genus Neoevansia and some 

species from the genus Acanthocereus. 

Therefore, we can only give characteristics of this genus in a 

very general way here. We can say that the members of the 

genus all have a single, extremely large, fleshy taproot, from 

which grow one to several slender stems which are ribbed at first 

but then become round. All have fragrant, nocturnal flowers 

with long perianth tubes, the flowers produced from within the 

spine areole, and all have very short spines on the stems, and 

rigid spines on the fruits. 

A comparison of this genus with the genus Wilcoxia was 

made in the discussion of that genus. The other genus in our 

area to which it is most closely related is Acanthocereus. The 

differences between these two genera are as follows: Peniocereus 

has a huge, fleshy taproot, stems ribbed but becoming 

round when old, very short spines, and more elongated fruits, 

while members of Acanthocereus have fibrous roots, stems always 

markedly ribbed, much longer spines, and fruits more 

nearly spherical. 

Peniocereus greggii (Eng.) B. & R. 

“Arizona Queen of the Night,” “Texas Night-Blooming Cereus,” 

“Deer-Horn Cactus,” “Chaparral Cactus,” “Sweet- 

Potato Cactus” 


roots: Each plant has a single, huge, fleshy taproot. This is 

roughly carrot-shaped or turnip-shaped, but often takes on 

the shapes of crevices between rocks and other obstacles 

through or around which it grows, and so may be greatly 

distorted. A typical plant of medium age will possess a root 

8 to 12 inches long and 3 to 5 inches in diameter at its 

thickest point, but very old plants have been reported with 

the root up to 2 feet in diameter and weighing up to 125 

pounds. 

stems: Slender, erect, and sparingly branched to form a weak


bush, 1 to reportedly at least 9 feet tall. Young branches are 

dark, dull, grayish-green, quickly becoming reddish when in 

too much sun. They are from 1/2 to 1 inch thick, with 3 to 6 

very strong ribs. Old stems do not increase in size, but rather 

shrink to a smaller diameter, and in the process the surface 

loses its areoles and ribs and becomes brownish, woody, and 

circular in shape. 

areoles: Very tiny and closely situated on tiny tubercle-like 

prominences crowning the ribs. There is much white wool at 

the growing tips, some of which remains when the areoles 

are older. They are round to elliptical in shape. 

spines: Each areole has 6 to 9 spreading radials and 1 or sometimes 

2 centrals. All of these are blackish fading to gray; 

they are very short, being only 1/32 to 1/8 of an inch long, but 

stout and rigid, from bulbous bases. 

flowers: Strictly nocturnal. Produced from well down on the 

sides of the branches, these flowers are large and beautiful, as 

well as extremely fragrant. In size, they are 5 to 8 inches 

long by 2 to 3 inches in diameter; in color, whitish with the 

outer perianth segments somewhat tinged with brown; in 

shape, having a very long, very slender perianth tube, with 

the inner perianth segments spreading very widely and the 

outer segments usually recurved. The ovary surface has tubercles, 

and the areoles on these bear short, rigid spines. The 

outer surface of the elongated tube has scales and longer, 

more bristle-like spines. The perianth segments are lanceolate 

and sharply pointed. The stamens are erect, exserted, with the 

anthers cream in color. The style is slender; the stigma, white. 

fruits: These are 2 to 3 inches long, ovoid in form, with the 

upper end attenuated and ending in the persistent, dried remains 

of the perianth, which is sometimes referred to as the 

“beak.” Some authors give the size of the fruit as 5 to 6 inches 

long, but this includes the dried perianth, which is not actually 

part of the fruit and which usually hangs downward 

anyway. The surface of the fruit is strongly tuberculate, each 

tubercle bearing a round, black areole about 1/8 of an inch in 

diameter. These areoles bear short, black, rigid spines. The 

color of the surface remains bright green until after they are 

very ripe and the pulp is a beautifully contrasting magenta. 

Later as the fruits soften and start to disintegrate the surface 

becomes a brilliant orange-red. The seeds are black, very 

broadly obovate, and about 1/8 of an inch or a little more in 

greatest diameter. 

Range. Trans-Pecos Texas, west through southern New Mexico, 

across southern Arizona, and in adjacent Mexico. 

Remarks. Peniocereus greggii is one of the most fascinating of 

the cacti. It is one of only two “night-blooming cereus” species 

found in our area. It is justly famous for its large, extremely 

fragrant, nocturnal flowers—so famous that one finds a rivalry, 

as seen in its names: both Arizona queen of the night and Texas 

night-blooming cereus. 

These flowers are not the only amazing things about the cactus. 

The blooms come out on the sides of very slender stems. The 

branching of these stems creates a spindly bush which always 

grows up within a thicket of other plants. The other plants 

about it provide not only the support which is necessary if it is 

to stand over a foot or two tall, but also the light shade which 

it likes, and a shield of stems and branches among which it is 

extremely well camouflaged. 

The cactus is always rare in all of its range, and this fact, 

together with its camouflage, makes it almost completely foolish 

to start out anywhere looking specifically for it. The chances are 

overwhelmingly against one’s finding a specimen. But the plant 

has to face the crucial few days when it must expose itself in 

flower, and this has been the downfall of many a fine specimen. 

The standard way of searching for it has often been to 

search the desert at night with good lights, under which the 

large white flowers stand out like signs. Or, even more simply, 

some merely follow the wonderful fragrance of these flowers 

back to the plant. This scent is said to carry sometimes up to 

one-fourth of a mile in the desert. 

Once the plant is located and the searcher sees its slender 

stems, he has still not seen perhaps the most amazing part, for 

like the iceberg this plant has most of its bulk underground. 

The bush above ground may be one foot or several feet tall. This 

depends almost entirely on the conditions in which it is growing 

and not on its age, since the stems die back very quickly during 

severe seasons and are usually destroyed whenever they grow 

past the limit of whatever chaparral they may be surrounded by. 

So any specimen of this cactus which is old enough to stand a 

foot or more high will normally have a taproot 6 inches long 

and 3 inches thick at the minimum, and without being any taller 

it may as easily be an ancient specimen with the root weighing 

dozens of pounds. There is hardly any way to predict the size of 

this enormous root, where the water storage of this plant is 

taken care of so that the stems may remain so inconspicuously 

slender among those of the thicket. 

Bearing this in mind and noting the fact that it grows invariably 

in very rocky or very hard, clayey soil, it is a coura- 

geous person who starts to dig up this cactus. The root conforms 

to the shape of rocks and other roots it has to grow between, 

and getting it out is usually a good half-day’s work for a strong 

man. 

Once acquired, keeping the plant alive is also difficult. The 

huge root is very vulnerable to fungus if it is kept in soil even 

a little too damp. If rotting is avoided, the plant seems to 

decline gradually over a few years’ time in greenhouse cultivation 

or in pots. I have only been able to keep my own specimens 

healthy, growing, and blooming, even in the climate of San Antonio, 

when they are planted in outdoor beds shielded from the 

rain. It is no wonder they are so seldom seen in collections.

genus Peniocereus 59 

Engelmann, at one time, distinguished two varieties of this 

species, which he called variety cismontanus and variety transmontanus. 

Few have since tried to separate them, and we have 

seen no clear division in any of the material we have studied. 

Kuntze, in 1919, described plants of this species collected at 

Organ, New Mexico, which had light purple flowers instead 

of white. He established the new variety roseiflorus for these, 

but I will not list this variety separately, for two reasons. We 

have already seen how unwise it is to erect varieties on flower 

color alone, and there seems to be no other difference in these 

plants from the typical. Also, I know of no record since then of 

the collection of specimens with purplish flowers.

Genus Acanthocereus (Berger) B. & R. 

Here is a small genus of somewhere around a dozen species 

carved out of the huge old genus Cereus. No one seems to dispute 

this one. Whether it is so little criticized because it is more 

of a natural group or because so little is certainly known about 

it is a question which might occur to anyone reading the 

numerous but remarkably incomplete and often contradictory 

statements about its members. From Linnaeus on we have had 

not a lack of, but actually too many, references to these plants. 

What we do lack is enough good data on which solid decisions 

can be based. 

The members are more or less shrubby plants. The stems grow 

upright at first, but usually cannot support their own weight 

for long, and thus recline upon some support—usually other 

plants—or else become more or less prostrate and thicket-form- 

ing. Supported stems may grow to at least twenty feet tall 

and branch sparingly, but prostrate stems throw up many upright 

branches. Stems may be from an inch or so to 4 inches in 

diameter. Mature stems have 3 to 7 conspicuous ribs. The areoles 

are not close, and bear strong and rigid spines. The flowers are 

nocturnal, large, and white, with the perianth tube long and 

the ovary usually spiny. The fruit is round or nearly so, spiny 

or with the spines deciduous. The seeds are black or brown. 

This is a group of tropical, lowland cacti. They are never 

found far from a coast, and seem to thrive best on semi-arid 

coastal plains. However they can tolerate much more moisture 

than most cacti, and when given it their rate of growth is often 

amazing. I have had one species, when planted in an outdoor 

bed where it got sufficient water, produce a 6-foot stem in one 

summer’s growing season. But they are most severely limited 

by cold, being among the most tender of the cacti. A frost will 

kill the tips of the stems, and at 32 degrees Fahrenheit the 

whole of the plant above the ground is killed, although the 

roots may sprout again. 

The combination of conditions these plants need is found in 

various coastal areas in Central and South America. There are 

species of Acanthocerei native in eastern Mexico, Guatemala, 

and Panama, and in northern, coastal regions of Colombia, 

Venezuela, and Bahia, Brazil. In the U.S. they have a precarious 

hold along the coast in south Texas and in Florida. Besides 

these locations, they have been introduced in Cuba, the islands 

of St. Thomas and St. Croix, and probably in some other areas. 

Acanthocereus pentagonus (L.) B. & R. 

“Triangle Cactus,” “Night-Blooming Cereus,” “Organo,” 

“Pitahaya” 


roots: Fibrous. 

stems: At first upright, later reclining, becoming practically 

prostrate and rooting to form low thickets unless supported. 

If supported, it grows to at least 6 feet tall. Such an upright 

stem may branch once or twice and the branches, if supported, 

rebranch similarly to attain a total height of at least 

20 feet. The thickness of the stems is extremely variable: from 

11/4 to 4 inches in diameter. Mature stems have 3, 4, or 5 

ribs so high and narrow that the stem has only an extremely 

small central axis and is essentially a triangle, quadrangle, 

or pentagon with deeply concave sides. These winglike ribs 

are from about 1/2 to 2 inches high. Their summits are somewhat 

tuberculate at first, but become almost smooth. ‘The 

surface is light to medium green. 

areoles: Round, 1/8 to 3/8 of an inch across, bulging on slight 

prominences on the summits of the ribs. They are spaced from

genus Acanthocereus 61 

about 3/4 to at least 2 inches apart, and have very short, 

whitish wool. 

spines: There are 5 to 7 radial spines which radiate rather 

evenly around the areole; 1 to 3 upper ones are from 3/16 to 1 

inch long. There are sometimes 2 upper laterals and always 2 

lower laterals, each 3/4 to 1 inch long. There is always one 

lower radial which is more slender than the laterals and 1/4 

to 3/4 of an inch long. There are also 1 to 4 central spines; 1 

is always a lower central, porrect or slightly deflexed and 

3/4 to 11/2 inches long. There may be 0 to 2 laterally directed 

centrals 3/4 to 2 inches long, and 0 or 1 upper central 1 to 

21/4 inches long. All spines are medium to heavy in thickness, 

straight and round, from bulbous bases. They are light brown 

when growing, then rough and gray when old. 

flowers: Nocturnal, extremely large and showy, but only 

slightly if at all fragrant. They are white in color, from 51/2 

to 8 inches long, and about 51/2 to 6 inches wide when fully 

expanded. The ovary is hardly expanded more than the long 

green tube, which is only 1/3 to 3/4 of an inch in diameter. 

There are conspicuous areoles on slight prominences rather 

closely placed on the ovary and becoming very widely spaced 

as they proceed up the tube. These have white wool in them 

and one to several rigid spines each; these spines are very 

short on the ovary but become progressively longer as they 

proceed up the tube until they are to about 1/4 of an inch long 

on the upper tube areoles. The outer perianth segments are 

greenish, the inner ones white. All are lanceolate and pointed. 

The stamens are shorter than the perianth segments, with the 

filaments white and the anthers straw in color. The stigma is 

white, with 10 to 12 close-standing lobes. 

fruits: Oval to rather egg-shaped, about 3 inches long by 2 

inches in diameter. They are slightly tuberculate, with 1 to 4 

spines per areole, and they are bright red and edible when 

ripe. The seeds are obovate, about 1/8 of an inch (3 millime- 

ters) in size, and bright, shining black in color. 

Range. In Texas in a few locations only a few miles from the 

coast in Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron counties. It is reported 

to be also a native in southern Florida, along the east coast of 

Mexico, in coastal parts of and on islands near Guatemala, 

Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, and Bahia, Brazil, and to have 

been widely introduced in other places, among them Cuba, 

parts of the Virgin Islands, and reportedly southern Louisiana. 

Remarks. The triangle cactus is a very beautiful cactus, but a 

very difficult one to deal with in a study with only the scope 

of this one. It is clearly a tropical cactus which has at best a 

precarious foothold in the United States and which never attains 

its full growth here. There are many questions about it which 

could only be answered by a wide survey of this genus in several 

countries of tropical America. 

The very name of the cactus is the first of these questions 

which we cannot evaluate satisfactorily here. Cacti similar to 

this were seen very early, and we have numerous very old 

names accompanied only by notes too incomplete to be conclusive 

and by no type specimens. We are in the embarrassing 

situation of having too many names which might refer either 

to this cactus or to some entirely different one. 

Linnaeus started this problem. In 1737 he named a Cactus 

pentagonus and gave a very brief description of it. He gave 

no location for this cactus except, “Habitat in America.” The 

description could apply to this plant, but there are difficulties. 

A main obstacle is that he describes its stem as being 5-angled, 

which our plant never is in the U. S. But in a new note in 

1753, Linnaeus modified this point a little by saying that the 

stem was sub-5-angled (subquinquangularis). 

Haworth, in 1813, applied this name to a Central American 

plant, but, interestingly enough, no later authorities used the 

name for many years. Engelmann, in referring to a Mexican 

cactus which must have been the same as ours, ignored Linnaeus’ 

name entirely and called the plant Cereus variabilis, while 

Coulter refers apparently to the same Mexican plant under the 

name originated at about the same time by Pfeiffer, Cereus 

princeps. 

princips -> princeps 

In the meantime there had been a host of other names which 

some have thought referred to our plant and some have 

thought were meant for entirely different forms. Among them 

were Cactus pitajaya Jacquim, published in 1761, Cereus prismaticus 

Wildenow, 1813, Cereus undulosus DC, 1828, Cereus 

acutangulus Otto, 1837, Cereus baxaniensis Karwinsky, 1837, 

Cereus nitidus SD, 1850, Cereus dussii Schumann, 1899, Cereus 

sirul Weber, 1904, and so on. Only very extensive study of much 

material and very astute evaluation of tiny clues could ever 

determine whether any one of these names is a synonym for the 

cactus we have in our area or a legitimate name of some closely 

related form. 

It is obvious that there was no agreement on a name for 

this cactus up to this century. Perhaps the most remarkable fact 

to be seen from the above list is that all of the authorities 

seemed to avoid the use of Linnaeus’ name, Cactus pentagonus. 

Did they consider the name unusable because the description 

was so brief and lacked even a type locality for the plant it 

was supposed to name? 

It remained for Britton and Rose, in 1909, to revive the old 

name and apply it for the first time to our Texas cactus, adapting 

it to their new genus as Acanthocereus pentagonus. They 

were able to do this by stating that the plant has 3 to 5 ribs, 

thus enabling it to fit the number mentioned by Linnaeus fairly 

well. Due to their wide influence, our plant has been known 

from their time until recently as A. pentagonus, and most have 

happily forgotten, if they ever knew, about the whole 150 years 

of controversy over names. 

We do not want to be blamed for ending a period of pleasant 

stability by introducing some doubt once again. It was Backeberg 

who, in his recent great work on cacti, had the courage 

to restudy the literature and who came up with a disquieting


decision. He it is who now tells us that Britton and Rose went 

back to the wrong name by Linnaeus for this cactus. 

Backeberg does not feel that the assumption is warranted that 

Linnaeus had our plant before him in describing his Cactus 

pentagonus. It must be admitted that this can be no more than 

an assumption and that for 150 years none of the authorities 

assumed it. But isn’t this better than the maze of names we are 

faced with without it? What can be offered positively? 

Backeberg is ready with an answer. He says that Cactus 

pentagonus L. is “unidentifiable.” Then he refers us to Hummelink, 

who has already stated that the first name, Acanthocereus 

pentagonus, of Britton and Rose could only have been Cactus 

tetragonus L. 

The point is that in the same publication in 1753 Linnaeus 

relisted his Cactus pentagonus and also described a new form, 

Cactus tetragonus, with stems 4-sided. This plant is even more 

inadequately described than the first, but it does have a more 

proper number of angles to the stem for our cactus. And even 

more important, Linnaeus pinpoints the location of it as 

“Curaçao, America.” This does give something to work on. 

Backeberg makes the flat statement that our plant is the same 

as the one which grows on Curaçao, and so he considers the 

question of names closed. He lists our cactus as Acanthocereus 

tetragonus (L.) Hummelink. 

I have not so far read any discussion of Backeberg and 

Hummelink’s idea, and no doubt there will be rebuttals. In the 

meantime I am unable to make a choice between the two proposals. 

I have been able to examine no specimens from Curaçao, 

and it seems that only a very detailed comparison of specimens 

from this type locality and our plants can give any basis on 

which to determine their relationship. In the present state of 

our knowledge, I feel it best to repeat the use of Britton and 

Rose’s name, at the same time pointing out the question about 

it and warning any serious cactus student that he may or may 

not in the future find the tide of opinion turning toward 

Backeberg’s theory. 

The triangle cactus is a beautiful one. It seems to be the only 

U. S. cactus which can outdo the large Opuntias in rate of 

growth. I have seen well-established plants produce stems 5 and 

6 feet tall in one growing season, and since some of these fall 

over and root where they touch the ground, in a few years such 

plants become large thickets. 

This is its mode of growth in the wild. It grows in the very 

dense brush just back from the coast in south Texas, sprouting 

under the trees and bushes which present an almost unbroken 

cover in this area. Here the large stems start upward, and if 

they find a tree trunk to lean against or attain a tree limb 

before they bend of their own weight, they go clambering up 

the tree and branch sparingly in it. Those branches which do 

not succeed in remaining upright touch the ground again and 

by rerooting where they touch, help the cactus to spread. By 

combinations of this method and seeding, in several Texas 

locations the cactus forms an understory plant so thick among 

the trees and bushes that it is difficult to walk through the 

stands. On summer nights the brush in such a place is so covered 

with hundreds of the huge white flowers that the sight is glo- 

rious. 

But often when one goes to such a place the sight is not so 

wonderful. This cactus is one of the most tender to frost of any 

I have grown. It is far more tender than most of the larger 

Mexican Cerei. So if one goes to such a natural stand of it in 

south Texas in the spring after a winter in which there has been 

a freeze in the area, one finds the trees draped with the dry, 

brown skeletons of the stems and only new shoots starting again 

from the roots. It seems that throughout its range in Texas the 

plant is killed back nearly to the ground by freezes every few 

years. The cold limits its range, and nowhere north of Corpus 

Christi can the plant be grown successfully without protection. 

It is definitely a tropical species barely hanging on in our area. 

All specimens which I have seen growing wild in Texas have 

been uniform in having the mature stems 3-angled—hence the 

name, triangle cactus. Only in cultivated specimens have I 

seen the stems 4-angled, and these I suspect came from Mexico. 

I have never seen a 5-angled mature stem in a U. S. specimen. 

However, this is apparently not typical of the species in the 

rest of its range. Many stems on the plant as it grows in Mexico 

have 4 ribs and some are seen there with 5, while the plant 

growing on Curaçao is described as having only 4 or more ribs. 

This and other differences may be due to the fact that in 

Texas we actually have only young sprouts of the plant. Here, 

in a lucky time when it does not get frosted for several years it 

may attain 8 feet or so tall, but then comes a freeze and it has 

to start over again. Only a hundred miles or so south along 

the Tamaulipas coast, where it never gets frozen, the cactus 

grows 20 feet or more up into the large trees and is a truly 

impressive giant. 

The largest stand of this cactus which I have seen is in 

Cameron County, Texas, in the brush about a mile and a half 

inland from the waterway called Callo Atascosa. It is almost 

within sight of the Atascosa Wildlife Refuge, and it is unfortunate 

that it is not within this protected area. Such a stand is a 

unique extension of the tropical flora into our area.

Genus Echinocactus Link & Otto 

Most of the cacti in the genus Echinocactus live up to the 

meaning of the name. Some of them present among the strongest, 

most rigid spines found on any cacti, and most of them are 

covered with as complete a spine cover as is found anywhere. 

Their main spines are often made especially troublesome by 

being hooked at the end, but, because they are never barbed 

along the shaft they are actually not as vicious as the much 

more slender spines of the Opuntias. Although these heavy 

spines are a feature of most of the Echinocacti, a few of them 

present more slender and flexible spines, and there are even a 

few spineless members of the group. 

These cacti are often known as the “barrel cacti,” and this 

term is a good one if it reminds us of their heavy, fleshy bodies 

and we do not let it limit our concept of them to something only 

barrel-shaped or barrel-sized. In size they may actually range 

from the huge, truly barrel-like species usually thought of under 

this name and sometimes weighing hundreds of pounds, to 

miniature forms essentially the same but, in some cases, only 

a few inches high when mature. In shape they are typically 

globular, although they may be very flattened, hemispherical, 

or sometimes heavily cylindrical. 

The exteriors of these cacti are typically firm and solid. They 

are shaped into from 8 to more than 20 vertical or spiraling 

ribs, which may be broad or narrow, high or low, smooth and 

even throughout their lengths or undulating, notched, or cross- 

furrowed, but never completely interrupted. These ribs may be 

thought of as partly or completely fused tubercles, but with the 

fusing process always clearly visible. They are never rows of 

completely separate tubercles. The areoles are on the summits 

of these ribs. 

The presence of these ribs distinguishes the Echinocacti handily 

from the tubercled cacti, but not from the Cerei. For the 

characters which set these apart and the characters which a 

botanist uses to be sure of his genera, we have to look to the 

reproductive structures. All of the Cerei produce the flowers 

on the sides of the stems, have a flower tube prolonged above 

the ovary, and also have a spiny ovary surface. Our Echinocacti, 

however, produce their flowers at or near the apex of the 

plant, have no distinct floral tube, and the ovary bears scales 

and sometimes wool, but not spines. 

It is harder to state differences between the Echinocacti and 

their other relatives. Ribs versus tubercles will usually do it, 

giving us a handy way to tell them from any of the Mammillarias 

and the members of the genus Pediocactus or genus Ariocarpus, 

but the genus Lophophora has what are best thought of 

as low ribs. These are small, spineless forms, different from the 

Echinocacti in various ways, but for clearly observable differences 

one has to look to their ovaries and fruits, which are 

naked, with no appendages of any kind. Most of the Mammillarias 

can also be separated from the Echinocacti by having 

such naked fruits, but several of them may have some scales on 

their fruits. 

The genus Echinocactus is used here in practically the old and 

original sense given it by Link and Otto. It was originally described 

as a large and complex grouping of ribbed cacti which 

produced their flowers at or near the apex of the plant, where 

the blossoms grew out of the upper edges of the young spine- 

bearing areoles, and whose ovary and fruit surfaces were to 

some degree scaly. Schumann organized a series of subgenera 

within it, and later Britton and Rose divided the old genus up 

into a whole array of separate small genera, leaving the original 

name, Echinocactus, to cover in their system only a few species 

of large barrel cacti. 

The dividing process has continued until we have had at least


twelve genera carved out of the old genus, among them Echinocactus 

(in the sense of Britton and Rose), Ferocactus, Homalocephala, 

Hamatocactus, Glandulicactus, Astrophytum, Sclerocactus, 

Thelocactus, Ancistrocactus, Neolloydia, Echinomastus, 

and Coloradoa. 

Due to the large influence of Britton and Rose’s publications 

these are no doubt the names that most cactus fanciers are familiar 

with today. Most people probably think of them as distinct 

and definite groupings, even though almost all would be 

hard-pressed if they had to try to tell the differences among 

them. They are annoyed when someone comes along who thinks 

that what they have known as Ferocactus johnsonii is actually 

Echinomastus johnsonii, or that Ferocactus uncinatus should 

have an entirely new genus made for it; and they sometimes 

make uncomplimentary remarks about taxonomists who bring 

up such subjects. This is because they are blissfully unaware of 

the uncertainty of these numerous small genera. 

Actually, these genera were erected upon very small differences 

and these differences are used to divide them so arbitrarily 

that, for instance, the presence or absence of wool on the ovary 

is taken to be important enough to divide the woolly Echinocactus 

(sensu B. & R.) from the nonwoolly Ferocactus, while the 

equally woolly ovary of Homalocephala is considered of no 

significance and the single species placed in this latter genus is 

linked in this system no more closely to Echinocactus than to 

Ferocactus. Or Glandulicactus is a genus recently erected almost 

entirely, as the name implies, because of the presence of glands 

on the plants, even though other plants left in three other 

genera of the group may have equally obvious glands. 

These small genera erected upon this sort of extreme use of 

the dividing rather than the synthesizing method are so 

poorly defined that their actual history is one of continual shifting 

of species from one to another and continual disagreement 

among the authorities who have tried honestly to define them. 

Echinocactus uncinatus, for instance, has been placed during 

the fifty years since the move to break up the original genus 

into five different genera, Britton and Rose placing it in Ferocactus, 

Knuth putting it in Echinomastus, Marshall in Thelocactus, 

Buxbaum in Hamatocactus, and finally Backeberg 

making the new genus Glandulicactus for it. Various other species 

have been shifted from genus to genus and the genera themselves 

have been both combined and redivided from time to 

time. The result is that the index of any recent book on cacti 

is used only with difficulty because it either lists many of these 

forms under different genera from the book last consulted or 

else is rendered overly long by listing each species repeatedly 

under the various genera each has been placed into by one 

authority or another. 

This situation looks, on the face of it, like the dividing process 

gone to excess, and this attitude toward the problem has 

been taken by one contemporary authority. Dr. L. Benson, in 

his book, Arizona Cacti, has ignored these newer genera and 

placed them all back into the old genus Echinocactus. This 

greatly simplifies things, and would seem a welcome move, if it 

can be justified. 

Some twenty years have passed since Benson’s recombination 

of these genera and there should be something more to be said 

on the problem. However, we actually find no more prospect 

of agreement on how to classify this group today than ever. 

Backeberg has recently published his large work with the genetic 

divisions at their all-time extreme. Dr. Benson has published 

studies on another genus, Pediocactus, in which he has applied 

a similar combining to some other small genera, but he has not 

dealt again with the Echinocacti themselves. We are left with 

the two fundamentally opposing views, each with a top expert 

in the field backing it; thus, we must make a choice for our- 

selves between them. 

To help in doing this we must look about for some newer research 

which might shed light on the problem. Remarkably 

little actual research has been reported recently on these cacti, 

but there has been a little. I do not want to place too much 

weight upon this small bit of evidence, but we must use it in 

choosing between the two very different approaches to this 

group. 

The most significant recent research is that of Dr. Norman 

H. Boke at the University of Oklahoma. He has undertaken 

very fine anatomical studies, particularly of the shoot and 

areole formation in various species of cacti. Of particular importance, 

he has shown that the famous groove which in some 

cacti extends above the spine areole-in some running a long 

way upward and in some a shorter distance-is really only an 

extension of the spine areole itself and so all flowers which 

come out of the upper edge of an unelongated spine areole or at 

the end of this groove are essentially coming from the same 

position in relation to the areole. He has shown that the areole 

in all such cases is the same in essential development and structure, 

described by the term “monomorphic,” as opposed to the 

term “dimorphic” for situations where the flower areole is separated 

from the spine areole entirely. This is important, since 

it makes all but academic the huge discussions of grooves versus 

merely elongated areoles and short grooves versus long grooves 

which have figured in trying to divide the genera within this 

group. The areole in all of the various members of this large 

group is uniformly monomorphic, a fact which is of some significance. 

On most of the other characters used to divide the Echinocacti 

into the many genera proposed, much has been written in 

the past, but there is no new evidence. Some authorities could 

be quoted on each distinguishing character proposed; and other, 

equally eminent students, on reasons why the character is of 

doubtful value. 

However, what little recent research has been done has made 

it clear that if the theory of dividing into separate genera on the 

basis of each and every little difference prevails, the familiar 

genera of Britton and Rose will, for the most part, not stand 

as generally used today. Instead there will have to be newer and

genus Echinocactus 65 

more logical realignments and even some more splittings. Backeberg 

has already embarked upon that sort of future with his 

genus Glandulicactus. An indication of the future, if this line 

is followed, can be seen in a statement by Dr. Boke summarizing 

his research on only three species in the group. He says, 

The anatomical data obtained in this study emphasize the 

similarities between Homalocephala texensis and Echinocactus 

horizonthalonius as well as the difference between these 

two species and Echinocactus grusonii. The combined list of 

characters suggests to the author that if E. horizonthalonius is 

to be retained in the genus Echinocactus, Homalocephala 

should be returned to the same genus. It further suggests that 

E. horizonthalonius could, with equal logic, be referred to the 

genus Homalocephala. The outcome will depend upon taxonomic 

opinion and also upon the results of investigations on 

the developmental anatomy of other species now included in 

the genus Echinocactus. 

These further investigations have not yet been reported, but 

since it seems clear that after they are there will probably have 

to come a very far-reaching and so far unpredictable realignment 

of the genera already proposed, it seems undesirable to 

perpetuate genus names in this book which have so little meaning 

now and which have such unpredictable futures. For this 

reason I am inclined to follow Benson in a conservative approach, 

going back to the usage of the older, inclusive genus 

Echinocactus, at least until more work is done. There is a trend 

toward synthesis as opposed to division in plant taxonomy and 

the distinct possibility exists that a more complete understanding 

will show that these recent genera are better thought of as subgenera 

or tribes, as Schumann first meant them to be. For these 

reasons I am referring them all back to the genus Echinocactus. 

The Echinocacti, understood in this way, are especially interesting 

to cactus fanciers because of their heavy bodies and conspicuous, 

often beautiful spine covers. They include all of the 

huge barrel cacti growing within the United States, which inspire 

such feelings of awe in us—except the huge saguaro. Because 

they are such favorites, collectors like especially to grow 

them. 

But fanciers must always remember that these are the real old 

desert rats. If one were to rate the cacti on their adaptation for 

survival in extreme desert situations, the finest and most beautiful 

of these Echinocacti would be among the most specialized 

for the extremes of heat and drought. And one should always 

remember that this makes the big, tough-looking specimens one 

most admires among the least capable of surviving in our cool, 

moist gardens and patios. It is a sad sight to see a venerable old 

desert barrel turning to mush in an over-watered situation. We 

feel sorry for a person who has to watch a desert planting of 

these cacti going to pieces in his yard, but there are unscrupulous 

nurserymen who will extract large prices for selling and installing 

fine old plants in places where they cannot possibly live. 

Many growers have shown that all of these can be grown almost 

anywhere if they are protected and cared for properly, in which 

case their beauty is well worth the trouble they take, but anyone 

wishing to grow them must go to the trouble of learning their 

requirements and providing for them properly. 

Knowing that some will disagree with the treatment of this 

group which I am using and will wish to use instead the microgenera 

of Britton and Rose, and realizing that the decision is 

at this time largely an arbitrary one, I add with the listing of 

each species in this group the alternate name which would be 

the valid one at the present time under that system. 

KEY TO THE ECHINOCACTI 

la. Plants spiny—2. 

2a. Central spines never more than one—3. 

3a. Central spine hooked if present, or else absent—4. 

4a. Radial spines 7 or 8 in number, 3/4 to 2 inches long, the 

upper 4 or 5 of them straight and flattened, the lower 3 

round and hooked; central spine 2 inches or more long; 

flower red-brown —E. uncinatus var. wrightii. 

4b. Radial spines 8 or more, 3/8 to 11/4 inches long, all round 

and straight; central spines absent or less than 13/4 inches 

long; flower cream or yellow in color—5. 

5a. Radials 10 to 19; central spine always present and 1/4 to 

13/4 inches long; flower large and yellow with red throat 

—6. 

6a. Stem becoming to 5 inches in diameter; radial spines 

10 to 13 in number; flowers 2 to 3 inches tall 

—E. setispinus var. hamatus. 

6b. Stems becoming to only 3 inches in diameter; radial 

spines 12 to 19; flowers 13/4 to 2 inches tall 

—E. setispinus var. setaceus. 

5b. Radials 8 to 11; central usually absent and when present 

(in rare cases) only 1/2 inch or less long; flower cream to 

pale yellowish without red coloring —E. mesae-verdae 

(in part). 

3b. Central spine present and straight—7. 

7a. Mature plants large, 6 to 12 inches in diameter; spines very 

heavy and cross-ridged; radials 5 to 8 in number; central 

deflexed—8. 

8a. Ribs 5 to 13; areoles 1/2 to 7/8 of an inch apart; stigma 

lobes 6 to 10; fruits imbedded in much long wool, soon- 

drying, and not bright colored—9. 

9a. Spines extremely heavy, very flattened and very severely 

recurving against the plant; stems remaining 

at most pyramid-shaped instead of cylindrical, with 

the ribs noticeably tuberculate —E. horizonthalonius 

var. curvispina. 

9b. Spines not so heavy, only somewhat flattened and not 

recurving against the plant; stems becoming columnar, 

with the ribs hardly tuberculate —E. horizonthalonius 

var. moelleri.


8b. Ribs 13 to 27; areoles 1 to 11/4 inches apart; stigma lobes 

10 to 17; fruits standing exposed beyond the wool, very 

slow drying, and bright red in color —E. texensis. 

7b. Mature plants not so large, 11/2 to 4 inches in diameter; 

spines rigid but not extremely heavy or cross-ridged; radials 

8 to 16 in number; central porrect or turned upward 

—10. 

10a. Central usually present on only some areoles and 1/2 

inch or less long; radials 8 to 11 in number and 1/2 inch 

or less long —E. mesae-verdae (in part). 

10b. Central always present, 5/8 to 7/8 of an inch long; ra- 

dials 10 to 16 in number and to 7/8 of an inch long 

—E. erectocentrus var. pallidus. 

2b. Central spines more than 1 on mature plants—11. 

11a. Lowermost central spine hooked; upper ones straight—12. 

12a. Mature plants massive in size; radial spines 12 to 20, all 

but the lower 3 of them slender, flexible, bristle-like, and 

white; central spines very heavy and cross-ringed 

—E. wislizeni. 

12b. Mature plants small to large, but not massive, radial 

spines all rigid; centrals various but not cross-ringed—13. 

13a. Mature plants large, 7 to 12 inches thick; largest cen- 

tral spines 2 to 6 inches long—14. 

14a. Ribs very high and broad and composed of massive, 

rounded tubercles 11/2 to 2 inches tall and in diameter 

at their bases; central spines 4 to 8 in number, 

all round or nearly so and smooth 

—E. hamatacanthus. 

14b. Ribs high but acute, composed of indistinct tubercles 

only about 3/8 of an inch across; central spines 4, 

all flat and pubescent —E. sinuatus. 

13b. Mature plants small, not over 6 inches and usually 4 

inches or less thick; largest central spines 2 inches or 

less long—15. 

15a. Radials brown, yellowish, or tan, fading to gray; 

upper centrals conspicuous for forming an erect “V” 

of straight, diverging spines; flowers greenish or 

yellowish—16. 

16a. Radials 12 or more, ribs 13; flowers greenish and 

not opening widely—17. 

17a. Roots fibrous; radials 12 to 14; flowers green 

suffused with rose —E. brevihamatus. 

17b. Roots composed of a long, fleshy, white tap- 

root; radials 13 to 28; flowers plain green 

—E. scheeri. 

16h. Radials 7 to 12; ribs 8; flowers yellow and open- 

ing widely —E. tobuschii. 

15b. Radials all but the lower one on each side of the 

areole white; upper centrals not forming a conspicuous, 

erect “V”; flowers rose, purplish, pink, white, 

or rarely pale yellowish —E. whipplei (in part). 

11b. All central spines straight—18. 

18a. Radial spines predominantly white—19. 

19a. Radials 25 to 36; plant small, 31/2 inches or less tall 

—E. mariposensis. 

19b. Radials 7 to 16; plants becoming larger than 31/2 inches 

tall—20. 

20a. Radials 1/2 to 1 inch long; centrals somewhat flattened 

and 1 to 2 inches long —E. whipplei (in part). 

20b. Radials 1/4 to 1/2 inch long; centrals round and 3/8 

to 11/8 inches long —E. conoideus. 

18h. Radial spines with various strong colors besides white 

—21. 

21a. Ribs 8 in mature plants —E. bicolor var. schottii. 

21b. Ribs 12 to 14—22. 

22a. Spines with bright red zones and some of them flattened 

and 1 inch or more long on mature plants; 

flowers large and very bright rose-pink 

—E. flavidispinus. 

22h. Spines gray or yellowish to dull purplish or reddish, 

but not bright red; all spines round and none over 

3/8 of an inch long; flowers small and pale pinkish 

—23. 

23a. Lowermost porrect central only 1/8 to 3/16 of an 

inch long; ribs 3/4 to 1 inch wide —E. intertextus 

var. intertextus. 

23b. Lowermost porrect central 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch 

long; ribs narrower, only 5/8 to 3/4 of an inch apart 

—E. intertextus var. dasyacanthus. 

1b. Plants spineless —E. asterias. 

Echinocactus horizonthalonius Lem. 

“Turk’s Head,” “Devil’s Head,” “Eagle Claws,” “Bisnagre,” 

“Bisnaga de Dulce,” “Bisnaga Meloncillo” 


stems: Each plant is at first a depressed hemisphere which 

later elongates to become a pyramid or a short cylinder in 

shape. It grows to a maximum size of about 8 inches tall and 

8 inches in diameter, and is almost always single, but rarely 

forming 2 or very rarely 3 stems. There are almost always 8 

ribs, but reports have been made of 5 to 13 ribs. These are 

very broad and rounded, with shallow grooves between them, 

and when old they are more or less interrupted by shallow 

cross-furrows. They may be vertical or spiraling. The color of 

the surface is a dull gray-green. Young plants have only a 

very little short wool at the apex, but old plants have a tuft 

of long wool filling the apex. 

areoles: Spherical or nearly so and 1/2 to 7/8 of an inch apart. 

Having much long wool when young, but nearly bare when 

old. 

spines: There are 5 to 8 radial spines. They radiate rather 

evenly around the areole, except that there is no lower radial 

present. In one form the radials are strongly recurved against 

the plant. Those of adjacent areoles interlock extensively. 

There is also one central spine on mature plants, which is 

more or less strongly deflexed and curved downward upon


the others. All spines are from 3/4 to 11/2 inches long, heavy 

to very heavy from enlarged bases, almost round to distinctly 

flattened. Their surfaces are rough and more or less cross- 

ridged. Their color is brownish or reddish fading to grayish 

or sometimes almost black. 

flowers: Very brilliant rose-red in color. They are 2 to 3 

inches broad and long. The ovary is covered with small scales 

and dense white or pink wool. The outer segments are short, 

narrow, and sharply pointed, sometimes ending in a blackish 

spine. The inner petals are longer, somewhat lance-shaped, 

with notched, toothed, or ragged edges, but usually ending in 

a spinelike point. There are very many short yellow stamens. 

The style is pink. There are 6 to 10 long stigma lobes which 

are reddish or pink on the lower side with the upper or inner 

sides salmon to somewhat orange or even olive. 

fruits: Oblong, to 11/4 inches long by about 1/2 inch thick, 

with some scales on the surface and enclosed in the long wool 

at the apex of the plant. This fruit dries from the tip downward 

so that when it is ripe the lower part is usually reddish 

and soft while the upper part is brown and dry. This upper, 

dry part usually breaks off, leaving the base and many seeds 

imbedded in the long wool. The seeds are about 1/8 of an inch 

long, somewhat irregular and angular in shape, with large, 

depressed hila. The surface is rough and dark brown. 

Range. All of trans-Pecos Texas, most of southern New Mexico 

and on into Arizona and Mexico. 

Remarks. With this species we venture into the fascinating 

group of the barrel cacti. While this is not one of the largest of 

the group, it is as tough as they come, its surface almost as hard 

as leather and its spines so strong, rigid, and spreading that one 

of its local common names, “eagle claws,” is apt. 

This little barrel grows on arid, rocky hilltops and slopes 

where there is no brush and very little grass to shade it. One 

may encounter it in such exposed places once he has passed 

westward over the Pecos River anywhere below Roswell, New 

Mexico. It is especially common in parts of the Davis, Guadalupe, 

Franklin, and other mountains of southern New Mexico 

and southwest Texas, where places may still be found with 

dozens of fine old specimens dotting the hillsides. However, it 

is much more usual now, over most of its range, to find an isolated 

plant and to search the surrounding area without finding 

a companion to this one somehow surviving individual. The most 

likely places to see this species in quantity today are in the bins 

of cactus dealers and the beds of nurserymen. 

It is hard for us now to imagine the wealth of such plants 

that our unspoiled deserts once boasted and the mayhem man 

has visited upon them in a relatively short time. Mr. Ernest 

Braunton, in an article published in the Cactus and Succulent 

Journal in 1933, tells of counting 500 cacti of this species uprooted 

and dumped into a ravine during a single clearing and 

building project that year in El Paso, Texas. He called then for 

some sort of conservation of such plants, but was not heard, and 

now one has to go far into the out-of-the-way places of the 

mountains to find any of these cacti at all. Such is the situation 

almost everywhere, and the individuals we do find seem to be 

only the lucky ones which have so far been missed by the diggers. 

Since this cactus does not hide under any brush or survive 

well in thick grass, it is especially vulnerable and the motives 

for taking it have been several. 

As one of its Spanish common names implies, in the past its 

flesh has been used for the making of cactus candy. It is probably 

used little if at all for this in the U. S. today, but now it is 

taken for use in the so-called desert plantings fashionable for 

yards and gardens. But in this it usually suffers almost as certain 

a death as in the candy manufacture. It is so strictly a 

desert plant that it does not thrive well even in the yards of 

New Mexico or west Texas; only those willing to give it the 

most specialized situation should try to grow it. In the meantime, 

it becomes more and more scarce as we are fascinated by 

the tough old fellows and bring them from their deserts. 

This species apparently received two names in the same year. 

In 1839 it was named E. horizonthalonius by Lemaire and E. 

equitans by Scheidweiler; however, the first of these two names 

has long been the one used for it. Engelmann attempted to set 

those specimens with central spines apart as variety centrispinus, 

but this division was long ago dropped as unnecessary since it 

would comprise almost all mature specimens seen and leave out 

all juvenile ones. However, there do seem to be two recogniz- 

able varieties which are consistent. 

Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. curvispina SD 


stems: As the species, except that old specimens remain short 

and pyramid-shaped instead of cylindrical and have ribs 

which are very flat but quite noticeably interrupted by cross- 

furrows and, therefore, tuberculate. 


spines: As the species, except that they are always very heavy, 

very flat, and very severely recurved against the plant, with 

no spines projecting outward. 



Range. Practically limited to west Texas. From the lower Pecos 

River to the Davis and Guadalupe mountains. 

Remarks. The Texas members of this species are mostly of this 

form. I have examined hundreds of Davis Mountain specimens 

without seeing a single plant diverging from this description. In 

southeastern New Mexico there are less definite examples which


appear sometimes as intermediates. Engelmann stated, in “Corrections 

to the Cactaceae of the Boundary,” that these two 

forms had “entire identity” and could scarcely be called varieties, 

but that the intermediates seem to require them. Yet when 

one moves so short a distance from the Franklin Mountains as 

the Selden and Portrillo mountains he finds all of the specimens 

there clearly of the next variety. 

Variety curvispina is, therefore, the eastern form of the species. 

The extremely heavy, recurved spines on the squat, pyramidshaped 

barrel gives us one of the most beautiful forms found in 

the cacti. It is a plant remarkable for the unvarying tidiness and 

symmetry of its form and it gives a fascinating expression of 

unyielding toughness. Still, its spines are so appressed against its 

surface that one may hold an old giant of this variety in the 

flat of the hand without getting a prick from it. I have seen 

workmen unloading a truckload of these plants by casually 

tossing them down from one to another like balls-all bare- 

handed. This is something one had better not try with the more 

western variety of the species. 

Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. moelleri Haage Jr. 


stems: As the species, except that with age it becomes more 

columnar than pyramid-shaped and taller but not so large in 

diameter. The ribs are high but with very shallow cross- 

grooves; the tubercles are more fused and often are hardly 

visible at all. 


spines: As the species, except that the spines are not so heavy, 

being only somewhat flattened, and straighter; not recurving 

against the plant but rather standing out at angles from its 

surface. 



Range. From the Franklin and Guadalupe mountains west into 

Arizona. 

Remarks. This is the western form of the species. By comparison 

to the other variety it is smaller in diameter but taller and more 

columnar, with sharper, higher, less interrupted ribs. But the 

most noticeable difference is in the spines, which in this variety 

show none of the tidiness of the others, but stand out at all 

angles in chaotic, interlacing masses. Where the one may be 

handled easily, woe betide anyone who thinks to pick up this 

variety by other than the roots, as there are spines aimed in 

every direction and if he seeks to withdraw from a point in one 

direction he will usually back into an opposing point nearby or 

even be caught between the spines, which often have a pincers 

action. These spines are also much less heavy or flattened than 

those of the other variety. 

Echinocactus texensis Hopff. 

[Homalocephala texensis (Hopff.) B. & R.] 

“Devil’s Head,” “Horse Crippler,” “Candy Cactus,” “Manco 

Caballo,” “Viznaga” 


stems: Very broad. Greatly flattened to sometimes dome- 

shaped. This cactus grows to a maximum of about 12 inches 

across, and such large plants rise from only 2 to occasionally 

8 inches high. Stems are usually single, but the plants occasionally 

produce 2 or 3 equal stems. When injured at the summit, 

they often produce a cluster of small heads on top of the 

old one. The surface is dark green. The ribs are prominent and 

acute, normally 13 or 14, 20 or 21, or 27 in number. The apex 

of the stem is filled with some long, white wool. 

areoles: Triangular to inverted heart-shaped, 1/4 to 3/8 of an 

inch in greatest diameter, and covered with white or gray 

wool. They are located about 1 to 1/4 inches apart. 

spines: Reddish or brownish-gray, becoming whitish when 

old. Only a little flattened, they are ringed by regularly occurring 

ridges, and are very heavy and rigid. There are 6 or 7 

radial spines from 3/8 to 2 inches long. There are typically 2 

diverging upper radials which are comparatively small and 

short, 2 lateral radials which are very heavy and long—often 

the longest spines—and a pair of lower diverging radials 

which are again smaller. Occasionally there may be one additional 

radial which is also comparatively small and directed 

straight upward. All the radials may be straight and spreading 

to strongly recurved. There is also one central spine which 

is the stoutest spine, often 1/8 of an inch thick at the base and 

sometimes much more than that. It is from 3/4 to 23/4 inches 

long, deflexed, and from straight to recurved or sometimes 

slightly hooked. 

flowers: These are bell-shaped, 1 to 21/4 inches in diameter 

and similar in length, slightly fragrant and very beautiful, 

each flower displaying an interesting range of shades. The 

ovary is densely covered with long white wool and many 

short, sharp-pointed but soft, blackish scales. These scales 

lengthen as they progress upward, while the wool thins. The 

outer perianth segments are short, narrow, and sharp-pointed. 

Their midribs are fleshy and greenish or brownish, ending in 

a brownish point, while their edges are greenish to whitish, 

fringed, and more or less covered with a web of wool. The 

inner perianth segments are narrowly lanceolate from narrow 

bases. These bases are red. A pale rose midline extends up the 

petal, darkening noticeably as it nears the apex, where it ends 

in a pronounced mucro which is purplish or brownish. All of 

the expanded part of the petal is pale lavender, salmon, pink 

or sometimes almost white, depending upon the individual 

plant. The edges of the petals are fringed to the tips, feathery 

in appearance. The filaments are reddish to pinkish, the anthers 

pale yellow. The style is yellowish or pinkish. The stigma


has 10 to 17 rather long yellowish or pinkish lobes, each often 

having a red stripe on the lower side. 

fruits: Spherical to oval, 3/4 to about 11/2 inches long. They 

remain fleshy and become brilliant red. After a very long 

time on the plant they usually split open vertically on one 

side. Scattered over the surface are the dried and hardened, 

bristle-like ovary scales, each with a tuft of white wool in its 

axil. On the top of the fruit clings the dried remains of the 

perianth. The seeds are black, kidney-shaped, slightly less 

than 1/8 of an inch in length. 

Range. All of Texas west of a line from approximately the 

mouth of the Colorado River to near Fort Worth and ‘Wichita 

Falls, except the Texas Panhandle and the extreme western tip 

of the state beyond the Guadalupe Mountains. Also in extreme 

southwest Oklahoma and southeastern New Mexico as far north- 

west as Roswell. Extending deep into adjacent Mexico. 

Remarks. It is fitting for this plant to carry the name texensis, 

for it has one of the widest ranges of any cactus in that state, 

and it does not venture far into any other state, barely entering 

Oklahoma and only penetrating a corner of New Mexico. It is 

a low, flat, retiring cactus content to stay under the grass, so 

although it is fairly common over a wide range, many people 

do not know it. Yet when one has once discovered it, he is not 

likely to forget the plant. 

The impression this cactus gives is one of elemental, even 

brutal strength. It squats low to the ground, usually only 2 to 5 

inches or so high, its surface is hard and unyielding, and it is 

covered with a loose system of not too many but some of the 

most robust and rigid spines found on any of our cacti. There 

it sits, and it seems to dare anyone to come its way. No wonder 

the ranchers of two nations call it in two languages by the name 

“Horse Crippler,” for it is said that it sits there unseen in the 

grass, and if a running horse steps on it, the rigid spines will 

penetrate the tender underside of the hoof and cripple the horse. 

Its very strength brings its downfall, since most ranchers regularly 

uproot any of these pests they see on their ranges, and 

this has greatly reduced the numbers of these cacti found in 

many areas. However, the species is still very common in certain 

fields from within sight of the Gulf around Corpus Christi 

northwest through central Texas and in extreme southeast New 

Mexico. To either side of this broad southeast to northwest band 

one finds it less frequently, but it ranges over a wide area. 

This species is remarkable because, even though it is one of 

the toughest of the barrels in structure, it can stand lots more 

moisture than most others of this group. For this reason it is 

much better adapted to cultivation than most of its relatives 

and can also stand more cold than most of them. It is a favorite 

among collectors and growers. 

The species was first described and named Echinocactus 

texensis in 1842. Three years later Engelmann described it 

again and designated it Echinocactus lindheimeri. There were 

few other names coined for it, but E. platycephalus by Muehlen- 

pfordt and Melocactus laciniatus by Berlandier are two syn- 

onyms. 

There have been two varieties of this cactus proposed, variety 

gourgensii Cels and variety longispinus Schelle. Since it grows 

over so wide a range it is surprising there are not more localized 

forms deserving varietal rank, but the species is remarkably 

stable. There is a general gradient of spine size on these plants 

as one moves from southeast to northwest over its range. Those 

specimens from southeast Texas have more slender and usually 

somewhat shorter spines than those from farther northwest. 

This is not surprising, and the first of the above proposed 

varieties seems to be no more than a segment of this gradient 

which cannot really be set apart. 

However, there is one local population which seems to be 

rather distinct from the rest, and which may deserve varietal 

rank. In the Big Bend of Texas, in Brewster County, one finds a 

population of this species which is identical to the rest except 

for the following points: its surface is more gray-green than 

typical, and its central spines run from 2 to 23/4 inches long on 

mature individuals. This plant’s physiology is also so different 

from that of the typical specimens from the rest of Texas that 

while the typical specimens have been growing, blooming, and 

fruiting each year in my beds, my examples of this form have 

sat right beside them for five years with a minimum of growth 

and never a bloom. This may be variety longispinus Schelle, 

but since I have never succeeded in seeing its flowers and fruits 

and cannot give more details about it, it is not so listed here. 

After what looked like a history free of any arguments over 

its taxonomic place, this cactus caught the eye of Britton and 

Rose and they took it out of the genus Echinocactus and erected 

a new genus, Homalocephala, for it. This has remained a monotypic 

genus. 

There seems to have been little if any discussion of the validity 

of this new genus. It was accepted as a logical result when the 

original genus Echinocactus was broken up, and so it may be if 

one is to follow in that step to no one knows yet what fragmentation. 

However, I have noted in the discussion of the genus 

Echinocactus that some of the most significant recent research 

on cacti has involved this species. Dr. Boke’s summary of his 

anatomical research results are so important here that we should 

refer to them again. He says, “The combined list of characters 

suggests to the author that if E. horizonthalonius is to be retained 

in the genus Echinocactus, Homalocephala should be returned 

to the same genus. It further suggests that E. horizontha- 

lonius could, with equal logic, be referred to the genus Homalocephala.” 

Faced with this alternative, I choose to return Homalocephala 

texensis to the genus where it was originally thought to belong, 

rather than to further fragment the original genus and eliminate 

it from our area altogether by making it a Homalocephala 

horizonthalonius. 

I find a great similarity between Echinocactus texensis and 

a plant brought out of Mexico by a dealer. I saw several dozen


specimens of this Mexican plant, some of them up to about 16 

inches in diameter but still only about 8 inches tall. The ribs, 

areoles, and spines of this plant are almost identical to those of 

our plant, except that the spines are longer and more yellow in 

color, and the centrals stand more upward. The plant was being 

sold as Echinocactus victoriensis, but I have been able to learn 

little more about it. It does not seem to be Ferocactus rafaelensis 

(Purpus) B. & R. This plant appears to be the most closely re- 

lated to our Texas cactus of anything I have yet seen. 

Echinocactus asterias Zucc. 

[Astrophytum asterias (Zucc.) Lem.] 

“Sea-Urchin Cactus” 


stems: Extremely flat, depressed disc-shaped to sometimes 

low dome-shaped. Mature plants are from 2 to occasionally 

6 inches in diameter by less than I to at most 21/2 inches tall. 

This plant body, which is always simple, is divided by very 

narrow but distinct vertical grooves, into 8 broad, almost flat 

ribs. These ribs actually form triangular sections of the stem. 

Up the center of each section runs a line of areoles which are 

on no projections and separated by no cross-grooves of any 

kind. The surface of the plant is a dull green, and scattered 

over it are tiny, less than pin-head-sized clusters of very short, 

whitish wool. 

areoles: Circular, a little less than 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch across, 

and filled with dense wool, at first straw-colored, then gray. 

They are located about 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch apart. 

spines: None. 

flowers: Yellow with orange throats. 2 to 31/2 inches across 

and about 2 inches tall. Opening widely. The ovary is densely 

covered with scales which have blackish, bristle-like points at 

their summits and much cobwebby wool in their axils. The 

outer perianth segments are short, narrow and pointed, 

greenish in color, and covered on their outer surfaces with 

short fuzz. The inner segments are long, slightly spatulate, 

from narrow orange bases. The upper parts are clear yellow, 

the edges entire and the tips from entire and slightly pointed 

to somewhat erose and irregular. The filaments are orange at 

their bases and yellow above. The anthers are yellow. The 

style is yellowish and the stigma has 10 to 12 yellow lobes. 

fruits: Oval, about 1/2 inch long. Densely covered with spines 

and wool. Becoming dry while on the plant and finally 

breaking off at or near the base. The seeds are black or 

nearly so, shiny, about 1/16 of an inch long. 

Range. Entering Texas from Mexico only in the lower Rio 

Grande Valley, where it is found in a few locations in Starr and 

Hidalgo counties. 

Remarks. Strange as it may seem, this is a diminutive barrel 

cactus. It is unmistakably the dwarfed relative of a group of 

large, columnar barrels found in Mexico and it is still very 

closely related to the biggest barrels of all. But this one has 

apparently survived by being small, inconspicuous, and retiring. 

It even dispenses with the typical heavy covering of spines and 

shows that survival is possible without these. This is said to be 

accomplished by having the whole body suffused with some 

chemical compounds distasteful to all enemies so that it can 

remain unarmored among them. It also has scattered over its 

surface to a greater or lesser degree on different specimens a 

series of clusters of short white wool, said to substitute to some 

extent for the lack of the shade which other cacti get from their 

spines. 

The form of this cactus is unique and remarkably beautiful. 

It projects a very short distance above the ground even when 

plump and water-filled. When water is deficient it shrinks to a 

mere flat disc which hardly projects above the ground at all 

and may be almost covered by the sand. Its common name 

comes from the fact that its broad, nearly flat ribs and its shape 

make it look almost exactly like the skeleton of a sea urchin 

denuded of its spines. 

The cactus has had at best a precarious foothold on the north 

side of the Rio Grande. It has been found on the dry hills overlooking 

the river and never more than about 15 or 20 miles 

north of that river. And we have in recent times not been kind 

to this immigrant. The cactus has been a favorite among collectors, 

partly because it is a beautiful curiosity without spines. 

Dealers have for many years scoured the counties where it 

grows for the plant, and have uprooted it by the thousands for 

the trade. At the present time it takes a very good guide to show 

one the few locations in Texas where it still grows in numbers, 

and the chances are rather good that when one gets there a 

cactus digger will already have eliminated the population. With 

the widespread clearing of the area which is now going on, this 

cactus may well be eliminated in Texas, although it is abundant 

in Mexico. 

The species was long ago called Echinocactus asterias by 

Zuccarini. Over a hundred years ago Lemaire separated out 

some cacti formerly in that genus, including this one, into a new 

genus, Astrophytum. Coulter later thought this unwarranted 

and returned them to Echinocactus. K. Schumann agreed with 

him, but listed Astrophytum as a subgenus of the genus Echinocactus. 

Most authors since then have treated Astrophytum as a separate 

genus, although very few of the books on U.S. cacti have 

included it at all, since only this one species is found in the 

U. S. and that only in a very small region of south Texas. 

Buxbaum, the great theorizer about cacti, decided that the 

Astrophytums do not have any close relationship to the Echinocacti 

at all, but instead he considers them the most northerly of 

the South American cactus group. He considers the closest relatives 

to the sea-urchin cactus to be the members of the South


American genus Frailea. Others, including Backeberg, have 

opposed this idea most strenuously, and their arguments show 

good reasons why it is after all an Echinocactus. It does seem 

that if this, with its scaly, woolly ovary, is not a member of the 

Echinocacti then the distinguishing characters of that group are 

of little validity and the group can hardly exist on any level at 

all. 

Echinocactus wislizeni Eng. 

[Ferocactus wislizeni (Eng.) B. & R.] 

“Barrel Cactus,” “Fishhook Barrel,” “Candy Barrel,” 

“Visnaga,” “Biznaga,” “Biznaga de Agua” 


stems: Spherical at first, then ovate or conical, and finally 

cylindrical. This plant becomes very massive, up to at least 

4 feet tall, and is said to have reached 6 feet tall. It grows 

about 2 feet in diameter. There are 13 to 25 ribs which are 

sharp, up to about 11/4 inches high, and a little undulate 

because of the slight bulging at the areoles. The color of the 

surface is dark green. 

areoles: 5/8 to 1 inch long and 3/4 to 1/4 inches apart, 

elliptic to linear. Those areoles which have not produced 

flowers have the upper end prolonged as a narrow groove; 

but after blooming this upper part of the areole is permanently 

broadened and connected to the lower, spinous part 

by a more narrow neck. It has a short brownish wool which 

fades to gray and then is mostly lost on old areoles. Some 

glands are present. 

spines: There are 12 to more than 20 slender radial spines. 

The upper and lateral ones are flexible, bristle-like, whitish, 

and about 1 to 2 inches long. The lower 3 are a little shorter 

and rigid, approaching the character of the centrals. There 

are 4 very strong centrals 11/2 to 3 inches long, yellowish to 

red or purplish-red, and all ringed by conspicuous annular 

ridges. The upper three are straight, spreading upward, and 

are round to somewhat flattened. The lower one stands porrect 

or slightly deflexed, is usually hooked downward at the end 

(but on rare specimens is nearly straight), is much heavier 

than the other centrals, and is somewhat to greatly flattened. 

flowers: Variable shades of yellow, gold, orange, or red, 

about 2 inches long by 2 to 3 inches across. The ovary is 

covered with scales which are green, edged in white. The 

outer segments of the perianth are short, triangular-shaped to 

ovoid, with pointed apexes, the midlines greenish to reddish 

or yellowish, and the edges entire and lighter colored. The 

inner segments are linear and sharply pointed, the edges 

slightly irregular or erose. They are most commonly orange- 

red on the midlines shading to conch-shell pink on the edges, 

but they may be all yellow or all red. The extremely numer- 

ous filaments are yellow or red, the very small anthers 

yellow. There are 18 to at least 26 long, pointed, erect stigma 

lobes which are in yellow flowers yellow, in red flowers 

reddish below and yellowish above. 

fruits: Oblong, 1/4 to 21/4 inches long, practically covered 

with white-edged scales. They are yellowish and fleshy at 

first, but remain long on the plants, becoming finally dried 

and hard. The seeds are nearly 1/8 of an inch long, black, 

with the surface rough but not tuberculate. 

Range. From Arizona east through the mountains of southern 

Hidalgo and Luna counties, New Mexico, to the Organ and 

Franklin mountains of Dona Ana County, and extending into 

Texas only in the Franklin Mountains near El Paso. Also in 

adjacent Mexico. 

Remarks. This is the largest cactus in our area, and the one 

which is truly barrel-like in its dimensions. An old specimen of 

this cactus is awe-inspiring for its sheer bulk and the impression 

of age and strength it presents. It is the tough old patriarch of 

the exposed mountain slopes in our semidesert regions. Such a 

mountainside still dotted with its population of old barrels is 

an unforgettable sight. The effect is much like that of viewing 

a herd of buffalo or a flock of whooping cranes, and the chance 

of experiencing it today is almost as unlikely. Each of these is 

a giant among its kind, formidable to confront—yet today each 

is, as a species, only a pitiful remnant of what it once was. One 

is lucky now to find an individual candy barrel, and there are 

very few places left in our area where one can see a population 

of old specimens still undisturbed in their natural glory. 

There are several reasons why such great, formidable species 

have fared so badly in the last hundred years, and understanding 

them can teach us much about this cactus and about ourselves. 

Some of these reasons arise out of the fact that, taken 

individually, these organisms are not as invulnerable as they 

appear. They are all approaching extremes in development and 

adaptation to very special environments, and while this gives 

them great survival powers in these special environments, it 

makes them conspicuous targets for new enemies which enter 

the community and it renders them ungainly misfits which 

cannot maintain themselves when the environment is changed 

or they are pulled out and put somewhere else. 

Modern man is the new enemy which has recently entered 

the environment of each of these, and they have fallen in terrible 

numbers before his attack. But why did he come before them as 

such a ruthless destroyer? Precisely because of their size and 

majesty. 

Each of them was so big that an individual presented a mass 

of flesh usable for food and other purposes. As they slaughtered 

the buffalo for meat and hides, they slaughtered the barrel 

cactus to use its watery pulp. The few that were sacrificed to 

the thirst of prospectors caused no problem. The real inroads 

upon this plant came with its use for making candy. This became 

so widespread that it became known by the name, candy barrel.


Man’s slaughter of these organisms could be more easily excused 

if it had been limited by even such uses of them, but it 

has not been. The very appearance of them apparently invokes 

a reaction in modern man, and he has turned his weapons upon 

them in a frenzy of destruction. It is as though before their 

formidable majesty he developed an inferiority complex which 

issued in an urge to kill. The extent of this factor in the slaughter 

of the buffalo is easily seen, but few realize that it has 

played a big part in the disappearance of the barrel cactus. 

One of the few places where I have seen a stand of old barrels 

was in a small canyon so deep in the Franklin Mountains that 

a mountain lion shadowed us as we proceeded up it. Here I 

found myself on a steep slope with several dozen fine old cacti 

up to four feet tall in view at the same time. But I had arrived 

there a week or so too late. As I moved from one to another 

of these old monarchs, each perhaps half a century old, I found 

that each had been neatly decapitated or else the apex split 

open by one deft stroke of a machete or some such instrument. 

The exposed flesh of each one was melting away in the heat. 

Since then that canyon is a sad place to anyone knowing what 

was needlessly destroyed. 

I did not understand the reason for such a destruction until 

some time later when I stood and observed people filing through 

the cactus house of the New York Botanical Garden. Here I 

saw a man push against the fence which protected the plants 

and, gesturing excitedly toward a beautiful old barrel cactus, 

roar for the benefit of his young son, “Look at that big, ugly, 

——— ——— thing!! God, if I could only get at it, you’d see 

how I’d fix it! I’d tear it apart!!” Only then did I realize how 

such great organisms have been sacrificed to the ego of modern 

man. 

More indirectly, but quite as effectively they have been sacrificed 

to man’s meddling with their environment. When he 

moves in and tampers with it, they, being so specialized, are 

usually the first to go. And, finally, the unwise treatment of 

those who do appreciate the beauty of these cacti takes its toll. 

Fine old giants are pulled up and planted in lush yards where 

they cannot live. The extent of this activity is so great that I 

have seen them arrive by the truckload at nurseries in climates 

where they cannot possibly be kept alive out-of-doors. Against 

all of this destruction the buffalo and the whooping crane are 

now protected, but not the candy barrel within our area. 

There have been a few problems about this species’ taxonomy. 

Engelmann first described and named it. He also described and 

named an Echinocactus emoryi, which has been the subject of 

much confusion since some have thought it was a synonym of 

this and some have thought not, and he also had an E. wislizeni 

var. decipiens, but neither of these forms appears in the 

area covered by this study and so we do not have to evaluate 

them here. Apparent later synonyms for E. wisli zeni were 

E. falconeri Orcutt and E. arizonicus Kunze. 

Everything was rather stable, taxonomically, concerning this 

plant until Britton and Rose. These authors, however, in 

breaking up the old genus Echinocactus erected a new genus 

Ferocactus and placed in it this plant, along with various 

others. It has generally been known since their time as Fero- 

cactus wislizeni. 

But Britton and Rose’s genus Ferocactus has not fared very 

well. A number of species which they included in it have since 

been removed by other students to other genera, among them 

their Ferocactus johnsonii to Echinomastus, F. hamatacanthus 

to Hamatocactus and F. crassihamatus and F. uncinatus to 

Glandulicactus. It is obvious that Britton and Rose’s concept of 

the genus Ferocactus was not satisfactory and that the genus 

has come to be, at best, another microgenus. The only real character 

which can be cited to set wislizeni off from the Echinocacti 

is the absence of wool on the ovary and fruit. If this is considered 

a character less essential than it takes to support a genus 

all by itself, as Link and Otto obviously regarded it, then we 

would have little if anything else definite to uphold the genus 

Ferocactus. Because of these considerations I am using the older 

genus name for this plant. 

Echinocactus uncinatus var. wrightii Eng. 

[Glandulicactus uncinatus var. wrightii (Eng.) Backbg.] 

“Turk’s Head,” “Cat-Claw Cactus,” “Brown-Flowered 

Hedgehog,” “Texas Hedgehog” 


stems: Oval, up to 8 inches tall and 41/2 inches thick, but 

usually much smaller. These stems are almost always single, 

but occasionally they may produce 1 or 2 branches at or near 

the base. The surface is bluish-green with a gray glaucescence 

and is formed into 9 to 13 ribs. These ribs are fairly high 

and conspicuous, separated by broad grooves, and consist of 

rather distinct but partly fused tubercles. The tubercles themselves 

are rather remarkable in shape. The areole is on the 

upper slope of the tubercle, which is prolonged below or 

ventral to the areole into a chinlike swelling which more or 

less overhangs the upper end of the areole on the next tubercle. 

The abrupt drop-off from this prominent chin before 

the next tubercle produces a sharp cross-indentation of the 

rib when it is old. On the new tubercles the chin and this 

cross-indentation are not yet so definite. 

areoles: Elongated oval, to about 5/8 of an inch long, the 

upper end prolonged into a narrow extension which has been 

called a groove. The spines all grow from the broader lower 

portion of the areole, while the flower is produced from the 

narrower upper end of it. In the still more narrow neck of 

the areole joining these two regions there are produced several 

yellowish glands. The whole areole contains gray or slightly 

yellowish wool. 

spines: All spines are very heavy and are at first red, later 

crassahamatus 

-> crassihamatus


reddish-brown, straw-colored, or grayish, with the points 

remaining darker. There are 7 or 8 radial spines which radiate 

rather evenly. The upper and lateral 4 or 5 are straight, 

flattened, and from 3/4 to 2 inches long. The lower 3 radials 

are 3/4 to 11/4 inches long, round, or nearly so, more or less 

curved, and hooked at their tips. There is one central spine 

from 2 to at least 4 inches long, which stands porrect or 

turned upward, and is very heavy, angled, usually twisted, 

and hooked at the tip. 

flowers: Maroon to garnet in color. They are funnel-shaped, 

not opening widely, 3/4 to 11/4 inches long, and about 1 inch 

across. The narrow ovary is covered with short, broad scales 

with brown centers and broad white, membranous edges. The 

outer perianth segments are triangular to long triangular with 

bluntly pointed tips and white, entire, but often crinkled, 

edges. The maroon to garnet inner segments are linear, their 

edges sometimes lighter colored and often irregular or toothed 

above, with the apex slightly pointed, irregular, or sometimes 

even squared off. The filaments are brown or maroon, the 

anthers cream-colored. The style is brown, the stigma having 

10 to 14 broad, fat lobes which are cream-colored above and 

maroon below. 

fruits: Oblong to egg-shaped, 5/8 to 1 inch long. They are 

for a brief time pale reddish between the whitish scales which 

very nearly cover them. They soon become dry and colorless, 

usually remaining on the plant for a long time in this condition. 

The seeds are about 1/16 of an inch long, curved, and 

compressed, with the hila basal. The surface of the seeds is 

finely tuberculate. 

Range. Southern New Mexico, south Texas, and adjacent 

Mexico. 

Remarks. Although commonly designated as a hedgehog cactus 

rather than a barrel, this cactus is a smaller one of the latter 

group with spines to rival any. 

The range given above for this form is less specific than for 

most. This is because, while the cactus has been found over a 

huge area, it is apparently common today hardly anywhere, 

and we suspect that it has been eliminated from some of its 

former range. It is still to be found in limited numbers on dry 

hills from El Paso to Van Horn and on down the Rio Grande 

past Presidio, Texas. This is a far cry from Coulter’s statement 

of 1896 that it was then “abundant from El Paso, Texas, to the 

Pecos,” but it does seem to be the center of this cactus’ range 

and the only area where one can count on finding it today. 

From here there are isolated records of the plant for great 

distances in all directions, even though none of them seem to 

represent established populations at these faraway points. 

Coulter stated its range as, “Extending almost to the mouth of 

the Rio Grande.” After several years of extensive observation 

almost all along that river, the idea of this cactus existing any 

more below the Big Bend had about become unbelievable to 

me, when suddenly I found one specimen of the cactus growing 

happily near Falcon Dam in Starr County, far down toward 

the mouth of the river from any place I had seen it before. No 

more could be found in the area, and we have still found no 

record of the plant in the more than 300 miles between this 

collection and the Trans-Pecos records. However, this does 

cor roborate to a great extent Nealley’s old record of the plant 

having been taken near Rio Grande City. 

In all other directions we find similar very widely scattered 

records, some of them not duplicated in many years. Northeast 

of the central range there is Lloyd’s record of the plant just east 

of Fort Stockton, Texas, which I have not been able to duplicate. 

Going north and west of El Paso there are few and very 

widely scattered records of the cactus in New Mexico. Very far 

to the northwest. Wooton and Standley list it as found at Pena 

Blanca, New Mexico, which is only some 25 miles or so south- 

west of Santa Fe. While it has been found west of El Paso in 

southern New Mexico, it apparently does not reach Arizona. 

We are faced with the fact that there must once have been a 

very huge area over which this cactus ranged, but that today, 

everywhere but in the central range as outlined above, it is so 

rare that if one locates a single specimen he should consider 

himself very lucky. 

Our U. S. form is not the typical form of the species, Echinocactus 

uncinatus Galeotti. That form has 3 or 4 central spines 

and a difference in the seed form, and seems restricted to 

Mexico. Engelmann realized the difference in our form and 

called our variety wrightii. There has been no disagreement 

about this since, except that some authors have not bothered 

to tack on the varietal name, merely using the species name for 

our plant. No one has produced any evidence that I have seen 

of the typical form being found in the U. S. One man, the late 

Mr. Fred Leasure, an El Paso teacher who for most of a lifetime 

collected, studied, and dealt in cacti from that area, once told 

me that he had found a population of the typical form with 

several centrals, somewhere in the mountains near El Paso. I 

was never able to learn any details about this. 

Most of the disagreement over this plant has been about what 

genus to put it in, and the history of these arguments is a rather 

disillusioning one. 

Galeotti, in the beginning, placed the species in the old genus 

Echinocactus. There was no question at all through all of the 

earlier treatments of the cactus until Britton and Rose broke 

up the large genus. When they did, they put this cactus in their 

new genus Ferocactus. It does have some close similarities to the 

other species placed in that genus, among them being a very 

scaly ovary which is bare of wool. But differences can be cited 

too. Once these small similarities and differences began to be 

considered significant on the generic level, the gate was down, 

and the confusion which has resulted has not enhanced the reputation 

of cactus scholarship. 

Knuth, in 1935, was just as certain as Britton and Rose had 

been about Ferocactus that the cactus belonged in the equally 

new genus Echinomastus. He had his reasons also. But by 1941


Marshall published the plant as Thelocactus uncinatus, with his 

set of arguments backing this name. By this time Backeberg had 

also published his solution of the problem, which was to erect 

an entirely new genus for the species. He justified this to a large 

extent by the presence of glands in the areoles of the species, 

and so his new name was Glandulicactus uncinatus. 

In 1951 Buxbaum published yet another disposition of the 

species. He was very sure that it should be in the genus Hamatocactus. 

His reasons were good enough to persuade Marshall, and 

in 1957 he published his new opinion that the species should 

really be called Hamatocactus uncinatus. However, Backeberg 

remained unconvinced and in his still more recent large work 

maintains the genus Glandulicactus and adds some other species 

to it. 

One seems to be able to take his own choice of all these genera 

for this species, with perhaps Hamatocactus and Glandulicactus 

having a slight edge in taxonomic opinion at the present time. 

It would take a long digression to outline the points for and 

against each genus. They are all very detailed, slight differences 

of morphology which tend to balance each other off too well, 

leaving the decision between them at best somewhat arbitrary. 

I myself feel that these are all no more than microgenera and 

that the argument may well be left with the theorists while we, 

by harking back to the old genus Echinocactus of Link and 

Otto, can find a name so usable and stable that it will not be 

different in every book picked up. 

This is a rare species, a tough, desert-loving one, and therefore 

one which is not very easy to cultivate. It rots very quickly 

from too much moisture, but if this problem is taken care of, it 

can grow slowly and produce a number of small but interesting 

flowers which are very unusual for their brownish hues. 

Echinocactus whipplei Eng. & Big. 

[Sclerocactus whipplei (Eng. & Big.) B. & R.] 

“Devil’s Claw Barrel” 


stems: From practically spherical to an ovate or even short- 

cylindrical shape. These stems are usually single and up to 6 

inches tall by 4 inches in diameter, but occasionally forming 

small clusters of 2 or 3 stems, and said to have reached 12 

inches tall and 6 inches in diameter. They have 13 to 15 ribs 

composed of conspicuous tubercles 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch high. 

These tubercles are almost completely separated near the stem 

apex, but are quite fused lower down on the stem. The sur- 

face is dark green. 

areoles: Circular at first, but the growth of the flower out 

of the upper edge of each produces a narrower extension of 

it upward which persists, leaving the areole from then on 

elliptical ovate, or even narrowly ovate. Areoles range in size 

from about 3/16 to slightly over 1/4 of an inch long, and have 

much white wool. 

spines: There are 7 to 11 straight, evenly radiating radial 

spines 1/2 to 1 inch long. They are rather slender, compressed, 

and all but 1 lower lateral on each side white in color. These 

2 lower laterals are gray or brownish in color. There are 4 

central spines on matured specimens, although immature ones 

have no centrals. The lowermost central is porrect to a little 

deflexed, strong, round to somewhat flattened, hooked at the 

end, and 1 to 2 inches long. It is gray or tan to reddish- 

purple, usually streaked with white. The two lateral centrals 

are similar but straight. The upper central is lighter in color, 

sometimes whitish, more flattened (sometimes very much so), 

and straight or nearly so. 

flowers: Very beautiful, more or less funnel-shaped blooms 

of varying colors: mostly fuchsia, but sometimes purplish, 

pink, white, or even yellowish. They are about 1 to 2 inches 

in diameter and nearly the same length. The short ovary has 

a few short, greenish, triangular scales with membranous, 

crinkled edges and short hairs in their axils. They intergrade 

into the outer perianth segments, which are almost lanceolate, 

greenish in the midline with the edges whitish, membranous, 

and crinkled. The inner perianth segments are fuchsia, pink, 

white, or yellowish; lanceolate; with their ends pointed and 

the edges entire or nearly so. The filaments are pink, rose, or 

yellow, the anthers orange. The style and stigma are greenish 

or rose, the stigma with 5 to 10 lobes. 

fruits: Oblong, about 1/4 to 1/2 inch long. Green to pinkish 

and fleshy at first. The surface has several scales upon it, with 

small tufts of wool in their axils. When ripe it becomes dry 

and then opens by splitting all the way around at or near the 

base. 

Range. The northwestern corner of New Mexico into north- 

eastern Arizona, the very southwestern corner of Colorado, and 

on into Utah. In New Mexico mostly limited to San Juan, Mc- 

Kinley and Sandoval counties, but recorded once from upper 

Socorro County. 

Remarks. This is a beautiful though diminutive barrel cactus 

which is so retiring in both its appearance and its range that 

many have never seen it. It looks like just another clump of 

dried grass and sticks in the field, and although it occurs over a 

wide area of several states, it is adapted to such extremely arid 

conditions that one has to go far into the desolate hills and Indian 

reservations to find it. For these reasons it has not been 

brought out and sold as commonly as many other cacti. This is 

probably just as well, since with its adaptation to such extreme 

conditions it is extra sensitive to moisture and most people are 

disappointed who try to keep it alive outside of the arid south- 

west. 

The species was first dealt with by Engelmann and Bigelow, 

who named it Echinocactus whipplei. The only change in its


name since was that made by Britton and Rose who decided to 

put it in one of their separate microgenera. They called it Sclerocactus 

whipplei, and this name has been widely used. 

The basis for this separation of Sclerocactus from the other 

Echinocacti has always been at best vague, and in 1950, when 

L. Benson was acting upon his own taxonomic principle of synthesis 

above splitting, he dropped this new genus and used the 

original name. But in 1966 Benson published a series of articles 

in which he resurrected the genus Sclerocactus again and broadened 

it to include species never before in it. This was done, 

however, without the advancing of any new facts to make the 

move appear more necessary now than before. The decision 

either way seems purely arbitrary, and since we have not seen 

a single new character mentioned since Britton and Rose’s 

doubtful ones to justify putting their little grouping on a par 

with the genus Echinocactus I see no real reason to regard it 

as more than a subgenus. 

In his series of articles Benson distinguishes three varieties of 

this species. The form he designates variety roseus does not grow 

in our area and so I do not deal with it here. He designates as 

Sclerocactus whipplei var. whipplei a form which he says is 

found only in Arizona, growing to only 3 inches tall, and 

having the upper central white, flat, and 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch 

wide at the base, and, so far as is known, bearing only yellow 

flowers. Then he has a third variety, Sclerocactus whipplei var. 

intermedius. This is the one found in all four states which grows 

to 6 inches tall, has the upper central less flattened and only 

1/24 to 1/16 of an inch thick at the base, and has purple, rose, 

pink, or white flowers. If these varieties are distinct all New 

Mexico specimens known so far would be the latter, as no one 

has reported yellow flowers in the state. 

I have been unable to follow these varieties in every case. 

Some New Mexico plants seem to duplicate all of the characters 

of variety whipplei so closely that they would, except for 

blooming with fuchsia flowers, be that variety. Since I have 

avoided basing any variety on flower color and the other distinguishing 

characters of these two varieties seem to intergrade 

in New Mexico specimens, I am not listing these varieties definitely 

here. More study of this species will be needed before a 

final word on them can be given. 

Echinocactus mesae-verdae (Boissevain) L. Benson 

[Sclerocactus mesae-verdae (Boissevain) L. Benson] 

“Mesa Verde Cactus” 


stems: Depressed- globose to short-cylindrical in shape, with 

mature plants usually from 11/2 to 3 inches tall and wide, 

but said to have achieved 7 inches tall. There are 13 to 17 

ribs. On young plants they are indistinct, composed of tubercles 

almost completely separated from one another, but on 

older plants these tubercles become confluent, with deep 

grooves between the ribs and lesser cross-furrows between the 

tubercles. The surface is pale grayish-green. 

areoles: Ovate and 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch long, containing 

much wool at first yellowish and then fading to gray. 

spines: There are 8 to 11 radial spines spreading irregularly 

around the areole. They are straight or slightly curved, round 

or nearly so, tan or straw-colored, about 3/8 to 1/2 inch long, 

and rigid. Central spines are usually missing, but on very rare 

individuals are present—then described as being one per 

areole, 1/2 inch or less in length, gray with a dark tip, porrect 

to ascending, and straight or sometimes hooked. 

flowers: Cream to whitish in color, funnel-shaped, 3/4 to 11/4 

inches wide and tall. The ovary and tube have a few broadly 

triangular scales placed high on them, but have no wool. The 

outer perianth segments are from triangular to oblanceolate 

and brownish with yellowish, entire margins. Inner perianth 

segments are cream or whitish from greenish bases, oblanceolate, 

entire or somewhat erose at the tips. The filaments 

are green or yellowish-green, the anthers yellow. The stigma 

has 6 to 8 light green lobes. The flowers are fragrant. 

fruits: Very small: about 3/16 of an inch long, and cylindrical 

in shape. They are greenish at first, becoming brownish 

and dry and finally splitting open with an irregular, transverse 

opening near the middle of the fruit. The seeds are 

black, 1/8 of an inch or a little more in the longest measure- 

ment. 

Range. A very small area in the extreme southwest corner of 

Colorado and the extreme northwest corner of New Mexico, 

actually comprising a strip of territory only about fifty miles 

long from near Cortez, Colorado, past Mesa Verde to slightly 

southwest of Shiprock, New Mexico. 

Remarks. This is one of the rarest of our cacti. It was discovered 

by Boissevain near Cortez, Colorado. He remarked about its 

rarity and the fact that it is adapted to drought beyond any 

other Colorado cactus, so much so that he could not keep it 

healthy even in his Colorado garden. Actually it is adapted to 

an extremely alkaline soil, as well as to extreme dryness. The 

combination of its rarity and the difficulty encountered in trying 

to grow the plant artificially means that few have ever seen 

it. Yet it does grow down into New Mexico, and is a most interesting, 

if rather prosaic cactus inhabitant of our area. 

In his first description of the cactus, Boissevain thought of it 

as representing a new genus. Going all the way with pride of 

state, he gave it the name Coloradoa mesae-verdae, certainly 

one of the most geographical plant names ever. It seems difficult 

to justify Coloradoa as a genus, and in 1951 L. Benson moved 

the plant to the genus Echinocactus. This would seem to have 

given the species a place to rest comfortably, but in a recent set 

of articles Benson has reinstated the genus Sclerocactus again, 

after having himself dropped it, and now he assigns this cactus


to that genus. Thus this cactus has begun its journey, following 

the others in looking for a generic home. We hope it is not as 

long a journey as it has been for some others of the Echinocacti. 

In view of the extreme rarity of this cactus and the great 

difficulty which is encountered in keeping it alive after taken, 

it would seem useless and wanton to endanger the species by 

collecting in the wild specimens which are probably doomed 

by being taken anyway. Perhaps someone can grow these plants 

from seeds, and thus condition them to cultivation, after which 

this rarity can take its place in collections. 

Echinocactus brevihamatus Eng. 

[Ancistrocactus brevihamatus (Eng.) B. &R.] 

“Fishhook Cactus” 



stems: Globose, egg-shaped, or, when older, columnar. The 

maximum size seems to be about 5 inches high by 31/2 inches 

in diameter, and no clustering has been reported. The surface 

is a very dark, dull green. There are 13 straight or slightly 

spiraling ribs which are made up of rows of tubercles almost 

completely separated from each other by deep notches. These 

tubercles are up to about 1/2 inch tall from bases nearly as 

broad, but are compressed from side to side to leave an uninterrupted 

groove between the ribs. 

areoles: Almost linear. The lower end of the areole is slightly 

expanded and contains the spine cluster. Above this is a 

narrow groovelike portion of the areole containing 1 to several 

glands. At the upper end of this groove the flower is 

produced, and after flowering this portion remains a little 

expanded. The whole areole thus measures 1/4 to 1/2 inch long 

and runs from three-fourths to all of the way to the base of 

the tubercle. These areoles are at first filled with white wool, 

which is mostly lost on old areoles. 

spines: There are 12 to 14 rather heavy radial spines which 

spread out slightly from the plant. They are from 3/8 to 1 

inch long, the upper ones the longer. They are opaque, tan 

with dark brown tips at first, then turning gray. There are 

typically 4 centrals, but occasionally 1 or 2 more. The uppermost 

is erect in front of the upper radials, slender, straight, 

its upper surface flat while its lower side is rounded. This 

spine is 3/4 to 11/4 inches long. On either side of it are 2 or 

more centrals diverging upward and similar except growing 

to 13/4 inches long. These upper centrals are all colored like 

the radials except that their flattened upper sides may be 

rust-colored in some specimens. The lowermost central stands 

out perpendicular to the plant surface, is heavier, distinctly 

flattened, and hooked, and measures 3/4 to 1 inch long. It is 

yellowish-brown, rust, or dark brown on its flat upper side, 

lighter below, with the hook dark brown. 

flowers: Green in color, suffused with rose. They are 1 to 

15/8 inches long, but only 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch wide, since 

they can hardly open because of the spines around them. The 

ovary of the flower has upon it fewer than a dozen small 

scalelike segments with fringed edges. Next there are about 

8 outer perianth segments which are oblong with bluntly 

pointed ends. There are slightly over a dozen inner segments 

which are almost linear, about 5/8 of an inch long, and 

pointed. These are dark green with a faint rose midline on 

the outer side and dull rose fading to green edges on the inner 

surfaces. The filaments are bright rose. The anthers are yellow. 

The style is short, and there are 10 or 11 rose-pink stigma 

lobes. 

fruits: Egg-shaped, green, becoming faintly pinkish when 

very ripe. They are 5/8 to about 1 inch long. There are several 

scales upon the surface of each fruit. They do not become 

completely dry, but remain somewhat fleshy until they disintegrate. 

The seeds are dark brown to blackish. 

Range. Along the Rio Grande from near the mouth of the Pecos 

River to near Eagle Pass, occurring northeast almost to Uvalde 

and Brackettville, Texas, in the Anacacho Mountains, but not 

found otherwise more than a few miles north of Del Rio or up 

the Devil’s River. 

Remarks. This species is a member of a very closely related 

group. However it has remained distinct in almost the whole of 

the literature since its first description by Engelmann, being 

regarded as a separate species by all except Weber who reduced 

it to a variety of the more widely known species, Echinocactus 

scheeri. 

This plant is immediately told from E. scheeri by its fibrous 

roots, its darker green body, its fewer and longer opaque radial 

spines, and its flowers which are suffused with rose. Many take 

the name brevihamatus to mean that it has the lower, hooked 

central spine shorter than those of its relatives, but this leads 

them into difficulty, since the centrals of E. scheeri are often 

much shorter. Engelmann coined the name because of “the 

shortness of the hook,” not the shortness of the spine, by which 

he meant that the hook itself is not curved as far around as in 

the typical E. scheeri. This is still an observation of doubtful 

value, since I have seen specimens of E. scheeri on which the 

spines failed to hook at all. 

The species is limited to a comparatively small area in four 

counties of Texas along the middle course of the Rio Grande. It 

is found growing in the scattered clumps of low vegetation on 

rocky hillsides overlooking the river and on alluvial soil between 

the hills, never far from the Rio Grande except where it 

spreads into the Anacacho Mountains. 

Engelmann included this species and its relatives in the genus 

Echinocactus. They were left there, a subgenus Ancistrocactus 

being erected by Schumann for them and some other species 

later put in a number of other genera, until Britton and Rose 

broke up the genus. When they did this Britton and Rose ele-


vated Ancistrocactus to an entirely separate genus containing 

only this and a couple of other species. Their arrangement is 

naturally best known today. But if, in order to methodize some 

of the chaos which has resulted from Britton and Rose’s break- 

up of that genus we go back to the original genus Echinocactus 

these are surely part of it. 

Echinocactus scheeri SD 

[Ancistrocactus scheeri (SD) B. & R.] 

“Fishhook Cactus,” “Root Cactus” 


roots: E. scheeri grows from a long, fleshy, white taproot 

which is 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter and may be from a few 

inches to as much as 3 feet long. This root may occasionally 

branch to form several the same size. 

stems: Globular at first, becoming quickly columnar or even 

club-shaped with the upper end often twice the diameter of 

the lower half. These stems grow to at least 7 inches tall and 

3 inches in diameter, and are single until very old, when they 

sometimes branch from the base to form clumps of 6 or 8 

stems. The flesh is medium to dark green in color. There are 

13 straight or spiral ribs which are composed of only slightly 

connected, almost perfectly conical or only slightly compressed 

tubercles to 1/2 inch tall and the same width at their 

bases on large specimens. 

areoles: Broadly ovate on unflowering tubercles. On flower- 

ing tubercles the ovate areoles are prolonged by a short 

groovelike extension above, at the upper end of which the 

flower appears. There are several glands in this groove. The 

length of this groove and, therefore, of the areole depends to 

a great degree on the age of the plant. Typically it extends 

from the spinous part of the areole at the summit of the tubercle 

about one-half of the way down the upper side of the 

tubercle; but in immature plants the groove does not form at 

all; in young flowering plants it is short; and on old plants it 

often extends three-fourths or more of the way to the axil. 

The areoles, therefore, vary from about 1/8 to as much as 3/8 

of an inch long. They have much white wool in them at first. 

spines: There are 13 to 28 very slender radial spines, radiating 

strictly and tending to recurve toward the plant. They are 1/4 

to 1/2 inch long on young plants, but grow to as much as 11/8 

inches long on some very old specimens. They are a very light, 

translucent yellowish shade, with the tips red-brown. There 

are also 3 or 4 centrals as follows: 2 straight upper centrals 

diverge as they stand erect to form a distinct V. They are 3/4 

to 2 inches long, distinctly flattened, the upper side being 

brown to dark mahogany-brown, while the lower or outer 

side is tan to whitish. There may or may not be 1 more upper 

central bisecting the V formed by the other 2 and similar to 

them except shorter and more slender. The lowermost central 

stands out perpendicular to the stem; it is stout, flattened 

above or sometimes almost round, and almost always hooked. 

It varies on different plants from 1/2 to 11/2 inches long. In 

color it is variegated, being mostly dark brown or black 

above and light brown or whitish below. 

flowers: Plain green or yellow-green. About 1 inch long, 

but only 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch wide due to their inability to 

open farther because of the surrounding spines. There are 

about 12 fringed scales on the ovary. There are about 8 outer 

segments of the perianth, which are linear with blunt ends, 

deep green with yellowish edges. There are about 13 inner 

segments, to about an inch long and almost 1/4 of an inch 

wide, with pointed ends. These are bright green in some specimens 

or yellowish in others. The color of the filaments varies. 

In some plants they are green, in some yellowish, while in a 

few they are pink or even reddish. The anthers are yellow or 

pale orange. The style is somewhat longer than the stamens. 

The stigma lobes vary in number from 5 to 10, in length from 

3/16 to 1/4 of an inch, and in color from green to yellowish, 

cream or even brown, sometimes the brown ones having a 

faint pink flush at the tips. 

fruits: 3/4 to 13/8 inches long, not including the old perianth 

which persists upon them. They are club-shaped. There are 12 

to 24 scales widely spaced upon each fruit. They remain green 

for the whole of the summer, but when very ripe they finally 

turn yellowish tinged with pink. They ultimately disintegrate, 

sometimes splitting open vertically on one side as they rot. 

The seeds are about 1/16 to of an inch long, very dark mahoganybrown 

with the surface dull instead of shining due to extremely 

fine pitting. They are globular, compressed from side 

to side, with large, deeply concave hila. 

Range. In Texas south of a line from approximately Eagle Pass 

to Pleasanton to near Kingsville, also ranging deep into Mexico. 

Remarks. This species was described before any of its relatives 

by Prince Salm-Dyck. As Britton and Rose mention, there is 

doubt as to what specimens the description was originally based 

upon. Engelmann made his description, the first detailed one, 

from obviously very immature specimens, since he gave as the 

maximum size a mere 2 inches tall. His plants also were from 

Eagle Pass, the northern extreme of their range. Coulter, Britton 

and Rose, and even Backeberg have descriptions which are essentially 

repetitions of Engelmann’s, although the latter two did 

increase the maximum size to 4 inches tall. 

I have studied literally hundreds of these plants in their habitats 

and also as they have come to San Antonio dealers before 

being sent all over the world. I have seen plants from Eagle Pass 

on the north to Brownsville on the south and numbers from 

Mexico. As a result I find that I must enlarge the description in 

several respects. 

I have in my collection a plant which consists of a single stem


7 inches tall and club-shaped, being 3 inches in diameter near its 

top and only 2 inches thick near the ground. I have seen several 

clusters formed by the branching of such large stems near the 

ground, the largest with 8 heads forming a cluster about a foot 

across. This species can be a much larger and more majestic plant 

than we have been told. 

Very early in my study of it, I noticed wide variations in the 

number of radial spines on different plants—considerably wider 

than the limits heretofore given. Engelmann’s 11 to 18 was narrowed 

by Britton and Rose to 15 to 18, which number Backeberg 

repeats. On the other hand, in one group of 50 plants at a 

single location near Zapata, Texas, I found specimens with all 

numbers of radials from 13 and 14 on one plant to 28 on all 

areoles of another. Many plants varied widely in the number 

on the various areoles of the same plant. For instance, one had 

18, 19, 21, 23, and 24 on its different areoles. I must state, however, 

that every plant I studied in the vicinity of Eagle Pass had 

between 14 and 17 radials, showing why Engelmann did not 

give the higher numbers in his description. 

I was fortunate to be able to examine much larger specimens 

than the earlier authorities, and I found the spines on these to 

be somewhat longer also. For instance, some of these old plants 

have radials to 11/4 inches long where Engelmann described 

them as to only 1/2 inch on his little plants and everyone has 

dutifully followed him. I found great variation in the lower 

central spine also, from only 1/2 inch long on some plants to 11/2 

inches on others. I have one good big plant 5 inches tall which 

keeps its short but stout 1/2-inch centrals and also one 4-inch 

plant whose centrals are all 11/2 inches long, so central length is 

not entirely related to the size of the plant. 

The flowers of the species vary also. The petals may be dark 

green or green suffused with yellow so as to be almost golden. 

The filaments may be various colors, and the stigma lobes vary 

greatly in number, size, and color. All of the several flowers of 

any single specimen are consistent in these characters, however. 

The fruits of the species are all similar, as described, and they 

are all alike in having the long, white taproot of almost unvarying 

size over a distance of up to several feet. This root is 

said to be unique among cacti. Many people, not knowing of it, 

pull the cactus up instead of digging it out. The root is so slender 

that it breaks off easily and they may not realize what is missing 

when they take the plant home or why it languishes so long 

before it re-establishes its roots. 

The species grows over a wide area, including much of Mexico, 

and it seems clear that this is an aggregate containing several 

forms which could perhaps be separated out as varieties, if 

anyone wished to make a complete study of them. Britton and 

Rose have a form which appears at first glance to be one of 

these. It is their Echinocactus megarhizus Rose, from near Victoria, 

Mexico. It has the fleshy root, 20 or more radials, and 4 

centrals quite like those of E. scheeri. However, they describe 

its seeds as black and shining, which would set it apart from 

our cactus at once. 

I have seen two specimens of E. scheeri in which the lower 

centrals were not hooked at all. 

It should be noticed that E. scheeri may not be separated 

from E. brevihamatus on the basis of how far down the tubercle 

the groove extends, as Engelmann seemed to think, since on the 

large, old plants of E. scheeri, which Engelmann’s measurements 

indicate he did not have before him, the groove goes fully as far 

as on the other species. 

The plant has been one of the most common on gravelly hill- 

sides from Eagle Pass south, becoming very common around the 

area of Falcon Lake. However, dealers have kept after it relentlessly. 

It is found in almost every box of cacti in dime and curio 

stores, and more recently large tracts of its territory are being 

cleared, which spells its doom in those areas. We hope the conspicuous 

V formed by its upper centrals means victory for it 

over its enemies and that this attractive little fishhook cactus 

will be with us a long time to come. 

This, along with the last species, will be in the genus Echinocactus 

or the genus Ancistrocactus according to the philosophy 

of the person defining these genera. 

Echinocactus tobuschii (Marsh) 

[Ancistrocactus tobuschii Marsh] 


roots: Short, not too well developed taproots which are turnip-shaped, 

tapering, and brown rather than white. 

stems: Low, flattened hemispheres. The largest I have seen 

was about 31/2 inches in diameter and nearly as tall. I have 

seen only one double plant, but have been told of clusters of 

8 and 10 heads having been found. The flesh is dark green. 

There are 8 broad, flat ribs made up of pyramidal tubercles 

to almost 1/2 inch tall from greatly flattened, quadrangular 

bases to as much as 5/8 of an inch wide. 

areoles: Linear or very nearly so. From the spine cluster at 

the lower end of the areole there extends a narrow groove inward 

and upward usually half to three-fourths of the length 

of the tubercle to the floral part of the areole. There is some 

white wool when the areole is young, but this is later lost. 

There are also 1 or 2 glands in the groove of each areole. 

spines: There are 7 to 12 slender radial spines which are 5/8 

to 3/4 of an inch long, equal in length on any given areole, 

yellowish in color, becoming gray with age, the tips being a 

little darker. There are 3 to 5 centrals. The 2 upper centrals 

are always diverging to form an erect V in front of the upper 

radials. These upper centrals are to 11/2 inches long, flattened, 

and ridged. There may or may not be 1 other upper central 

bisecting the V formed by the first two. If it is present it is 

similar to the others, except more slender, growing to only 

7/8 of an inch long, and recurving somewhat back toward the


plant. Very rarely on some areoles there may be 2 of these 

erect centrals in the V. There is always 1 lower central standing 

out perpendicular to the plant or directed upward a little. 

It is stout, hooked, angled and ridged, arid to 1 inch long. All 

centrals are translucent yellowish to gray in color. 

flowers: 1 to 11/2 inches long and to almost as wide, opening 

almost completely. The ovary and tube have many scalelike 

segments upon them which are greenish, triangular in shape, 

with yellowish, entire edges. These intergrade to almost linear 

outer perianth segments, with blunt tips, midlines greenish 

tinged with brown, and with yellow, entire edges. The inner 

segments are about 20 to 25 in number, clear citron or golden 

yellow, with no variation at midline or edges. They are 

shorter than the outer segments, almost spatulate, coming to 

pointed tips often having a very small, soft spine at the apex. 

The filaments are yellowish, the anthers pale orange. The 

style is green and up to 1/4 of an inch longer than the stamens. 

The stigma has 5 to 9 yellow or whitish lobes which are very 

small at first, but when expanded become over 1/8 of an inch 

long. 

fruits: Elongated egg-shaped, about 1 inch long, greenish in 

color, flushing pinkish when very ripe. There are numerous 

small scales upon it. The seed is almost spherical, very dark 

brown and shiny, with a large hilum. 

Range. Known only from a very small area in the Texas hill 

country from just above Vanderpool to near Ingram and Mountain 

Home, Texas. 

Remarks. This little cactus was discovered by H. Tobusch in 

1951 and described by Marsh in 1952. It is one of the rarest 

forms in the Southwest, known only from an area not more than 

30 miles long. I have succeeded in finding scattered plants in the 

type area, but there appear to be stands of them in only a couple 

of places and I would estimate that the population does not 

comprise over a few hundred plants in all. This should be remembered 

by any who are tempted to take any number of them. 

They could become extinct very easily. 

These plants might at first be mistaken for small specimens of 

E. brevihamatus with fewer ribs made up of broader tubercles 

and fewer radial spines. The range of that other species comes 

to about 50 miles southwest of this plant at the nearest point 

that I could find. Any idea that they might be the same species 

is dispelled, however, when they bloom. The bright yellow, 

broadly opening flowers with entire edges on the outer perianth 

segments and with greenish-yellow filaments, long styles, and 5 

to 9 stigma lobes found on E. tobuschii are greatly different 

from the green suffused with rose, hardly open flowers of the 

other form, with their rose-pink filaments, short styles, and 10 

or 11 rose-pink stigma lobes. E. tobuschii seems to be a distinct 

form limited to the environs of the canyons cutting into the 

edge of the Edwards Plateau. 

The author of the original description of this cactus was 

already a victim of the confusion which exists about the cactus 

genera. In his description he used the dodge so often resorted 

to when one is confused and called the cactus Mammillaria 

(Ancistrocactus) tobuschii. Of course a review of the characteristics 

will make it clear that it is not a Mammillaria. It is 

definitely one of the group known widely as the genus Ancistrocactus, 

which group is obviously part of the Echinocacti. As this 

group is returned to the genus Echinocactus this species must 

necessarily follow, and once its relationship to the other Echinocacti 

is seen, its difference from the Mammillarias should also be 

clear. 

Echinocactus setispinus Eng. 

[Hamatocactus setispinus (Eng.) B. & R.] 

“Fishhook Cactus,” “Hedgehog Cactus,” 

“Twisted-Rib Cactus” 


stems: Hemispheric at first, later egg-shaped, and finally 

columnar. They may be single or may branch around the base 

to form clusters of up to 7 or 8 heads. There is great variation 

in size, some individuals reaching a maximum of 3 inches 

tall, while others may reach 12 inches. One form never exceeds 

3 inches in diameter, while another attains 5 inches. 

The color of the surface is light green in one form and dark 

green in another. There are 13 sharp ribs which are about 3/8 

of an inch high, undulating, with shallow cross-furrows 

between the areoles. On one form these ribs usually spiral, on 

another they are straight and vertical. 

areoles: At first elliptic or egg-shaped and about 3/16 of an 

inch long. They very soon elongate to nearly twice that 

length and becoming obovate as the floral part of the areole 

develops above the original spine-producing part. After the 

flower and fruit are gone, the floral part of the areole remains, 

with several glands within it. Then, as it gets older this 

floral part contracts to become a narrow groove running 

about 1/8 of an inch inward and upward from the spine- 

bearing part of the areole. There is quite a lot of yellowish 

wool in the young areole, most of which is lost with age. 

spines: The radial spines are 10 to 19 in number, round, 

slender, bristle-like to somewhat rigid, and straight or recurved 

toward the plant. They are from 3/16 to 11/4 inches 

long, the upper ones the longest. They are dark mahogany, 

yellow, or whitish in color. There is one central spine which 

stands perpendicular to the plant surface, is round, weak, 

hooked, and 1/4 to l3/8 inches long. This central is translucent 

yellow fading to gray on one form, while on another it is 

opaque brown. 

flowers: Ivory or cream with red centers and extremely 

fragrant; 13/4 to 3 inches tall and 21/4 to 3 inches wide. The 

ovary is cylindrical with a few scales on it and the outer


perianth tube has many triangular scales which are green, 

brownish, or reddish-green, with white or yellowish, fringed 

edges. The outer perianth segments are triangular to oblong 

with blunt ends, or sometimes with their upper parts much 

broader than the bases and flaring into earlike projections on 

each side just below the blunt tip. They have greenish 

midlines with yellowish, fringed edges. The inner segments 

are spatulate and ivory or cream with red bases. Their edges 

are somewhat ragged and often toothed, the tips pointed. The 

filaments are reddish, weak, and swirled. The anthers are 

cream-colored or pale yellow. The style is long, thick, and 

greenish-yellow. There are 5 to 11, but usually 9 or 10 stigma 

lobes, which are yellow or pale orange, to 1/4 of an inch long, 

rough, and blunt. They usually curve in all directions. 

fruits: Spherical or nearly so, 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch across. 

Bright scarlet in color with a smooth, shiny skin and almost 

no scales. They remain upon the plants for a long time, often 

a year, if not disturbed, before they finally dry up and split 

open down one side, releasing the seeds. The seeds are about 

1/16 of an inch long, black, with a finely pitted surface, 

somewhat irregular in shape, having been described variously 

as globose and club-shaped. The large hilum at or near the 

end of the seed is surrounded by a broad lip with an unpitted, 

shining surface. 

Range. Growing over a wide area of central and south Texas 

and on into Mexico. Known to grow north as far as San Saba, 

Lampasas, and near Georgetown, Texas. From there the northeastern 

boundary of its range seems to be approximately the 

Colorado River. Rare near the mouth of that river, it becomes 

more and more common going south along the lower Texas 

Coast all the way to Brownsville. On the west it is not found so 

far north, but is seen around the mouth of the Devil’s River, 

which seems to be about the limit of its northwestern range. 

Remarks. Echinocactus setispinus is one of the most common 

cacti in south Texas, and also one of the most colorful. It will 

bloom practically the whole summer if happily situated. It is at 

the same time one of the most easily grown, being very resistant 

to rotting, and so is a great favorite for indoor growing as a 

potted plant. I have seen large specimens which had lived for 

many years in the windows of business establishments, planted 

all these years in flat dishes with soil not over two inches deep. 

I have also seen numerous dish gardens and planters originally 

planted with an assortment of various cacti, in which, after 

some months, only this species remained alive. Here at last is 

the cactus which I can recommend for the amateur grower who 

cannot provide the specialized conditions other cacti require 

and who wants to grow a cactus on his windowsill. It does not 

like the full sun, and it tolerates more moisture than most. 

In the extreme western part of its range this cactus is found 

growing near another species of this genus, E. sinuatus, and is 

often confused with it. The two are readily distinguished, 

however, by the fact that E. sinuatus has broader, not so sharply 

edged ribs, fewer radial spines, and 4 central spines at least 

some of which are always flattened. 

E. setispinus was originally considered by all authorities as 

part of the genus Echinocactus. When Schumann set out sub- 

genera for that large genus he placed it in his subgenus 

Ancistrocactus. But Britton and Rose segregated this species 

from the rest in a new genus, Hamatocactus. Other species were 

added to this new genus by other authors, and for a time its 

favor in taxonomic opinion was at full tide. Then the tide began 

to turn as they began to subtract from the proposed genus 

Hamatocactus. Buxbaum put one of its members back into 

Ferocactus, while adding E. uncinatus to it. Backeberg, of 

course, took E. uncinatus out again as he erected a new genus 

for it. Meanwhile Hester had decided on the basis of seed 

characters that all of those species put in Hamatocactus really 

belonged in Thelocactus. This sort of confusion has not yet been 

resolved, and seems to be the result of trying to define the genera 

too closely. Since no new character has come to light which 

will separate these microgenera cleanly and no one has managed 

a combination of characters which will organize them 

logically, the return to the inclusive old genus Echinocactus 

seems indicated here too, at least until these smaller groups can 

be redefined in meaningful terms. 

Echinocactus setispinus var. hamatus Eng. 

[Hamatocactus setispinus var. hamatus (Eng.) B. & R.] 

“Twisted-Rib Cactus,” “Fishhook Cactus,” 

“Hedgehog Cactus” 


stems: Hemispheric when young, becoming columnar when 

old, usually occurring singly, but occasionally branching at 

the base to form a clump of several stems. The stems grow up 

to 12 inches tall and 5 inches in diameter. They are dark, dull 

green in color, and have 13 very sharp ribs which undulate 

somewhat, but are not interrupted by cross-grooves. These ribs 

are about 3/8 of an inch high, and usually spiral by twisting 

sideways between the areoles. There are hardly distinct 

enough swellings at the areoles to be called tubercles, but the 

ribs are slightly higher at each areole than between them. 


spines: There are 10 to 13 radial spines which are very slender, 

bristle-like, and rather flexible. They are straight and 

radiate evenly. They are all translucent yellow at first, but 

when mature they develop as follows: the lower 3 become 

3/8 to 3/4 of an inch long and dark mahogany-brown on some 

plants, honey-yellow on others; the lateral 2 or 3 on each 

side become 5/8 to 1 inch long and white in color, only the 

very tips of these sometimes remaining honey-yellow; the 3 

to 5 uppermost ones become 3/8 to 11/4 inches long, dark


mahogany-brown or variegated shades of brown in color. 

There is 1 central spine which stands out perpendicular to the 

stem and is hooked. It is 1 to 13/4 inches long, round, and 

very slender, being so weak as to be easily flexible. It is 

brown, often very dark, but with the tip usually lighter. 

flowers: As the species, except that they are 2 to 3 inches 

tall and 21/2 to 3 inches wide and have the inner perianth segments 

almost linear, to about 1/2 of an inch wide. The edges 

are crinkled but not toothed or fringed, and the tips are 

pointed. 


Range. The northern and eastern part of the species range. 

There is no record of this variety south of Eagle Pass along the 

Rio Grande until near Brownsville. The southwestern limit of 

its range seems to be a large arc from Eagle Pass on the north 

swinging east of Cotulla, Texas, then south to near Alice, and 

on down to some point in the lower Rio Grande Valley not far 

west of Brownsville. 

Remarks. The species contains such well marked and constant 

variations that from its very first descriptions it has been found 

necessary to speak of varieties. Engelmann set up two of these, 

but remarked that “many forms” had been collected. It does 

seem that his two varieties are basic, however. Even though 

there is variation within each of them, they seem to be the only 

two consistently distinct and separable varieties. 

E. setispinus var. hamatus is the larger, more grand form of 

the species, and it also occurs over much the greater range of 

the two. At its prime it is a beautiful, bulky plant up to a foot 

high, dark green, with very slender, flexible spines, the central 

one of each cluster a perfect little fishhook as round and slender 

as a real fishhook of its size. When it blooms, which if it gets 

moisture enough is all summer from April to October, it produces 

its large, extremely fragrant, yellow and red flowers several 

at a time, and soon the upper part of the plant is also adorned 

by the scarlet fruits. Just recently, near San Antonio, I happened 

upon 13 plants of this variety growing under one mesquite tree, 

each with 3 to 6 flowers open. As other specimens were under 

almost every tree and shrub in every direction, both the sight 

and the fragrance of this unspoiled field was delightful. 

The ribs of this cactus are very sharp and not interrupted 

between the areoles. They almost always spiral by twisting sideways 

between each pair of areoles. It is from this that the plant 

gets the name twisted-rib cactus. This twisting becomes more 

pronounced as the cactus loses water during drought or settles 

with old age. 

This variety grows over much of south-central Texas. It is 

common along the upper Colorado River and in the hill country 

of Texas from just north of Austin to some 30 miles or so south 

of San Antonio and from there on west. It is again very common 

along the lower Texas coast from Corpus Christi to 

Brownsville. It does not grow along the Rio Grande any farther 

than 50 miles or so above its mouth until it is found again near 

Eagle Pass, from which point it apparently grows at least as 

far west as the mouth of the Devil’s River. I have also seen 

beautiful specimens of this cactus which were said to have come 

from Coahuila, Mexico approximately south of Sanderson, 

Texas. This is perhaps not surprising since Coulter said it grows 

in Coahuila and even in Chihuahua. However I have found no 

verifiable records of it in Texas west of the Devil’s River. 

In the gap along the Rio Grande where this cactus, variety 

hamatus, does not grow, and limited to that gap, is found the 

other distinct variety of the species, variety setaceus. This is a 

much smaller form with much more slender stems, straight ribs 

and heavier, more rigid, as well as more numerous spines. The 

best means of distinguishing the two varieties will be pointed 

out after that other variety is described. A good photo of a young 

specimen of variety hamatus is presented by Britton and Rose 

on page 104 of Volume 3 of The Cactaceae, while the other 

variety is well illustrated on the following page. 

Echinocactus setispinus var. setaceus Eng. 

[Hamatocactus setispinus var. setaceus (Eng.) B. & R.] 

“Fishhook Cactus,” “Hedgehog Cactus” 


stems: Hemispheric when very young, becoming egg-shaped, 

and when very old often becoming columnar. Some plants 

branch early to form clusters of up to 7 or 8 heads, while 

others remain single throughout life. Clustering plants do not 

usually grow over 3 inches tall, while single plants may become 

12 inches in height. The maximum diameter in either 

case seems to be about 3 inches. The surface is a light green 

color. There are 13 sharp ribs which are straight, vertical, 

and shallow, being less than 1/4 of an inch deep, but which 

are interrupted by cross-furrows between the areoles. There 

are almost no thickenings at the areoles, which could be called 

tubercles. 


spines: There are 12 to 19 radial spines which are round and 

rigid, straight or often recurved back toward the plant. The 

lower 3 or 4 are 3/16 to about 1/2 inch long and translucent 

honey-yellow, sometimes with their bases reddish-brown. The 

lateral 3 to 5 on each side are 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch long and 

whitish with their tips translucent yellow. The upper 3 to 5 

radial spines are 5/8 to 11/8 inches long, translucent honeyyellow, 

often with dark red-brown bases. There is 1 central 

spine which stands approximately perpendicular to the stem, 

is round, hooked, weak but rigid, and 1/4 to 11/2 inches long. 

On some plants this central is translucent honey-yellow becoming 

gray with age, while on others it is partly or all dark 

red-brown. 

flowers: As the species, except that they are only 13/4 to 2


inches tall by 21/4 to 3 inches wide and the inner segments 

are spatulate. 


Range. Starr and Hidalgo counties, Texas, and south into 

Mexico. 

Remarks. Although the descriptions of various authors are confusing 

due to the failure of some to distinguish between this and 

the previous variety, this plant seems clearly to be E. setispinus 

var. setaceus of Engelmann. It can readily be recognized by its 

straight, shallow ribs, its shiny, pale green color, its more numerous 

and more rigid radial spines, and its slender stems never 

observed to be over 3 inches in diameter. 

This variety is found in great numbers in a very restricted 

area of south Texas. It suddenly appears on gravelly hills near 

Falcon Dam, and is common on such undisturbed slopes nearly 

to Mission, Texas. On a specimen in the U. S. National Museum 

collected by Robert Runyon, who no doubt knew south Texas 

cacti more completely than any other man, I find a note that 

this cactus occurs in only Starr and Hidalgo counties. This is an 

area where variety hamatus is not found. 

It seems almost impossible to discuss variety setaceus in any 

more detail without noting that within it there are two obvious 

growth forms. They grow together in the same fields, and I have 

found the two forms actually within inches of each other, in 

which case the difference between them is striking. 

One of them always remains a single stem and becomes when 

old a very slender column up to 12 inches tall but only 2 to 3 

inches thick. This form has the upper radials and the hooked 

central variegated with brown or sometimes wholly dark brown. 

The centrals are 1/2 to 11/2 inches long. 

The other form never grows as a single tall column, but begins 

branching around the base when about 21/2 inches tall. An old 

plant will be composed of up to 7 or 8 egg-shaped stems, the 

largest of which is only 3 inches tall. This form has all its spines 

shorter and honey-yellow, becoming gray when old. There is no 

brown in them. The hooked centrals are only 1/4 to 3/8 of an 

inch long, but they are heavier than on the other form. 

These two forms seem to correspond in many ways to two 

varieties in the literature, the tall one with darker spines to 

E. setispinus var. cachetianus (Monv.) Knuth, and the shorter 

form with yellow spines to E. setispinus var. mierensis K. Schumann, 

but there are discrepancies in each case in the descriptions, 

and it seems impossible to apply the names with certainty 

to these or any other plants. Even if they were applied to these 

forms, they could not be other than growth forms or forma. 

Two good photographs of the single, columnar type of variety 

setaceus supplied by Robert Runyon are reproduced as figures 

113 and 114 on page 105 of Britton and Rose’s The Cactaceae, 

Volume 3. 

This variety is not nearly so massive and spectacular as the 

previous variety, and is not as well adapted for the amateur’s 

growing. It is much less tolerant of moisture and shade. Its flesh 

is much more firm and lighter in color and does not present the 

soft, deep green, and the luxuriantly massive appearance of the 

variety hamatus. Its flowers are somewhat shorter than those 

of the other variety, but deeper in the shade of their yellow. 

Echinocactus sinuatus Dietrich 

[Hamatocactus sinuatus (Dietrich) Orcutt] 

“Lower Rio Grande Valley Barrel” 


stems: Spherical, becoming conical and finally elongated 

ovate with a definitely pointed tip, and up to at least 12 

inches tall and 8 inches thick. It is usually single, but some 

old plants produce one or two branches at the base. The surface 

is very dark, dull green or even blue-green. There are 13 

ribs which are deep but compressed. They are 1 to 11/4 inches 

deep, undulating, acute and sharp between the areoles, and 

raised into indistinct tubercles which are somewhat rounded 

but only about 3/8 of an inch across at the areoles. 

areoles: Round or slightly oval and about 1/4 to 3/8 of an 

inch in longest measurement at first. The flower comes out of 

the upper end of the areole, leaving afterward a short groovelike 

extension of the areole forward which is usually about 

1/8 of an inch long and so broad as to be almost oval. This 

has some wool and several large, elongated glands in it. The 

areoles are about 1 inch apart. 

spines: There are 8 to 12 spreading radial spines which vary 

consistently in all specimens as follows: the lowermost 1 is 

3/8 to 11/8 inches long, round or slightly flattened, sometimes 

slightly hooked, red or purplish with a translucent yellow tip; 

the spines on each side of this one are similar in color but 5/8 

to 13/4 inches long, slightly flattened, and also sometimes 

slightly hooked; the 2 lateral radials on each side are flat, 

straight, 1 to 21/4 inches long, yellowish, and often slightly 

banded, becoming gray and rough with age; the upper 1 to 

3 radial spines are round, 11/4 to 21/8 inches long, straight, the 

most slender of the radials, reddish with yellow zones or all 

yellow, becoming gray with age. There are 4 centrals which 

are all flat and pubescent. The three upper ones spread upward 

in front of the upper radials and are 11/4 to 21/2 inches 

long, straight, yellowish with reddish zones, becoming gray 

with age. The lowermost central is approximately perpendicular 

to the stem, hooked, very flat and wide, 2 to 31/2 inches 

long and to 1/8 of an inch wide, reddish, becoming purplish- 

gray with age. 

flowers: 2 to 3 inches long and wide, clear lemon or greenish- 

yellow without red centers, and hardly fragrant. The ovary 

has a few rounded and fringed scales. The outer petals are 

short, greenish with reddish-brown midlines and greenish- 

yellow, fringed edges. Their tips are pointed, but they are


wide and irregular in shape otherwise. The inner petals are 

long, with entire edges, sharply pointed, all clear lemon yellow 

with narrow yellow bases. The filaments and anthers are 

all yellow. The style is yellow and the stigma has 8 to 10 

lemon-yellow lobes which are rough and about 3/8 of an inch 

long. 

fruits: Green, oval or egg-shaped, about 1 inch long and 3/8 

of an inch wide at the widest part near the center. There are 

about 6 to 12 small scales upon each fruit, and the old flower 

parts persist. When undisturbed these fruits remain on the 

plant for months, finally rotting, at which time they usually 

split open and the fermenting pulp containing the seeds spews 

out. The seeds are about 1/25 of an inch long, almost globular 

except compressed and prolonged beaklike at one end surrounding 

the small, sunken hilum. The surface is slightly 

shiny, with small but comparatively widely spaced pits all 

over it. 

Range. From near Brownsville in the lower Rio Grande Valley 

in a narrow strip north along the river to Eagle Pass, Texas. 

Spreading northeast of Eagle Pass beyond Brackettville to the 

Montell and Camp Wood, Texas, area and west along the Rio 

Grande to the mouth of the Devil’s River, 

Remarks. This cactus has been confused with other forms to a 

remarkable extent, considering its definite differences from its 

relatives. Its existence has even been denied by some more recent 

writers-one of the most strange omissions in all of cactus 

study. 

It was first described as Echinocactus sinuatus by Dietrich 

in 1851. Poselger, in 1853, referred to it as E. setispinus var. 

sinuatus, and perhaps also as E. setispinus var. robustus. Engelmann, 

a few years later, had no doubt about its standing as a 

separate species, and wrote an especially full description of it 

with the stated purpose to show this. Coulter understood the 

plant well, and followed Engelmann and Dietrich. Weber, however, 

in 1902, listed an E. longihamatus sinuatus, by which he 

must have meant to place this cactus as a variety of E. hamatacanthus. 

Then came Britton and Rose, who took a cue from 

Weber but then took one of their long steps and said that the 

plant was the same as their Ferocactus hamatacanthus. They 

even reproduced a photograph of E. sinuatus as their illustration 

of Ferocactus hamatacanthus, the picture in The Cactaceae, Volume 

3, page 144, figure 152. Marshall, following them, speaks 

of sinuatus as an extreme form of Hamatocactus hamatacanthus. 

Backeberg apparently did not have specimens to study first 

hand, but recognized from the previous literature that it was 

probably a separate species, and so listed it with a call for 

further study to be made of it. 

I had found mention by Schulz and others of the big fishhook 

barrel, E. hamatacanthus having been collected near 

Brownsville and “on the clay dunes near the Texas Coast.” I 

had never understood how that cactus, a native of the Big Bend, 

could turn up in such a different environment down in the lower 

Rio Grande Valley. When I found my first foot-high specimen 

of E. sinuatus near Zapata, Texas, I didn’t know what it was, 

but I knew at a glance that it wasn’t any form of E. setispinus 

or E. hamatacanthus. I doubt that anyone would confuse them 

who had actually seen all three together. I have since seen 

dozens of specimens all the way from the edge of the Gulf to 

the mouth of the Devil’s River, and they are consistently dis- 

tinct. 

As briefly as possible, E. sinuatus may be distinguished from 

E. setispinus by the following comparisons: E. sinuatus grows 

to 8 inches thick; has ribs 7/8 to 11/8 inches deep; 8 to 12 radial 

spines, some of them flattened; 4 centrals, all flattened and more 

or less pubescent; flowers which are never red-centered and 

hardly fragrant; fruits 7/8 to 1 inch long, oval or egg-shaped, 

and green until they rot; and seeds 1/25 of an inch long, shining, 

with very fine pits and small hila which have no collars. E. 

setispinus, on the other hand, grows to only 5 inches thick; has 

ribs 1/4 of an inch or less in depth; 10 to 19 radial spines, all 

round and bristle-like; only 1 central spine, which is round and 

smooth; flowers which are red-centered and very fragrant; 

fruits spherical, 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch across, and scarlet; seeds 

about 1/16 of an inch long, dull with closely set pits and large 

hila having wide collars. 

The following distinguish E. sinuatus from E. hamatacanthus: 

E. sinuatus grows to a maximum of about 12 by 8 inches; has 

13 compressed ribs the summits of which are 3/8 of an inch wide 

at the most; 8 to 12 radials, some of which are greatly flattened; 

4 centrals, all flattened and more or less pubescent; flowers 

which are lemon yellow with 8 to 10 stigma lobes; fruits 7/8 to 

1 inch long, oval to egg-shaped, and green; seeds 1/25 of an inch 

across. E. hamatacanthus, on the other hand, grows to at least 

24 by 12 inches; has 13 to 17 massively rounded ribs the summits 

of which are 3/4 of an inch or more across; 8 to 14 radial 

spines which are all round or very nearly so, and smooth; 4 to 

8 central spines which are smooth instead of pubescent, round 

or with only the lower one flattened on top; flowers which are 

entirely straw or pale yellow with or without red centers, with 

11 to 14 stigma lobes; fruits 1 to 2 inches long, egg-shaped or 

oblong, and brownish-red when ripe; and seeds about 1/16 of an 

inch long with dull surfaces. 

E. sinuatus is a beautiful species first encountered on the first 

solid ground back of the beach in deep south Texas. It may 

once have been common around and above Brownsville, but 

few undisturbed areas in which it can be seen remain there now. 

It may be found on a strip of territory a few miles wide all 

along the river up to Eagle Pass, being very common in some 

areas around Roma and Zapata. It is rare north of Zapata to 

north of Eagle Pass, but is occasionally seen. In some parts of 

the Anacacho Mountains and in the hills at the edge of the 

Edwards Plateau north and east of Brackettville, Texas, it is 

again rather common, although these northern specimens do not 

grow nearly as tall as they do farther south, preferring to remain 

spherical in shape. It is fairly easily found in various hilly


areas west of Eagle Pass to the mouth of the Devil’s River, 

which seems to be its westward limit, but it does not grow any 

distance north along that river. I have also seen numerous specimens 

collected in northern Mexico, some to almost as far south 

as Monterrey. 

Echinocactus hamatacanthus Muehlenpf. 

[Hamatocactus hamatacanthus (Muehlenpf.) Knuth] 

“Turk’s Head,” “Visnaga,” “Biznaga Costillona,” “Biznaga es 

Pinosa,” “Biznaga Ganchuda,” “Biznaga Limilla,” “Biznaga 

de Tuna” 


stems: Large and heavy, hemispherical or almost spherical, 

becoming columnar and to a maximum of at least 2 feet tall 

and 1 foot in diameter. These stems are usually single, but 

occasionally become double or triple by branching, and when 

injured sometimes form larger clusters. The surface is dull 

green or gray-green. There are usually 13, but may occasionally 

be as many as 17 massive, broad ribs 11/2 to 2 inches high 

and wide. These ribs are divided between the areoles into very 

distinct, rounded tubercles 11/2 to 2 inches tall and the same 

width at their bases. The rounded tops of these tubercles are 

about 3/4 of an inch wide on mature plants. The areoles are 

on the tops of these massive tubercles. 

areoles: About 1 to 11/2 inches apart, oval to oblong, and 

about 3/8 to 1/2 inch long. There are very wide, felted grooves 

running inward and upward about 3/8 of an inch from the 

spinous parts of the areoles on mature plants, but these are 

not present on young plants which have not yet bloomed. 

There are very large, elongated glands in these grooves. The 

flower comes from the end of this groovelike extension of the 

areole. 

spines: There may be 8 to 14 radial spines, but usually are 10 

or more of them, as follows in appearance: the lowermost 

spine is 3/4 to 2 inches long and variegated reddish at first, 

turning gray-brown with age; the 3 laterals on each side are 

1 to 3 inches long and the same color or whitish. All of these 

are round or only very slightly flattened, straight, and radiating 

evenly. The 3 to 5 upper radials do not radiate, but 

stand spreading upward. They vary on different plants from 

as short as 3/4 of an inch to as much as 31/4 inches long, are 

round, or practically so, slender, straight, and reddish or 

gray, often variegated. There may be 4 to 8 round or somewhat 

flattened, smooth central spines in each areole. There 

is one extremely large lower central which stands out approximately 

perpendicular to the stem, but which usually 

curves and twists in any direction. It is hooked at the end, 

entirely round or else round below and flattened on its upper 

surface, 2 to at least 6 inches long, a heavy spine but some- 

what flexible due to its great length. It is yellow mottled with 

red or else all dull red at first, often indistinctly annulate, 

becoming gray-brown with age. There are always 3 more 

upper centrals which stand spreading upward. They are 

straight, round, relatively slender, reddish often mottled with 

yellow, later turning gray-brown, and 1 to 31/2 inches long. 

These 4 are all the centrals on young plants, but with age 

2 or 3 upper centrals are added which are shorter and more 

slender, standing erect just back of the previous upper cen- 

trals. 

flowers: Entirely straw to yellow or the outer parts thus 

with red centers, 21/4 to 4 inches tall, 23/4 to 3 inches wide, 

and very fragrant. The ovary and tube have very many 

small triangular scales on them; Engelmann, having counted 

them, said there are 30 to 60 of these. Their centers are reddish 

or brownish, while their edges are greenish-yellow, 

crinkled, and may or may not have a few twisted cilia on 

them. The very many outer perianth segments—Engelmann 

says there are 55 to 80 of them—range all the way from 

short, scalelike ones to full-length, oblong ones. They all have 

reddish midlines, the outer parts being greenish and the edges 

being yellowish. There are about 30 inner petals which are 

long, wide, and pointed, the edges entire or often toothed 

irregularly. These inner petals may be all yellow or yellow 

with red bases. The filaments will be yellow in all yellow 

flowers, but reddish in those with red centers. The anthers 

are yellow. The style is yellow and longer than the stamens. 

There may be 11 to 14 lobes in the stigma, which are about 

1/4 of an inch long, yellow, rough, and usually much curved 

and twisted. 

fruits: Egg-shaped to oblong, 1 to 2 inches long, not including 

the persistent perianth. There are 30 or 40 scales on 

the fruit, each greenish edged in white. The fruit remains 

green all summer and fall and then during the winter it ripens, 

becoming at that time a brownish-red color. The seeds are 

practically round, about 1/16 of an inch long, black, with the 

surface pitted. 

Range. Along and never many miles north of the Rio Grande 

from the mouth of the Devil’s River all the way to El Paso, 

Texas. Occurring very rarely west of El Paso for perhaps 50 

miles along the southern border of New Mexico. Growing very 

abundantly in Mexico. 

Remarks. Echinocactus hamatacanthus is the second largest, 

second most splendid member of this genus in the United States. 

It has often been called E. longihamatus. Although this latter 

name may have been coined by Galeotti first, it was used without 

description and so most have agreed that Muehlenpfordt’s 

hamatacanthus has precedence. 

This species may be distinguished from its already described 

relatives by its great rounded ribs composed of massive tubercles 

swelling around each areole. Both E. setispinus and E. sinuatus 

have sharp ribs without these large rounded tubercles. The


same characteristic distinguishes it from the only other cactus 

in our area presenting such a massive size and having hooked 

spines—Echinocactus wislizeni—since that large barrel cactus 

has very large but uninterrupted, sharp ribs. 

Engelmann described three varieties of this cactus. However, 

since they overlap and there are many intermediates which one 

cannot assign to any one of them with any certainty, they do 

not stand distinct as do those of E. setispinus. They are no doubt 

just the extreme variations in spine characters of the species. 

Variety crassispinus Eng. has its central spines when typical relatively 

heavy and the most flattened of this species. It is the 

form which Engelmann first called Echinocactus flexispinus. He 

and other authorities consider it to be found only in Chihuahua, 

but Coulter assigned some Texas specimens to this variety. Variety 

gracilispinus Eng. is the most common form in Texas and 

Mexico, having its centrals comparatively slender and the hooked 

one only slightly flattened. Variety brevispinus Eng. is the form 

having the central spines shorter than the others, hardly if any 

longer than the radials, and all spines round. Almost all young 

specimens could pass for this variety, and a few mature ones also. 

Coulter states that this is the form found west of El Paso in New 

Mexico. 

One often finds in the literature the name Brittonia davisii 

applied to this species and credited to Dr. A. D. Houghton. Marshall, 

in his Cactaceae made this Hamatocactus hamatacanthus 

var. davisii. However, in an article in the Cactus and Succulent 

Journal of America in 1944, Marshall relates that shortly before 

his death, Houghton wrote him that he had never published the 

name at all, and so in this article Marshall agrees with Borg in 

dropping the name entirely. 

E. hamatacanthus is a beautiful cactus, becoming one of the 

largest in the Southwest. Everything about it grows in grand 

proportions. This is not a cactus for dish gardens or window 

ledges, and it should not be dwarfed in a cramped pot. It needs 

space, in return for which it will grow slowly into a massive 

barrel with perhaps the longest spines of any in our area. It is 

not so easy to grow as its relatives from farther east in Texas, 

being more liable to rot if given too much water. It is more 

completely a desert species, and one must remember this. Neither 

is it as resistant to freezing as our other cacti, and it can only at 

great risk be left unprotected during the winter anywhere north 

of its range. 

This species has been shunted about between genera more than 

its other close relatives. Of course, it was first described as an 

Echinocactus. But when Britton and Rosa broke up that genus, 

they did not assign this species to Hamatocactus with the others, 

but instead to the genus Ferocactus. This was because they concluded 

that this species had enough scales on its ovary to belong 

there. It was Knuth who finally transferred it to Hamatocactus, 

where it seems most obvious that it would have to remain unless 

those two microgenera are actually so close as to be merely 

subdivisions of the one actual genus, Echinocactus. But more 

recently Buxbaum has maintained that it is really a Ferocactus, 

while Hester shows how impossible it is to keep any of these 

microgenera separate by asserting that all of the members of 

Hamatocactus, including this one, should be included in Thelo- 

cactus. 

Echinocactus bicolor var. schottii Eng. 

[Thelocactus bicolor var. schottii (Eng.) B. & R.] 

“Glory of Texas” 


stems: Egg-shaped or conical to almost columnar, sometimes 

to 10 inches tall and 5 inches in diameter, but usually smaller. 

These stems are usually single, but very old plants sometimes 

form small clusters of 3 or 4 heads by branching from the 

base. There are 8 broad, flat ribs which are composed of wartlike 

tubercles to about 1/2 inch high from almost perfectly 

square bases up to 3/4 of an inch wide. 

areoles: Oval or nearly round with yellow wool at first, 

later egg-shaped on immature plants. On adult tubercles the 

floral part of the areole forms a short groove about 1/8 to 3/16 

of an inch long and often so wide as to make the areole as a 

whole obovate in shape. In old plants glands are often visible 

in the areoles. 

spines: There are 12 to 18 radial spines on each areole. The 

upper 1 to 4 of these radials are erect, straight, flattened, and 

3/4 to 21/4 inches long. They are yellow when young, becoming 

gray with age. The lateral and lower radial spines are all 

round, 1/2 to 11/4 inches long, and varicolored, the bases of 

them being gray, the middle zones dark red, and the ends 

yellowish. The lower radials often recurve a little back toward 

the plant. There are 3 or 4 straight central spines. The 

uppermost stands erect just in front of the upper radials. It 

is 1 to 31/2 inches long, very flat and broad—often 1/8 of an 

inch wide—and flexible. Standing erect beside this one are 1 

or 2 other centrals, flat on some plants but round on others, 

and not quite so long. These erect centrals are yellow at first, 

becoming gray. The lower central stands perpendicular to the 

plant or is turned downward. It is perfectly round or oval, 

stout and rigid, and 3/4 to 23/4 inches long. It is gray, red, and 

yellow like the lower radials at first, becoming all gray when 

very old. 

flowers: 2 to 3 inches long, 3 to 4 inches across, opening 

widely with petals usually recurving backward. They are 

brilliant fuchsia with scarlet throats and a shining, satiny surface. 

The sepals vary from short, rounded scales on the ovary 

wall to more elongated, oblong sepals above. All have greenish 

midlines and whitish, fringed edges. The inner petals are 

oblong from narrow bases, about 3/8 of an inch wide at the 

widest point, the margins entire but crinkled, the tips pointed 

and recurving. Their bases are bright scarlet, the upper three-


fourths of each one a bright, satiny fuchsia. The filaments are 

bright scarlet, matching the petal bases. The anthers are yellow. 

The style is pink and a little longer than the stamens. 

The stigma has 8 to 11 rough, blunt lobes, light rose to brownish-pink 

in color. 

fruits: About 3/8 to 1/2 inch long, becoming dry and splitting 

open by means of an irregular basal pore. The seeds are about 

1/16 of an inch long, almost globular, with very large hila. 

Range. Occurring in Texas in two widely separated areas, one 

near and up to about 20 miles north of the Rio Grande in Starr 

County, and the other around Lajitas and above Candelaria, 

Texas, in Brewster County in the Big Bend. No record of collections 

between these widely separated points comes to light. 

Remarks: This is primarily a Mexican species. We are very fortunate 

that it steps across our border in two widely separated 

places, where we can claim it as the glory of Texas. The name is 

well deserved. The bright-colored, variegated spines are attractive, 

and when the cactus blooms, it presents undoubtedly the 

brightest and most exotic flower of any in our area. The fuchsia 

petals with their scarlet bases are satiny in texture and colorful 

beyond description. It is unfortunate that they are so sensitive 

that they will only open in the full heat of the southwestern 

summer afternoon and close again permanently as the sun begins 

to fall. They are so sensitive that they start to close visibly when 

a cloud temporarily covers the sun. I have found that it requires 

fast action to photograph them, since they close in a short time 

when taken out of the greenhouse and placed outside where the 

temperature is 10 degrees cooler, even when the sun is still full 

upon them. Because of this sensitivity few people have seen these 

exquisite flowers each one of which is open only three or four 

hours of only one afternoon. 

It is quite common to consider the plants from the two different 

areas in Texas as different forms, those from Starr County 

usually being called E. bicolor and those from the Big Bend E. 

bicolor var. schottii or E. bicolor var. tricolor. I have examined 

many specimens from both areas, and although the southern 

ones are smaller with correspondingly shorter and less colorful 

spines, there is no essential difference between them. I am convinced 

that they must all be considered the same form, the west- 

ern one only being more robust in every respect. 

The species was first described from Mexican specimens by 

Galeotti in 1848, under the name Echinocactus bicolor. When 

Engelmann first described the Texas plants, he found them 

enough different from the original description that he erected a 

new variety, calling the Texas plants E. bicolor var. schottii. He 

stated that the Texas specimens differed from the species by 

having more radials and having the upper centrals greatly flat- 

tened and the longest spines on the plants. 

I have examined many plants from both Texas and the area 

of the type in Mexico, and find Engelmann’s distinction between 

the Texas specimens and the type of the species partly right and 

partly in error. There is no consistent difference in number of 

radials between the two. On Texas specimens I have found 12 

to 18 radials, while on Mexican specimens I have found 10 to 

18. Engelmann must have seen only examples of the lower 

number in his Mexican plants. There is, however, a great difference 

in the length of the radials between the two types. The 

Mexican form shows lower radials 1/4 to 1/2 inch long, laterals 

5/8 to 3/4 of an inch, and the upper radials 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch 

long, while the same spines on Texas plants run lower and lateral 

radials 1/2 to 11/4 inches and the uppers 3/4 to 21/4 inches 

long. 

In the matter of central spines, Engelmann was quite right, 

and this is the primary distinction overlooked by many. The 

Texas plants have a round or oval lower central which is rather 

stout and 3/4 to 23/4 inches long. Then they have 2 or 3 upper 

centrals which are erect, the uppermost one being very flat, 1/16 

to 1/8 of an inch wide, flexible, and 1 to 31/2 inches long—always 

longer than the lower central on a mature plant. The 

Mexican plants of the type area, on the other hand, have this 

uppermost central round or oval like the lower, very stout, and 

awl-shaped, not flattened or flexible, and only 3/4 to 11/8 inches 

long—never longer than the lower central. In general, the Mexican 

plant has short, very stout, and rigid spines, while the Texas 

form is more or less covered by its longer, more slender, more 

flattened, flexible spines. 

The difference between the two forms is certainly not great, 

but it seems enough that they can be recognized once they are 

understood. No doubt they are not separate species, but it does 

seem that Engelmann’s variety is valid, even though Britton and 

Rose, as well as some others, have ignored it. I find no record 

of the typical E. bicolor which occurs in Mexico or any of the 

several other varieties of it having been found north of the Rio 

Grande. Variety schottii, however, does grow quite some dis- 

tance down into Mexico. 

E. bicolor var. tricolor is a name proposed by Schumann for 

the specimens with the most brilliant red spines. Such extremely 

red-spined plants show no other differences from the other Texas 

specimens, however, and are found growing right among the less 

brightly colored specimens in the Big Bend, so this does not seem 

a valid basis for a variety, and the name probably should be 

dropped. Backeberg described a variety texensis. After observation 

of many specimens, it seems to me that plants fitting his 

description cannot be set off from the variety schottii, but intergrade 

with the others and must be included within that variety. 

This species was regarded as an Echinocactus as long as that 

genus was recognized in its original sense. Later Schumann 

erected a subgenus Thelocactus for it which Britton and Rose 

elevated to a separate genus. This separation was made because 

of the few scales on the ovary and its lack of wool, and because 

of a misinterpretation of the areole. Britton and Rose thought 

the flower originated in a separate floral areole separated by a 

groove from the spine areole. It has since been shown that this 

whole structure is one monomorphic areole and that there is no 

distinction between the areoles of this plant and those of the


most typical Echinocacti. Unless only those species are left in 

the genus Echinocactus which have wool on the ovary, this 

species must be included along with the rest. 

Very large and beautiful specimens of this cactus 8 and even 

10 inches tall are now being brought out of the more inaccessible 

mountains of the Big Bend by resourceful commercial gatherers. 

They are much larger and have much longer spines than the 

earlier writers ever saw, but are otherwise the same. Unfortunately 

this is a very fastidious desert cactus, and these large old 

specimens grown to such splendid size because of the most perfect 

desert environment in these very arid mountains will not 

live and grow further in the less favorable environment of a 

pot or garden. It is a questionable practice of the dealers to offer 

for sale these huge old plants which cannot live long. They thrill 

the collector, but must disappoint him when they soon die. Even 

the small specimens, which are sold widely, are impracticable 

for all but the collector who can duplicate the desert conditions 

for them. There is a saying that they will not live over 3 years 

in a pot, and in most cases I believe this is longer than can be 

expected. I have disproved the saying by keeping one in a pot 

4 years now, but this must be credited to extremely alkaline, 

limestone soil and to its position in the full Texas sun in a greenhouse 

where the temperature climbs to between 110 and 120 

degrees every day of the summer. Treated in this seemingly inhumane 

way, the cactus thrives and shows its appreciation for 

the heat and sunshine by blooming all summer. Its earliest 

flower has opened on April 12, and its latest on September 16. 

It seems cruel to subject such a delicately flowering plant to 

this kind of treatment, but if it is provided, this plant will show 

all of its glory. 

Echinocactus flavidispinus (Backbg.) 

[Thelocactus flavidispinus Backbg.] 


stems: Hemispherical at first, becoming columnar and sometimes 

branching at the base or, if injured, at the point of 

injury. Becoming at least 4 inches tall and 3 inches in diameter. 

There are 13 ribs composed of rows of conical tubercles 

to about 3/8 of an inch high. These are distinct in young specimens, 

but become somewhat confluent on older plants. The 

color of the surface is light green or even yellowish-green. 

areoles: Oval at first, but after flowering, ovate, the upper 

part prolonged into a short groove containing glands. 

spines: There are 14 to 20 radial spines which are recurved 

against the plant. They are all yellow at first, or yellow 

streaked with red. Later the lower and lateral ones remain 

round, only 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch long, and become bright red 

in their middle zones with yellow tips, while the uppermost 

becomes flattened, cream to gray in color, and to 1 inch long. 

Juvenile plants possess only the radials, and these are all round 

at first. When the plant is a little older there appears 1 strong, 

round central which stands perpendicular to the stem or 

turned downward; it is pubescent, all yellow or yellow at the 

base and tip with bright red in the middle, and 3/8 to 7/8 of an 

inch long. Mature plants add 3 more centrals turned upward: 

2 of them are like the radials in all respects, while the uppermost 

becomes 1 to 11/2 inches long, flattened, more or less 

curved toward the plant, and all yellow, fading to gray with 

age. 

flowers: About 11/2 inches tall and 3 to 4 inches in diameter 

when fully open. The scales on the ovary and the outer perianth 

segments have brownish-green midlines shading to whitish, 

entire edges and scarlet bases. The inner segments have 

very narrow scarlet bases widening to bright rose-pink or 

fuchsia upper parts, which have entire edges, are very sharp- 

pointed, and do not recurve. The filaments and anthers are 

yellow. The style is yellow or pink, and there are 11 stigma 

lobes which are scarlet at their bases fading to yellowish at 

their tips. 

fruits: Not seen. 

Range. Known only from near Marathon, Texas, particularly 

in the Pena Blanca Mountains in the upper part of the Big 

Bend region. 

Remarks. This cactus was first described as Thelocactus bicolor 

var. flavidispinus by Backeberg in 1941. Later Backeberg elevated 

it to a separate species. He apparently had before him 

only the younger plants, since he described the species as having 

only 1 central. Examination of many specimens in their native 

habitat shows that the juveniles have no central, the younger 

adults for a number of years after flowering have only one, and 

old plants produce 4 centrals on all areoles, as described above. 

This cactus is easily distinguished from Echinocactus bicolor 

var. schottii or the typical Echinocactus bicolor, neither of 

which grows anywhere near the very limited range of this form. 

The 8 ribs of E. bicolor and 13 of E. flavidispinus are an unvarying 

difference, and the shorter, more yellow, and all round 

spines—except for the one upper central on old plants—characterize 

E. flavidispinus. 

The flowers of E. flavidispinus are basically similar to those 

of E. bicolor var. schottii, but differ in details which are obvious 

if the two are seen blooming together. This flower is a much 

lighter rose color, its petals are much more pointed and do not 

open so widely. The filaments are not red, but yellow, and the 

stigma lobes are more slender and less colorful. 

Backeberg did not describe the fruits of this species, and in 

examining hundreds of specimens in their native locations and 

in growing examples for several years I have seen many flowers 

but no fruits. I do not know what if any significance there is 

to this. The plants in their natural situations suffer very often 

from some sort of injury to their growing tips, and it may be 

that some insect rapidly devours the young fruits. At any rate, 

they do not seem to have been observed up to this time.


In much of its range, I found that fully one-half of the plants 

had suffered the injury mentioned above. Their growing tips 

were partly destroyed, perhaps by an insect or by a severe 

freeze, and they were reproducing at this point 3 or 4 small, 

spherical branches with short, yellow, juvenile spines upon 

them. Several of these, when grown in my greenhouse for two 

years, have now put out the one reddish central heralding maturity, 

but none of them has yet produced the other 3 centrals 

obvious on the older, original stem. 

The description given for Thelocactus wagnerianus Berger, of 

eastern Mexico, seems very close to this plant. Backeberg discussed 

the relation of the two in his 1941 article, but did not 

conclude them to be synonymous. However, he did not realize 

that the Texas plant has 3 or 4 centrals when fully mature, as 

does the Mexican one. The relationship between the two needs 

study, but I have not been privileged to see the Mexican cactus, 

and so cannot offer anything on it. 

Echinocactus intertextus Eng. 

[Echinomastus intertextus (Eng.) B. & R.] 

“The Early Bloomer,” “White-Flowered Visnagita” 


stems: Always occurring individually and without branching. 

They are spherical at first, becoming egg-shaped or conical, and 

when very old, short, thick columns. The maximum size seems 

to be 4 to 5 inches tall and 31/2 to 4 inches in diameter. There 

are almost always 13 ribs, although 12 and 14 are said to 

have occurred. These are distinct and broad but low, 5/8 to 1 

inch wide and only 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch deep on a large plant. 

The tubercles making up these ribs are distinct, being almost 

entirely separated by deep cross-grooves. They are conical at 

first, but on the older sides of the stem the deep cross-grooves 

separating them make the bases square. The summits of the 

tubercles are prolonged below the areole into a sharply peaked, 

chinlike ridge running back so far as to almost overhang the 

next lower tubercle, and at the cross-groove between them this 

ridge terminates suddenly with a straight drop into the pitlike 

depression thus formed for the axil. 

areoles: The young areoles are rather large, slightly oval, 

very woolly, becoming bare when old. The mature areole becomes 

elongated by a woolly groovelike extension which runs 

inward and upward from the spinous portion all the way to 

the base of the tubercle, where it meets the cross-groove between 

the tubercles. The flower is produced from the end of 

this extended areole in the axil of the tubercle. There is usually 

left after flowering and fruiting a tuft of longer, yellow- 

ish-white wool in this depressed axil. 

spines: The spines are all round with slightly enlarged bases. 

They are all dull gray or yellowish at the bases, with the up- 

per one-half or so darkening into purplish or reddish-brown 

tips. There are 16 to 27 radial spines which radiate evenly, 

recurve slightly and lie tightly against the plant surface on 

one form and spread outward on another. The upper ones are 

much the weakest spines, being almost bristle-like and 3/16 

to 5/8 of an inch long. The lateral radials are heavier and 

longer, being up to 7/8 of an inch long. The 3 to 5 centrals are 

similar to the radials but a little heavier and slightly darker 

in color. 2 to 4 of these stand erect in front of and against the 

upper radials in one form or spread upward in the other form. 

They are 1/2 to 7/8 of an inch long. The lowermost central 

stands straight out from the center of the areole. On one form 

it is heavy, but very short, being only 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch 

long. On the other form it is not so heavy, but is 1/4 to 5/8 

of an inch long. Juvenile plants have 16 to 18 strictly radiating 

radial spines and no centrals. Then 1 central appears and 

the others follow. 

flowers: Salmon to white in color, 3/4 to 1 inch long and 1/2 

to 1 inch in diameter, the state of the plant determining how 

widely they open. On plants growing with a minimum of 

water the spines will prevent the petals from opening out, 

but on plants well expanded with water the spines will allow 

them to open widely. There are about half a dozen small 

scales on the ovary. The outer perianth segments are from 

very short to about 3/4 of an inch long and 3/16 of an inch 

wide. They have pink midlines with very pale pink edges, 

and are pointed, with the edges entire or sometimes somewhat 

toothed and ragged. The inner petals are about 3/4 of an 

inch long and about 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch wide, whitish at 

their bases and with a very pale pink midline shading to 

white edges. They are pointed, often with a tiny, soft spine at 

the apex, and their edges are usually irregular. The filaments 

are greenish and the anthers yellowish. The style is greenish, 

but the stigma has 6 to 12 bright pink to brilliant purple-red 

lobes. 

fruits: Small, 3/8 to 1/2 inch in diameter and globular to 

somewhat oblong, with the old perianth persistent upon it. 

It becomes dry and brown without coloring, and then it 

splits open all around its base and the upper part falls off, 

releasing the seeds. It has a few scales on its surface. The 

seeds are about 1/16 of an inch or slightly larger, black and 

shining, with a rough surface. They are nearly kidney-shaped 

and have large hila. 

Range. From the Texas Big Bend and lower Davis Mountain 

region west to El Paso and the Franklin Mountains. They occur 

from there west in a narrow strip along the lower border of 

New Mexico into the southeastern corner of Arizona, and also 

in adjacent Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico. 

Remarks. The white-flowered visnagita is an interesting little 

cactus venturing into our area from Mexico. Nowhere does it 

manage to survive very far within our territory. Its deepest 

penetration is about 100 miles above the Rio Grande around


Alpine and Fort Davis, Texas, where one form has been fairly 

common in the past, but is now much more rarely seen, due no 

doubt to the activities of collectors and dealers who have long 

made Alpine their headquarters. Lower in the Big Bend. occasional 

plants may still be found, but it is nowhere abundant. 

It may once have existed much farther east in Texas than this, 

as early reports mention its collection near the mouth of the 

Pecos River, but no specimens have been reported east of Alpine 

and the Big Bend National Park for many years. This form is 

occasionally found along the very southern edge of New Mexico 

and into southeastern Arizona. Another form of the same species 

ventures up through the Franklin and Organ mountains as far 

into New Mexico as Rincon and Lake Valley. 

The cactus is well named the early bloomer. So far as I have 

observed it is the first cactus in its locale to bloom each year. I 

have had plants bloom in my garden in San Antonio as early as 

February 13. 

Concerning the growing of E. intertextus in cultivation I 

must be discouraging. It is an attractive small cactus, especially 

for its very early flowers which are unusual in that, while the 

petals are very pale in color, the brilliance is in the bright colored 

stigma. But this is one of our most particular cacti in regard 

to its growing requirements. It cannot tolerate water. It 

must be kept almost dry at all times or it will rot immediately. 

Only when given soil which will not hold moisture, and much 

hot sun will it grow and bloom. It should be remembered that 

this plant does not grow in partial shade like most small cacti, 

but is found unprotected in the full sun and heat. 

Echinocactus intertextus was first described by Engelmann, 

and there has been little disagreement about it until recently. 

The only instance of confusion seems to have been when Coulter 

apparently mistook an Arizona specimen of it for a Cereus and 

named it Cereus pectinatus centralis. Schumann then called it 

Echinocereus pectinatus centralis. This is of course absurd, as 

the plant has no real similarity to a Cereus. 

Britton and Rose naturally took this species out of the genus 

Echinocactus along with most others, and based their new 

genus Echinomastus on it. While this name has been widely 

used, there has never been much certainty about this proposed 

genus among taxonomists. It has been combined with various 

other genera. Because of the long, groovelike extension of the 

areole and the tubercles more separated from one another than 

most of those in the Echinocacti, some have played with the 

idea of calling this cactus a Coryphantha, but no one has actually 

done so officially. In his book, Arizona Cacti, Benson returned 

the genus Echinomastus to Echinocactus, but he is now proposing 

to merge it with the genus Neolloydia. Thus the species 

seems off on the rounds of the microgenera like so many other 

species, pausing next as Neolloydia intertextus, unless Echinocactus 

in its original sense, the only meaningful genus designa- 

tion we have had for all these plants is maintained. 

Engelmann’s description of this species included only the typical 

form of it and did not include the other variety which he 

himself originated. The best taxonomical practice would require 

us to designate this typical form a variety also and to broaden 

the species description to include both varieties of the species, 

which has been done here. 

Echinocactus intertextus var. intertextus (Eng.) 


stems: As the species, except that it grows to only 5 inches 

tall and that the ribs are broader, being 3/4 to 1 inch wide. 


spines: As the species, except that the radial spines always 

radiate evenly, recurving and lying tightly against the plant 

surface, while the upper radials are to only 1/2 inch long, the 

lateral radials to only 3/4 of an inch long, and the lower 

radials to only 3/8 of an inch. Also, the upper centrals stand 

erect in front of and against the upper radials, while the 

lower, porrect central is very heavy and only 1/8 to 3/16 of an 

inch long. 



Range. From the Texas Big Bend and lower Davis Mountains 

west past El Paso in a narrow strip along the lower border of 

New Mexico into Arizona. 

Remarks. This is the typical form of the species, and it occurs 

over a wide range. Engelmann’s original description of the 

species was restricted to this form, and most books and articles 

refer to this only when they use the species name. 

This variety appears as a single small hemisphere or short 

column made of distinct ribs composed of curiously shaped 

tubercles as described under the species. Its areoles are close 

together, and the plant is encased in its purplish-red spines, all 

of which lie flat against the surface, except for the one very 

short and stout lower central which stands straight out, but 

which is so short as to be almost unnoticed. The spines meet and 

interlock over the top of the plant and completely enclose the 

growing tip, which is very woolly when active. The flowers 

come out of this woolly summit and often have a terrible time 

opening because of the interlocking spines. 

The effect of the environment upon the form of the flower 

in this variety was dramatically impressed upon me by one 

plant which I collected just at blooming time. It had apparently 

had a very dry winter, and when it bloomed for me the plant 

was still quite shrunken due to low water content. It bloomed 

profusely in spite of this, and had as many as 6 flowers at a 

time on the rather flat summit of the stem. But the spines were 

so many and so tightly interlocking around them that none of 

these flowers could open properly. Their petals managed to 

stand straight up, but that was all, and one had to look directly 

down into the tube about 3/8 of an inch across which they


formed to see the bright purplish stigma. This same plant flour- 

ished in cultivation, however, and exactly a year later it 

bloomed again in my greenhouse. But now it was nicely filled 

out and plump, and the swelling of the stem had pushed the 

spines over the summit much apart, so the flowers could now 

open widely. I was amazed to see the petals open all the way 

back above the spines until the flowers were rotate and at least 

1 inch across. 

Echinocactus intertextus var. dasyacanthus Eng. 

[Echinomastus intertextus var. dasyacanthus (Eng.) Backbg.] 


stems: As the species, except that they grow to 6 inches tall 

and that the ribs are somewhat narrower, being only 5/8 to 3/4 

of an inch wide. 


spines: As the species, except that all spines are longer and 

more spreading than on the typical variety. The upper radials 

are 1/2 to 5/8 of an inch long and very slender, the lateral 

radials 5/8 to 7/8 of an inch long and heavier, the lower ones 

1/2 to 5/8 of an inch long and rather heavy. The upper centrals 

spread upward instead of lying appressed against the radials 

as in the other form and are 3/4 to 7/8 of an inch long. The 

lower central stands practically perpendicular to the stem, as 

in the other form, but is no heavier than the upper centrals 

and is 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long. 


fruits: Apparently identical with the species. 

Range. A narrow belt of mountainous territory from near Lake 

Valley and Rincon, New Mexico, south at least to El Paso and 

probably into Mexico. Most common in the Franklin and Organ 

mountains near Las Cruces and El Paso. Apparently not coming 

into Texas beyond the extent of the foothills of the Franklin 

Mountains. 

Remarks. This is merely a variety of the species. Engelmann 

considered it that when he first named it, and it was so considered 

until Britton and Rose elevated it to species rank, calling 

it Echinomastus dasyacanthus. From that time on collectors 

have been constantly struggling to distinguish what they were 

led to believe were two nicely distinct species. It has been a great 

contribution of Backeberg to return this form to varietal status. 

Collectors should not be surprised if they have trouble telling 

variety dasyacanthus from variety intertextus. The only real differences 

are matters of maximum stem size and spine character. 

The most obvious difference is the length and character of the 

lowermost, porrect central spine. Near El Paso and in New 

Mexico just north of El Paso the plants collected in the Franklin 

and Organ mountain foothills all have the longer, more spreading 

spines, with the lower central 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long. This 

contrasts nicely with the typical variety intertextus of the Texas 

Big Bend and the very lower edge of New Mexico with its generally 

shorter, sharply appressed spines and its lower central very 

heavy but only 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch long. But there are definitely 

intermediates. They come particularly from the area of Presidio 

and Candelaria, Texas. As adults some of these are hard to assign 

to either variety with certainty. 

It had seemed to me that even a separate varietal rank for a 

form merging so closely into the typical was hard to justify, 

and I might have been tempted to merge them more closely if I 

had not been shown juveniles of the two forms. These were grown 

in quantity from seed by Mr. Clark Champie of Anthony, New 

Mexico-Texas. When 1 inch in diameter both forms were almost 

hemispherical to slightly conical in shape. But the character of 

the spines at this stage is completely different one from the 

other. Variety intertextus has all of its 16 to 18 radials heavy, 

3/16 of an inch long, opaque purplish-gray and appressed flat 

against its surface. One does not feel the spines in handling this 

cactus, they lie so flat upon the plant. At the same age and size 

the spines of variety dasyacanthus are only about half as heavy, 

nearly twice as long, translucent yellowish to reddish-brown, and 

stand spreading well out at all angles from the plant so that it 

is, indeed, a very dangerous little ball to handle. The difference 

between them at this age, before they get any centrals at all, is 

much more striking than it is when they are adults, and no one 

could look at the flats of seedlings at Mr. Champie’s establishment—hundreds 

of variety intertextus consistently the same on 

one hand and on the other hand hundreds of variety dasyacanthus 

so different—without realizing that here is a difference 

which must be recognized, even if it is within the one species. 

Echinocactus erectocentrus var. pallidus (Backbg.) 

[Echinomastus pallidus Backbg. nom. prov.] 


stems: Single until very old, then occasionally producing 

several short branches just above the ground. The stem is globose 

at first, becoming oblong or short columnar and growing 

to a maximum of 6 inches tall and 4 inches in diameter when 

old. It has 13 spiraling ribs when young, this number increasing 

by branching of the ribs to a maximum of at least 21 on 

large stems. These ribs are up to 5/8 of an inch deep and composed 

of definite tubercles which, however, vary greatly in 

shape on the same plant. Some are compressed from side to 

side and are only 1/4 of an inch wide, while others are up to 

1/2 inch broad at their bases. The tubercle is prolonged as a 

short, sloping ridge running downward from the areole. Often 

rown -> brown


this ridge rises a little to form a second shorter, chinlike projection 

behind the main tubercle and then ends abruptly by 

falling to a definite though narrow cross-furrow between the 

tubercles. 

areoles: Elongated and very woolly at first, then becoming 

nearly round and almost bare, except for a woolly groove 

which extends inward and upward from the spinous portion 

to the floral portion of the areole in the axil, which is often 

almost overhung by the chin of the next higher tubercle. 

spines: Very light straw-colored with pale brown tips when 

young, becoming darker with the tips sometimes dark purplishbrown 

on old plants. There are 10 to 16 round, rigid radial 

spines which all spread out at an angle from the plant surface. 

The 5 or 6 upper radials spreading erect are the longest spines 

of the plant, 3/4 to 7/8 of an inch long. In front of these at the 

very tip of the areole or occasionally scattered to as much as 

halfway down the groove to the axil there will often be 1 to 

3 additional very tiny spines to as little as 1/16 of an inch long. 

The lateral radials spread outward and are about 3/4 of an 

inch long. The lower 2 to 4 radials spread almost perpendicular 

to the plant surface and are 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch long. 

There is one central spine which is always turned upward to 

stand in front of the upper radials. It is round and a little 

heavier than the radials, has a bulbous base, and is 5/8 to 7/8 of 

an inch long. 

flowers: 1 to 11/2 inches wide and tall, white in color. There 

are a few whitish scales on the ovary. The perianth segments 

on the lower tube are small and scalelike with arrowheadshaped 

edges. These gradually lengthen up the tube until they 

become oblong, blunt-tipped segments about 3/16 of an inch 

wide. They have greenish-brown midlines and whitish, entire 

edges. The inner petals are cream-colored or pure white, only 

1/8 of an inch wide, and pointed, with entire edges. The filaments 

are green or whitish, the anthers yellow. The stigma has 

6 to 10 slender, light green lobes. 

fruits: Spherical or nearly so, about 1/4 of an inch in diameter. 

They are light green, sometimes with pinkish areas when 

ripening, becoming dry and papery when ripe. The perianth 

persists and there are a few whitish scales on the fruits. They 

split open along one side when mature. The seeds are black, 

finely tuberculate, about 1/10 of an inch long, with a very large, 

concave hilum. 

Range. Known only from lower parts of the Texas Big Bend. 

Scattered populations occur from near Terlingua, Texas, just west 

of the Big Bend National Park, to northwest of Ruidosa, Texas. 

Remarks. This cactus was apparently first discovered by J. P. 

Hester during his wonderfully thorough field study of cacti of 

the Texas Big Bend region. He published a description of it in 

the Cactus and Succulent journal of America in 1939, not naming 

it however, but assigning it two numbers in his own numbering 

system—this because he was inclined to think there were two 

forms here instead of one. No one again took notice of the plant 

for many years. This is not remarkable, since it only grows in 

the more inaccessible part of the Big Bend. 

The next mention of the cactus appears to be by Backeberg in 

his Die Cactaceae, Vol. 5. He apparently had only a few specimens 

sent to him in Europe, and his data on them was so meager 

that he gave the location of them as “U.S.A. (Arizona?).” He 

had not seen the flowers or fruits. It is obvious, however, from 

his rather complete description that he was describing this cactus. 

He showed uncertainty about exactly what to do with the plant, 

and took care of it by calling it Echinomastus sp. (Echinomastus 

pallidus nom. prov.). Its students it seems, have experienced an 

unusual reluctance to name this cactus, the first one to describe 

it assigning it only a number and the second one only a provi- 

sional name. 

It will be clear to anyone who has seen both of them together 

that this cactus is very close to the Arizona cactus, Echinocactus 

(Echinomastus) erectocentrus Coult. At a glance the two look 

alike, and the characteristics of stem and spines are almost alike. 

The differences are only quantitative. E. erectocentrus grows to 

8 inches tall, while our cactus has been seen to only 6 inches. 

The radials of the former are appressed rather tightly against the 

plant surface, while our Texas plant has its radials more spreading. 

The centrals are the same, except that on the Arizona plant 

they sometimes reach 1 inch, while on the Texas plant they have 

not been observed over 7/8 of an inch long. 

But if the differences of stem and spines are too small to he 

significant, the flowers and fruits of the two present more definite 

differences. E. erectocentrus has pink flowers and all writers 

describe it with 8 or 9 pink to deep purple stigma lobes. No 

one has previously described the flowers of our Texas cactus 

except for Hester’s statement that they were pure white. They 

are indeed pale cream-colored or pure white, with 6 to 10 light 

green stigma lobes. The fruits of the two differ in shape, those of 

E. erectocentrus being cylindrical and 1/2 to 5/8 of an inch long 

by 1/4 of an inch wide, while those of our Texas form are perfectly 

or very nearly spherical and only 1/4 of an inch across, but 

they both split alike along one side to release their seeds. 

The differences outlined above do not seem to indicate two 

distinct species, but neither do I think they can be ignored. I 

think the plant is best regarded as a separate variety of the Arizona 

species. Since it is essentially a slightly smaller form of the 

other and more pale in all of its coloring of spines and flowers, 

the use of Backeberg’s proposed species name for it as the name 

of the variety seems most appropriate. 

Roads have recently been built into the lower Big Bend areas 

where variety pallidus grows. It is never common there, but is 

found on widely scattered limestone ridges from near Terlingua 

up along the Rio Grande to beyond Ruidosa, Texas. Where it had 

been seen until recently by only a very few people, now that the


area is opened this has become one of the standard offerings of 

the Texas cactus dealers, going out under almost every sort of 

name. Anyone who has searched for this cactus and who knows 

how scarce it is, when he looks down into a bin of literally 

hundreds of these specimens in a dealer’s stock must realize with 

sadness how efficient their digging is and in what danger all the 

cacti lie. This will probably be another in that procession of cacti 

suddenly sold in every dime store and nursery until its newly 

opened territory is stripped and the form again becomes unknown 

except to specialists. 

This cactus has all of the characteristics of its relatives, and is 

like most of them in being very exacting in its requirements of 

full sun and heat and very little water. 

Echinocactus mariposensis (Hester) 

[Echinomastus mariposensis Hester] 


stems: Single, practically globose, egg-shaped, or short oblong. 

These stems grow to a maximum of 31/2 inches tall by 

about 2 inches in diameter, but are usually smaller. Small 

plants have 13 ribs, but as they mature the number of ribs 

increases to 21. These are usually twisted and wrinkled into 

more or less distinct but small tubercles. The surface is light, 

often yellowish-green. 

areoles: At first practically spherical and about 1/8 of an 

inch across, with much short brownish wool. At maturation 

the areole extends forward as a narrow groove on the upper 

side of the tubercle, the flower being produced at the end of 

this groove in the axil of the tubercle, where it is accompanied 

by long wool and a tuft of persistent white bristles in 

the axil. 

spines: There are 25 to at least 36 radial spines. These radiate 

evenly, are rigid, and are from 3/16 to 3/8 of an inch long. They 

are pure, shining white to gray, sometimes tipped with light 

brown. There are 4 to 7 centrals. The upper 3 to 6 of these 

spread upwards or are often somewhat appressed against the 

upper radials, are comparatively heavy, and are 1/2 to 3/4 of 

an inch long. The lower central is porrect or curving downward, 

heavy, but only 3/16 to 1/2 inch long. The centrals are 

whitish, gray, or pale yellow below, with their distal sections 

usually light brown or a striking bluish-gray. 

flowers: About 3/4 to 11/4 inches in diameter and length, 

opening funnel-shaped or wider. The ovary and tube of each 

flower have a dozen or so whitish scales. The outer perianth 

segments have somewhat erose edges. The inner segments are 

somewhat spatulate, their tips bluntly pointed and sometimes 

notched or toothed, There are two distinct flower colors found 

in this species. One has the outer perianth segments with green 

midribs and white edges and the inner segments with light 

green midlines and white edges. The other has the outer segments 

with brown midlines and pink edges and the inner 

petals pink fading to whitish at the edges. The stamens are 

cream-colored, sometimes with the filaments pinkish. The style 

is long and greenish or brownish, the stigma with 5 to 8 green 

lobes. 

fruits: Globose or oblong, up to 3/8 of an inch long. They are 

yellowish-green at first, becoming dry, and then splitting open 

on one side. They have a few scales upon them. The seeds are 

slightly over 1/16 of an inch long, ovate, and black. 

Range. Known only from hills a short distance north and north- 

west of Terlingua, Texas, in the southwest corner of Brewster 

County. 

Remarks. This dainty little cactus is the smallest of the barrel 

cacti in our area—usually little larger than a golf-ball—but it 

is definitely one of the Echinocacti. It is far from spectacular in 

any way and, with a very limited range in very rough country, 

it is not surprising that it was not discovered until 1945 and is 

still very little known. 

J. Pinckney Hester, the tireless explorer of the Texas Big Bend, 

discovered the cactus and described it in great detail. He found 

it first on hills overlooking the site of the once famous quicksilver 

mine called the Mariposa Mine, and named it after that 

mine. It has still not been reported very many miles from that 

site. He described it as an Echinomastus, and it is clearly a close 

relative of those species usually put in that microgenus. It will 

probably share in whatever decision is finally reached when the 

question about that group of plants is settled. It also shares most 

of the growth characteristics of those plants, which means that 

although it is small and delicate in appearance, it is just as tough 

a desert species as its bigger relatives. It is not found naturally 

hiding in any shade, but grows in the open in the thin layer of 

soil overlying hot, exposed limestone ridges. In cultivation it 

must be kept drier and in brighter sun than most of the other 

small species of our area, if it is to survive. 

The range of this species is very small and the population 

must not be great, so specimens should not be taken out in large 

numbers. In fact, it is a wonder that the population has not already 

been depleted. It was one of the most terrible experiences 

of this study to come upon at least a thousand specimens of 

small cacti, mostly this rare species, gathered by someone and 

left to die in a pile on a hill only a few miles from the old 

Mariposa Mine. I was told that this was probably a cache left 

by a professional cactus-digging crew for the dealer to pick up 

with a truck—but a cache which he missed. At any rate, the 

cacti were mostly burned to a crisp by the time I saw them and 

nothing could be done for them, but perhaps they did not die in 

vain if my telling of them here makes us a little more conscious 

of the plight of these little species.


Echinocactus conoideus (DC) Poselgr. 

[Neolloydia conoidea (DC) B. & R.] 


stems: Globular to egg-shaped at first, becoming conical or 

cylindrical, to at least 4 inches tall and 23/4 inches thick. The 

stem of a plant may remain simple, but it often sprouts near 

the base, or even from higher on the sides, to produce 2 or 3 

branches. The surface is dull gray-green and shaped into 8 or 

13 indistinct ribs composed of spiral rows of almost completely 

separate tubercles. These tubercles are to about 1/2 inch 

long, conical in shape, from bases broad but somewhat compressed 

horizontally by their crowded, almost overlapping 

position. 

areoles: Circular, about 1/16 of an inch in diameter and with 

white wool when new. It soon becomes enlarged by the formation 

of a narrow groovelike extension forward from the 

spinous part of the areole. On a mature areole this groove 

extends to the axil of the tubercle, where it broadens into a 

larger felted area from which the flower comes. After blooming 

the original circular part of the areole remains as the 

spine-bearing portion, usually losing its wool, and the felted 

groove runs upward and inward from this. 

spines: There are 10 to 16 radial spines per areole, all radiating 

rather evenly, straight, rigid, white fading to gray, and 

1/4 to about 1/2 inch long. There are also 1 to 4 spreading central 

spines 3/8 to slightly over 1 inch long, straight, rigid, 

blackish when young, fading to gray. The lowest of these is 

the longest and heaviest one. 

flowers: Beautiful violet or violet pink in color, 1 to 2 inches 

in diameter and about 1 inch tall, opening rather widely. The 

ovary surface and tube seem most commonly naked of scales, 

but occasionally the ovary has one or two small, rounded, 

white-edged scales upon it. The outer perianth segments have 

pink centers with whitish, entire edges. The inner segments 

are violet or pinkish-violet all over and are lanceolate, with 

pointed tips and entire edges. The stamens are bright orange. 

The stigma has 5 to 7 long, white or yellowish lobes. 

fruits: Spherical, yellowish or reddish at first, drying and 

becoming brown, after which they seem to remain until broken 

open by some outside force. Most of them seem to be naked, 

but on a few the dried remains of 1 or 2 tiny scales may he 

recognized. The seeds are about 1/16 of an inch in diameter, 

black, tuberculate, with large basal hila. 

Range. Widely found in central Mexico, extending north into 

Texas to a distance of about 30 miles or so along the arc of the 

Rio Grande from near Del Rio west to somewhere near Boquillas. 

Remarks. Echinocactus conoideus had long been known from 

Mexico, where it grows over a huge area, but it was not known 

at first to be in the United States. Engelmann apparently saw 

specimens from Texas, but did not seem to connect them with 

the Mexican species. Instead, he called the Texas plant Mammillaria 

strobiliformis. 

When Britton and Rose dealt with it they first erected a new 

genus, Neolloydia, for it, and then described the Texas specimens 

they saw as a new species separate from the others, calling 

it Neolloydia texensis. This is therefore the name under which it 

has been most widely known in the U. S. 

It was Boedeker who first questioned the correctness of setting 

off the Texas plants as a separate species, saying that they 

were actually only the northern form of the original Mexican 

species, Echinocactus conoideus. But it is hard to change a usage 

so widely followed as this of Britton and Rose. While most 

authorities since Britton and Rose have not listed the species 

texensis separately, most collectors still use the name. 

Being very concerned with what might be the correct name 

for this plant, we have studied many specimens from both Texas 

and Mexico. We have found that while the range of variations 

in the Mexican plants is much greater, it wholly encompasses 

anything we have found in Texas. Since we have seen duplicated 

every character of the Texas plants in those from the general 

type area in Mexico, we do not feel that the Texas plants can 

even be considered to form a distinct variety. 

This species and its close relatives stand at the opposite end of 

the Echinocacti from the huge barrels. These are the only ones 

to which it really seems incongruous to apply the term “barrel 

cactus.” Their ribs are indistinct and made up of very nearly 

separate tubercles and their ovaries have at best very few scales 

upon them and often none at all. They are undeniably the nearest 

to the next large group of cacti, the Mammillarias. 

Because of this position, these cacti have been classified in almost 

all possible ways. In its original description it was named 

by De Candolle Mammillaria conoidea. In a few years it had 

also been saddled with a remarkable number of other names, 

among them M. diaphanacantha by Lemaire, M. inconspicua by 

Scheidweiler, M. echinocactoides by Pfeiffer, who must already 

have noticed its similarity to the Echinocacti, M. scheeri by 

Muehlenpfordt (1845 non 1847), and M. strobiliformis by Engelmann. 

When the large genus Mammillaria was divided up, it 

then naturally had to be given the name Coryphantha conoidea, 

since it has grooved tubercles, and Orcutt took care of that. 

But there had been another line of reasoning about its proper 

relationship, and Poselger had already renamed it Echinocactus 

conoideus, soon followed by Kuntze with Cactus conoideus. 

As if these weren’t already genera enough to choose from, 

Backeberg more recently took some of the relatives of this cactus 

and some formerly called Thelocactus species and created a new 

genus, Gymnocactus, for them. But now the most recent move is 

to revitalize the genus Neolloydia by returning these to it and 

by adding to them other species formerly in the genera Thelocactus 

and Echinomastus. Once again we seem to see the splitting 

process gone to its extreme, giving us more and more Un-


stable microgenera until lately a move has begun to recombine 

these again. 

The main point seems to be the question of which major group 

this cactus and its close relatives belong in, Echinocactus or 

Mammillaria. On this the decision seems to have been made 

some time ago. It is many years since anyone has considered this 

form a Mammillaria. While it is admittedly the more doubtful 

of them, all recent students seem to have placed it among the 

Echinocacti. This is because the ovary has at least one or two 

scales in at least some specimens, the fruit becomes dry, and it is 

possible to speak of ribs on at least most of the species involved. 

Beyond this, little can be said except that the recent move to 

combine the much more clearly Echinocactus species in Thelocactus 

and Echinomastus with these in their own microgenus, 

Neolloydia, draws these more solidly than ever into the Echinocactus 

group. 

Considering this species as an Echinocactus, then, I choose to 

use the name of that large genus for it-at least until the microgenera 

are a little more stabilized. 

Echinocactus conoideus is not ever very common in Texas. 

Where it occurs it is usually in stands of several dozen speci- 

mens, but these stands are in widely scattered locations. It grows 

on rocky hillsides, more or less in the open. 

Its range does not go at any point very far north of the Rio 

Grande. It is most easily found around Sanderson, Texas, and 

in the very eastern edge of the Big Bend. Our knowledge of the 

eastern limits of its range were changed by finding a nice stand 

of the cactus on a hillside overlooking Goodenough Springs, 

which is just north of the Rio Grande south of Comstock, Texas. 

This is the most eastern record of this species of which I know 

personally, although there are reports of it from near Del Rio. 

The cactus has been eliminated at beautiful Goodenough Springs 

and its whole surrounding area has been submerged with the 

filling of the lake behind Amistad Dam. 

I have no knowledge of this cactus west of the eastern Big 

Bend. Although I have seen a herbarium specimen labeled “near 

El Paso,” I have been unable to confirm that the species grows 

that far west. 

This is a fairly easy cactus to grow, not quite so badly affected 

by moisture as are most of the other members of this group. 

It is not a vigorous grower or a prolific bloomer, but the flowers 

it does produce are of a very beautiful shade and rather large.

Genus Lophophora Coult. 

We come here to one of several cactus genera which seem 

to lie between the Echinocacti and the Mammillarias. Although 

there have been attempts in the past to submerge them in first 

one and then the other of these larger groups they seem to defy 

either combination. The reasons for this may seem rather technical 

to the nonspecialist, but they are the stuff out of which cac- 

tus taxonomy is constructed. 

Although some of its members were first described by Lemaire 

as Echinocacti, the significant points which seem to rule the 

Lophophoras out of the genus Echinocactus are the facts that 

the ovary and fruit on them are entirely naked and that the 

fruit remains always fleshy. These characters would put them 

in agreement with the Mammillarias, but they are even more 

clearly set apart from that genus by the facts that their stems 

are ribbed and that their monomorphic areoles produce the 

flowers from the apexes of young tubercles rather than from 

the axils. So this small genus is left by all recent students to 

stand alone. 

There are only a very few species in this genus, and as yet 

little agreement exists as to exactly how many they number. 

Most authors list two and some three or four, but there is no 

standardization of species and varietal arrangement, so no defi- 

nite figure can be given. 

The members of Lophophora are small, globose, or depressed 

globose cacti growing from comparatively large, carrot-shaped 

taproots. Usually the stem of the plant is to about 3 inches in 

diameter, and although one form sometimes reaches to about 5 

inches, they stand no more than 2 inches above the ground. The 

stems of an individual may be single or may sometimes branch 

from the base to form large clusters. 

The surfaces of these cacti are blue-green, usually with much 

gray glaucescence. There are no spines at all after the early seedling 

stage. The very broad and flat ribs are composed of some 

of the broadest, flattest, most confluent tubercles seen anywhere. 

The areoles are small and round, with long white to yellowish 

wool which tends to persist. The flowers are small, bell-shaped, 

and pink, pale rose, white, or rarely pale yellowish. The fruits 

are club-shaped and rose-pink or reddish. 

The insignificant little members of this genus have been famous 

out of all proportion to their size and appearance as far 

back as we can trace them. They are the sacred plants of the 

Indians best known by the ancient Indian name, peyotl, which 

has become the peyote of common usage. This is all because 

these plants contain in their flesh a group of alkaloids which, 

when taken into the human body, have remarkable effects upon 

the nervous system. 

The history of man’s use of and society’s reaction to these 

alkaloids is a fascinating study in itself. From ancient times to 

the present, Indians of Mexico and the U.S. Southwest have 

eaten these cacti specifically for the effects they have on their 

senses. An idea of how ancient and how widespread the practice 

has been can be grasped by noting that these plants have been 

called in different cultural periods and different Indian societies 

by all of the following names: peyotl, teonanacatl, tlalcoyote, 

uocoui, xicorl, seni, and hicore or jiculi. All during the history 

of the area, the Indians have given the cactus a very special 

veneration, eating it in very special religious ceremonies. This 

was because it gave them remarkable sensations which they were 

convinced came from their Great Spirit and marvelous visions 

which they were certain were glimpses—granted them by the 

Great Spirit—of ultimate reality itself. 

In the meantime others who did not venerate its visions as 

quite so god-given discovered peyote and came to enjoy its relaxing 

effect. Many Mexicans came to relish a little of it now 

and then, just for the relaxation and sense of well-being it 

brings, and in central Mexico most good markets will include


among the herbs a stock of the mescal buttons, as the plants 

have also come to be called after mescaline, the most famous of 

its alkaloids. In the U. S. and in Europe many years ago word 

of its effects got out, and for years now some people have experimented 

with it, there being an extensive literature built up 

through the years on its effects. 

Cactus dealers, particularly in southern Texas, where the 

plants have been easily available, have sold the mescal buttons 

in quantities for at least 40 years. 

But very early, in the U.S., this ran up against the typical 

American suspicion of anything so mystical and strange as the 

experiences produced by eating the peyote button. Moves were 

made long ago to outlaw the sale and even the possession of 

these cacti, and for a while they were declared narcotics and 

prohibited by edict. But these moves failed for two reasons. In 

the first place it was found impossible to maintain that they 

were narcotics under any meaningful definition of that term. 

And in the second place it was found a direct breach of the 

principle of religious freedom to deny the Indians this key part 

of their religious ceremony. Peyote could no more be denied to 

these Indians than sacramental wine could be denied the Christians. 

This move therefore soon collapsed, and peyote again became 

legal in all but California, where a state prohibition of it 

has hung on to the present, although it has been only sporadi- 

cally enforced. 

This was the fascinating peyote cactus, then, eaten for millenniums 

by the Indians as their means to induce and intensify the 

mystical experience, relished casually as a harmless relaxing 

agent by many a humble Mexican, and beyond that tried occasionally 

by the curious all over the world in order to ex- 

perience its strange effects—until the past few years. 

Then suddenly, only a few years ago, our little cactus was 

catapulted into the limelight, where it is now discussed in everything 

from the most technical medical and psychological journals 

to the best art and literary magazines to the most lurid 

sensation-promoting newspaper. 

This spurt of interest in the cactus seems to have been touched 

off by the success of chemists in synthesizing some of the alkaloids 

found in the peyote. The most famous of these synthetic 

products similar to the compounds in peyote is the now wellknown 

LSD. This synthetic compound is extremely potent and 

does very strange things to the nervous system of the user. 

Knowledge of LSD has been general among psychologists and 

a few others for some years, but it was treated as a dangerous 

drug and used sparingly for research until recently. However, 

the accounts which did appear concerning LSD stimulated much 

interest, and many turned to the comparatively very mild, natural, 

unconcentrated, layman’s version of this sort of agent— 

peyote. Their motives in eating peyote were various, including 

a desire to share in the mystical experience many have always 

invoked by all sorts of means, from fasting to Zen, a desire 

among artists to profit from the heightening to the visual and 

auditory senses which it is well-authenticated that peyote brings, 

a desire to gain the feeling of cleansing and well-being which it 

is universally testified that peyote leaves in the user, and, of 

course, a good share of just plain curiosity. 

All this boded only ill for our little cacti. These little species 

which had foregone the use of spines to protect themselves from 

their enemies and instead saturated their flesh with a set of 

alkaloids unpalatable to most animals in order to survive, suddenly 

found themselves taken by the hundreds and thousands 

just for these unique protective agents they had developed. The 

demand became so great that the countryside was systematically 

sacked of all its peyote. Five or six years ago I knew 

thousands of acres in the lower Rio Grande Valley where peyote 

grew in profusion under almost every shrub, but visits to one 

after another of these locations now show them barren of even 

a surviving specimen after the crews of gatherers have been 

through. The plant now only survives north of the Rio Grande 

in a few small areas. 

For all of these years dealers have sold peyote openly to anyone 

who wanted it, with the full knowledge of the authorities. 

In the past few years I have been at establishments where hundreds 

of the plants were being shipped when governmental 

agents visited and observed the business and heard them assure 

the cactus dealers that they were doing nothing wrong. This was 

because various court cases had established that the active substances 

in these plants were not narcotic or intoxicating substances 

and because there was no evidence of ill effects from the 

eating of the plant. 

But very recently the picture has changed dramatically. LSD 

has escaped the laboratory and is being indulged in indiscriminately 

by all sorts of people. This synthetic substance is very 

powerful, has sometimes very violent effects, and a case can 

easily be made that it is a danger when misused. Moves for its 

control appear justified, and are under way. But how does that 

involve peyote, which does not even contain this dangerous 

synthetic substance? 

Fuzzy thinking seems to be indicated when peyote is involved 

at all. LSD, the alkaloids in peyote, and those found naturally 

in various other plants are all lumped together under the suddenly 

very emotion-charged term “hallucinogens,” because all 

of them are capable of producing hallucinations in the user. 

There is little, if any evaluation of these various substances. 

Every magazine and paper making any attempt to follow the 

trends has had articles on one of the prime subjects of discussion 

today, the hallucinogens. In almost all of these articles little or 

no effort is made to differentiate among them and deal with the 

subject of their possible good and bad qualities, their potential 

or lack of potential for harm, and the question of whether each 

one in its own right should or should not be prohibited to the 

public. They are all lumped together as hallucinogens and they 

seem destined to stand or fall with LSD. 

The Food and Drug Administration recently invoked the 1938 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and ruled that the sale 

or use of any of them is the illegal sale or use of drugs. Under

genus Lophophora 97 

this new ruling you may not dig our little cactus, sell it to be 

eaten, or eat it yourself—unless you arc a member of the Native 

American Church, the legal name of the Indian religious group 

in the U. S. using it in their ceremonials. Note that the naturally 

occurring peyote or the substances in it in their naturally occurring 

concentration have never been ruled narcotic, incapacitating, 

or even intoxicating, and that it has never been stated to 

have harmful effects either mental or physical. It has apparently 

suffered from illogical association in the minds of the authorities 

with the man-made substances LSD and mescaline, which 

undeniably can be dangerous, and the 1938 Food and Drug Act, 

which could as easily be applied to aspirin or wine as this, has 

been used to suppress it. Because the distinction between peyote 

and LSD has been overlooked, we are once again in the hard- 

to-maintain position of prohibiting the use of a substance as too 

bad for the general public which we allow a chosen group to 

use as a supreme good in their religious services. Can this posi- 

tion be maintained now any more than it was before? 

Of course, this prohibition clearly works for the good of the 

cacti themselves. Without it the species of this genus which 

grows in south Texas would soon have become extinct in the 

U.S., but now the wholesale digging has stopped and the cactus 

has been granted a reprieve. From the standpoint of the cacti, 

this is good. 

But the cactophile is faced with a peculiar situation. While it 

is specifically made clear that in all of the United States but 

California—and most recently some other states also—he may 

acquire and grow a few peyotes as garden or pot plants, if he 

should eat one of his plants, or if he should allow someone else 

to eat one of them, he would be guilty of violating a federal drug 

control act. This special dispensation for him (no doubt granted 

to avoid raising his ire) is appreciated, but he must weigh carefully 

the question of whether, under this sort of ruling a bed of 

peyotes is not too dangerous to have around. Perhaps, if he wants 

to keep his collection complete, including the peyote species, he 

should join the Native American Church—just to be safe. The 

cactus dealer is, of course, in double jeopardy. He is assured that 

he can sell a few peyotes singly or in small numbers to those who 

wish to grow them, but that he is a lawbreaker if anyone eats 

any of the peyotes he sells. Faced with being prosecuted as a 

“pusher’ at any moment if he sells peyotes, most dealers I know 

have stopped handling these plants entirely. 

We are, of course, happy at the prospect that these interesting 

cacti may be saved from almost certain extinction by the new 

ruling, and are not primarily concerned here with whether or 

not anyone should be free to use them to “expand his consciousness.” 

But we do note that if the present rulings had gone into 

effect a few years earlier and put these species beyond the pale 

of respectability at that time, the research which has gone into 

these plants would have been well-nigh impossible. This is undoubtedly 

the most peculiar situation that has ever arisen concerning 

any cactus. 

It has been said that somewhere among the cacti you will 

find almost every kind of strangeness, and that this is the secret 

of the interest cacti generate in people. There is truth in this, 

and here, in the genus Lophophora we have another kind of 

strangeness. Here we have our “notorious” cacti, and with them 

the study of cacti acquires all the exciting elements of mysticism 

and sinister intrigue and danger. These are the cacti for those 

who thrive on such things. 

Lophophora williamsii (Lem. in SD) Coult. 

“Peyote,” “Mescal Button,” “Whisky Cactus,” “Dry Whisky” 


roots: Each plant grows from a large carrot-shaped taproot 

the same diameter at its top as the stem and tapering slowly 

below, being usually 3 to 5 inches long. 

stems: Each plant begins as a single stem and sometimes remains 

so, but often clusters greatly to form in one variety 

sometimes up to 50 stems to one specimen. ‘These stems, hemispherical 

or usually depressed-globular, grow to about 5 inches 

in diameter, but not over about 2 inches tall. The flesh of the 

stem is soft and flabby, the surface blue-green, usually with a 

gray glaucescence. There are 5 to 13 very broad, very low 

ribs separated by narrow grooves. These ribs may be straight 

or sinuous. Each rib is more or less divided into tubercles. At 

the apex these tubercles are fairly distinct, but lower on the 

stem they are only very slight projections or almost entirely 

obliterated, with or without small wrinkles to indicate their 

limits. 

areoles: Round, or nearly so, and small, only about 1/8 of an 

inch in diameter and located 1/4 to 11/4 inches apart on the 

summits of the tubercles. At first each areole is filled with 

much long white or yellowish wool, so that the usually depressed 

summit of the stem is more or less filled with the wool 

of the close-standing young tubercles. With age the wool usually 

turns gray and may or may not be worn off to leave the 

areole with merely a tuft of short wool. The flowers are produced 

from within these areoles at the summits of the young 

tubercles. 

spines: The plant is spineless after the very young seedling 

stage. 

flowers: Small, usually pale pink or whitish, but said to be 

rarely rose or pale yellowish. They are bell-shaped and 1/2 to 

1 inch in diameter. The small ovary is naked. The outermost 

perianth segments are greenish with entire edges. The inner 

segments are almost linear and are pale pink to rose, white, 

or yellowish. The filaments are whitish, the anthers yellow. 

There are 3 to 7 reddish or yellowish stigma lobes. 

fruits: Club-shaped, 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch long, pale pink or 

very pale rose in color when ripe, and remaining fleshy and


indehiscent. The seeds are 1/16 of an inch or slightly less in 

length, with basal hila. 

Range. Extending from a very wide range in Mexico across the 

Rio Grande a short distance into south and southwest Texas. In 

south Texas it occurs in Hidalgo, Starr, and Zapata counties; in 

west Texas it occurs in a few locations in Brewster County in 

the Big Bend. There are records of many years ago of the species 

having been taken near Laredo and near the mouth of the Pecos 

River, but the plant does not seem to be in these areas now. 

Remarks. This is the famous peyote. Individual stems are often 

called mescal buttons. Some plants remain single until very 

large, while others sprout new heads or buttons all around them 

almost from the beginning. I once collected an old plant of the 

latter type which was 18 inches across with almost 50 heads. 

Since it is said that a button 2 or 3 inches in diameter takes 

around 10 years to grow, it is easy to see that such old plants 

are very venerable. With the great interest in peyote of recent 

years it is almost impossible to find such old plants in the wild 

any more. 

There is much variation in the rib shape, number, and size, 

and some in flower features. This plant has been greatly studied 

for a long time, and a confusing series of taxa have been set up 

for it. After observing many of the plants in the field and thousands 

of them in dealers’ bins and markets from our area all the 

way to Chihuahua and central Mexico, and after growing and 

flowering them ourselves, we have come to the conclusion that 

many of the proposed varieties are unnecessary and that the 

species found in the U.S. needs to be divided into only the 

following two taxa. 

Lophophora williamsii var. williamsii (Lem. in SD) 


roots: As the species. 

stems: As the species, except that they grow to only 3 inches 

or less in diameter and the tubercles are less distinct than in 

the other form, being smaller, only about 5/8 to 3/4 of an inch 

across their bases. They cluster, usually quite early and extensively 

when old. 

areoles: As the species, about 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch apart. 


flowers: As the species, except that the sepals and petals 

each grow in fewer than 3 series and the stigma lobes are 3 to 

5 in number. 


Range. Central Mexico to south Texas. In Texas it is restricted 

at the present time to Hidalgo, Starr, and Zapata counties. 

Remarks. This is the typical form of the species. Since it was 

described too narrowly in the early accounts, a whole series of 

variety names grew up around it. These include the following: 

Anhelonium lewinii Hennings, which became Lophophora williamsii 

var. lewinii (Hennings) Coult.; Lophophora williamsii 

var. typica Croiz.; var. pluricostata Croiz.; and var. caespitosa 

Y. Ito. I have found specimens falling within the limits of all 

of these proposed varieties within single populations of both 

Mexican and Texas plants, and they all intergrade, so it seems 

most logical to broaden the description of the typical form to 

include all limits found together and stop trying to interpret 

simple genetic traits as varieties. 

This is the form of the species growing in south Texas, the 

form which has smaller stems but which forms large clusters of 

these smaller stems when old. It is the more tender form, preferring 

to grow under the partial shade of the brush, shrubs, and 

trees, and rather easily damaged by frost. Two or three degrees 

below freezing will usually kill it. It does not now appear north 

or west of southern Zapata County, but old records suggest that 

it may have once grown in Webb County. 

There was also described by Fric as variety texana a form 

with 14 ribs, but the locality of it is not known and I can find 

no record of another collection with 14 ribs. A variety lutea 

(Rouhiers) Croiz. has been proposed for specimens with yellowish 

flowers, but we have long ago seen that it is very risky to 

base even a variety on flower color alone. 

Lophophora williamsii var. echinata (Croiz.) 



stems: As the species, except remaining single or at most 

dividing to form 2 or 3 heads in very old specimens. These 

stems are larger than in the typical form, growing to at least 

5 inches in diameter. The tubercles are more conical and 

larger, the bases being 3/4 to 11/4 inches across. 

areoles: A little larger than the typical form, with more 

wool, but otherwise the same. 

spines: Spineless after the seedling stage, as the species. 

flowers: As the species, except that the sepals and petals are 

more numerous and usually in 3 series each. 

Range. Northern Mexico, extending from Chihuahua and Coahuila 

into the Texas Big Bend in lower Brewster County. 

Remarks. This is a larger, tougher form of the species. There is 

little difference in the structure of the two except that in all 

respects the stems of this form are heavier and larger, although 

not clustering to any marked degree. This form is found growing 

on dry, exposed hillsides of the Big Bend where the lower

genus Lophophora 99 

Rio Grande Valley form would be burned to a crisp. It can also 

survive the much more severe cold of the Big Bend. I have several 

times had the smaller form from south Texas freeze in San 

Antonio, while this form growing in the same bed showed no ill 

effects. 

This form does seem distinct enough to be recognized, and it 

has been called a separate species, but this hardly is warranted. 

It seems at best a variety of the species, but a stable one. It is 

L. williamsii in the sense of Schultes (Cactus and Succulent Jour- 

nal, 1940), Britton and Rose’s description of the species seems 

to include this form along with the typical form. 

This is clearly the form which grew nearest to the Indians of 

Arizona, New Mexico, and northwestern Mexico, and is the one 

they originally hunted and used for their religious experiences. 

It has been noted that this form seems to have more of the alkaloids 

in it than are in the typical variety, since a small plant 

of this form when consumed will give more effect than the 

same-sized button of the typical variety.

Genus Ariocarpus Scheidweiler 

This is a small genus containing about half a dozen very 

strange cacti, one of which is found in Texas, the rest in Mexico. 

The body of an Ariocarpus consists of one or occasionally a 

cluster of low, flattened stems from only about 2 inches in diam- 

eter and not projecting above the soil level at all in some 

forms to as much as 10 inches across and 5 inches tall in one 

form. This stem sits on top of a large, carrot-like taproot. 

The surface of the stem does not have ribs, but is divided into 

very distinct, usually imbricated but noncoalescent tubercles. 

These are very firm, often have a horny, rough epidermis, and 

are of peculiar shapes, usually more or less triangular and flat- 

tened above. There are no spines after the first seedling growth. 

The members of this genus are unusual among cacti of our 

area because they flower in the fall of the year, usually from 

September to December. The flowers come from the woolly 

axils of the young tubercles at the center of the plant. They 

open widely, are diurnal, and are white, yellowish, or purplish 

in color. The ovary and fruit are both naked; the fruit is fleshy 

at first, becoming dry at maturity and disintegrating, leaving 

the seeds in the wool at the center of the plant. 

This genus was described and named Ariocarpus by Scheidweiler 

in 1838. The next year Lemaire redescribed it, calling it 

Anhalonium, and many students, including Engelmann and 

Coulter, thought that Lemaire’s name had precedence, so for 

many years there was confusion over these names. 

This is another genus which falls into the gap between the 

Echinocacti and the Mammillarias, or rather, which has some 

characters typical of each of these major groups but will not 

rest easily in either. 

The members have fruits which become dry, as do those of 

the Echinocacti, and some of them have monomorphic areoles 

also, but they have never been considered Echinocacti. This is 

partly because they have no ribs and because they have naked 

ovaries. 

They actually seem to be closer to the Mammillarias. In fact, 

for most of his life Engelmann persisted in including them in 

the genus Mammillaria. This is because they have a tuberculate 

surface and naked ovaries, and some species of them have dimorphic 

areoles with the nonproducing spinous portion of the 

areole at the tip of the tubercle and the floral portion separated 

from it at the base. However, the tubercle characters are very 

different; the flowers come from the apex of the stem instead 

of from older tubercles away from the apex; the fruits become 

dry and open; and there are differences of seed structure; all of 

which seems to separate these plants from the Mammillarias as 

well. Coulter remarked with obvious relish in 1896 that Engelmann 

had “finally come” to the opinion that these must be kept 

distinct from Mammillaria. 

The confusion over this sort of thing had no more than subsided 

when in 1925 Berger noted an obvious difference between 

certain members of the genus. Most have no groove on the upper 

surface of the tubercle, but two have a woolly groove on it. 

Berger seized upon this difference and proposed that those with 

grooves should be removed from the genus Ariocarpus and put 

into a new genus, Roseocactus. 

Since that time there has been a history of disagreement over 

Berger’s proposal. In brief, Marshall did not think that the difference 

was fundamental enough to warrant completely separating 

the plants into different genera, and proposed that Roseocactus 

be put back into Ariocarpus as a subgenus. Buxbaum 

seemed to agree with Marshall. The main recent champion of 

Berger’s view was Backeberg, who backed it vociferously in his 

large work on cacti. 

Only very recently was detailed study of the mode of development 

of the tubercles and areoles carried out and the information 

acquired, together with other factors, applied to the 

problems. However, it seems already to have brought some welcome 

clarification, as well as results of significance to the classi-

genus Ariocarpus 101 

fication of some other cactus groups. Edward F. Anderson made 

these studies and reported on them in a series of articles begin- 

ning in 1961. 

He found that in all of this group there is a single original 

growing point for the areole development which is located near 

the base of the tubercle instead of at its tip. From this single 

point develop all areolar structures, including the spinous portion 

(if represented), groove (if present), and floral portion. But 

there are differences in the different species in the way these 

develop from the original growing point. In Ariocarpus (Roseocactus) 

fissuratus, the floral development is at the base, with 

elongation of the tubercle occurring beneath the vestigial spinous 

part of the areole and thus drawing that part of the areole 

out into the already mentioned groove. In Ariocarpus retusus, 

the type species of the genus Ariocarpus, the rudimentary spinous 

part of the areole soon separates from the floral part and 

elongation between them then leaves the floral part in its basal 

position, while it pushes the spinous part to near the tip of the 

tubercle, where it persists as a woolly spot. In Ariocarpus 

trigonus the elongation occurs ahead of the spinous portion 

and never allows it to separate from the floral part at the base 

at all. 

The usual interpretation of these events requires us to call the 

elongated, groovelike areoles of A. fissuratus and also the short, 

basal areoles of A. trigonus, whose meristems do not divide, 

monomorphic. At the same time the areoles of A. retusus, where 

the floral and spinous parts separate, are entirely dimorphic. 

Essentially this same difference has, since Britton and Rose, 

been made the reason for separating the Coryphanthas out of 

the genus Mammillaria, and if it is so fundamental a difference 

as some have thought, it should also make mandatory the division 

of the genus Ariocarpus as well. But Anderson carried on 

many other investigations of seedling development, seed structure, 

other aspects of stem anatomy, fruit composition, and hybrid 

reactions, and concluded from these that they should all 

make up one genus, Roseocactus being at most a subgenus. The 

lack of importance of those details of areole structure which 

have been used so much in separating cacti is further indicated 

by Anderson’s report of A. fissuratus individuals without the 

groove and A. retusus individuals which have no spinous portion 

of the areole at all. This means that in at least A. retusus 

both the monomorphic and the dimorphic areoles occur in the 

same species, a situation which Dr. Boke has found also in certain 

Coryphanthas. This study has far-reaching implications for 

the taxonomy of other groups, where, it seems, too much em- 

phasis has been put on grooves or their absence. 

The members of Ariocarpus are retiring species, often not rising 

above the ground level at all, with usually horny and discolored 

surfaces which make them almost invisible. They are 

very difficult to find in their native haunts, but this is the point 

of their method of growth. They have no spines, and they depend 

instead upon being so insignificant as to be overlooked, 

upon camouflage, and upon some unpalatable alkaloids in their 

flesh for their survival. They are so unusual in their appearance 

that most people find it hard to believe they are cacti at all. 

Ariocarpus fissuratus (Eng.) K. Schumann 

“Living Rock,” “Star Cactus,” “Star Rock,” “Sunami,” 

“Chautle,” “Peyote Cimarron” 


roots: A carrot-like taproot. 

stems: Entirely flat to somewhat rounded and depressedglobose, 

usually level with the ground or rising to only 1 inch 

or so above it. Covered with very crowded and overlapping 

tubercles which have bases broad and flattened and upper 

surfaces flattened and triangular in shape and 1/2 to about 3/4 

of an inch long. These upper surfaces are crossed by numerous 

small fissures which give them a warty appearance. The epidermis 

of the plants is always very firm and is gray-green 

when young or well-watered, but in the older plants or in the 

usual desert situation it is yellowish or brownish and, over 

most of the surface, hard, horny, and dead-appearing. The 

apex of the stem has long wool often almost entirely covering 

the younger tubercles. Plants usually have a single stem, but 

occasionally they branch to form a cluster of several to as 

many as a dozen stems. 

areoles: Each areole is at first circular and at or near the 

base of the young tubercle, filled with a dense mass of woolly 

hairs, but by the time it is easily visible on the elongated 

tubercle it is stretched into a conspicuous woolly groove running 

from the axial floral part to the tip of the tubercle on the 

upper surface. Mature areoles are thus linear and 3/8 to about 

5/8 of an inch long, except on very rare individuals on which 

the areoles do not elongate, remaining instead in the axil of 

the tubercle. 

flowers: From the axils of young tubercles at or near the 

center of the stem, where they arise out of the long wool. 

They are 1 to 2 inches broad, opening rather widely, but only 

about 1 inch tall. In color they are from almost white to pink 

or magenta. The ovary is naked and short; the outer perianth 

segments are almost linear with pointed tips, brownish or 

greenish with whitish, entire edges. The inner segments are 

pinkish or purple with whitish edges and are rather oblong 

from narrow bases, the tips with small, hairlike points at the 

apex. The filaments are white, the anthers bright orange. The 

style and stigma are white, with 5 to 10 lobes. 

fruits: Oval, about 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long, pale green or 

whitish at first, becoming dry and disintegrating while still 

mostly buried in the long hair at the apex of the plant. The 

seeds are about 1/16 of an inch long, black, with rough sur- 

faces. 

Range. Northern Mexico into Texas. In Texas it is found along


the Rio Grande from the mouth of the Pecos River to near Presidio, 

but never penetrating more than a few miles into the state 

except in the Big Bend, where it occurs almost as far north as 

Alpine. 

Remarks. This is the plant to which the name “living rock” 

truly applies. It likes to grow on barren, rocky slopes where it 

survives burning up by hardly if at all projecting above the 

ground level and by having its surface covered with a thick, 

horny, brownish epidermis. It appears that its water storage is 

in the thick taproot on which the stem merely forms a flattened 

cap, and that the result of desiccation during the dry seasons is 

the shrinking of this root. This in turn seems to pull the stem 

down into the ground as it shrinks, so that it has even less surface 

to suffer from the cruel elements in these most exposed of 

all habitats in our region. The result is that the plants do not 

project any higher than the rocks all around them, and the 

brown, horny epidermis, broken into irregular warts by the 

many fissures from which the plant gets its name, looks just as 

dead and mineral as anything on the slope. I have repeatedly 

had the experience of walking around on what I thought was 

an unoccupied slope until I saw the first one of these cacti and 

then realized that I had been treading all over them, never 

knowing they were anything but rocks. Fortunately they are so 

hard that stepping on them does not damage them. 

The species is most interesting for its unusual appearance— 

quite uncactus like—and it blooms with a fine flower at a time 

of the year when most other cacti are through blooming. It 

interests people greatly, but I do not often advise it for growing 

in the usual cactus garden. Most people cannot keep it alive 

because it is one of the most extreme of the desert-adapted. It 

grows on the most exposed brows of the most arid ridges in 

west Texas, and cannot tolerate much moisture at all, or any 

amount of shade. Few people have the courage to “mistreat” 

this cactus with enough sunlight, heat, and dryness to keep it 

alive, healthy, and blooming. They want to pamper it until it is 

nice and soft and green, but A. fissuratus is a hard, rocklike 

thing, and it will not change, except to melt into rot if it is not 

kept in a situation approaching its desert home. 

As mentioned in discussing the genus, Engelmann long thought 

that this cactus was a Mammillaria: his first name for it was 

Mammillaria fissurata. Later Lemaire used the name Anhalonium 

engelmannii for it. K. Schumann first put it in Ariocarpus. 

The only other name applied to this species was Berger’s Roseocactus 

fissuratus. 

There is a form known as Ariocarpus fissuratus var. lloydii 

(Rose) Marshall. It is characterized by having the stems higher, 

more rounded, and larger in maximum size, the tubercles more 

rounded and with less distinct fissures. This variety is apparent- 

ly found only in Mexico. 

The living rock may have been more common in the past in 

the eastern part of its Texas range, but it is now very difficult 

to find east of the Big Bend. There it is still fairly common.

Genus Pediocactus B. & R. 

Originated for one species of cactus, this genus has grown 

through the years until it now contains at least seven species. 

The increase has come about in two ways. Four of its species 

have been discovered and described only within the past twenty 

years, and three of these less than ten years ago. This is, therefore, 

the only group of cacti in the United States which has had 

major additions to it in the last few years. New understanding 

has come with these new species. They have tended to fill gaps, 

and this has resulted in the combining under the over-all genus 

Pediocactus of four small genera: Pediocactus sensu B. & R., 

Utahia B. & R., Navajoa Croiz., and Toumeya B. & R. This action 

has been taken by Dr. Benson only in the last few years, 

and since there has not yet been time for any opposing interpretations 

to appear it may be regarded as still somewhat tentative. 

However it seems to be the best system to take into account 

all the newer forms. 

This enlarged version of the genus Pediocactus would be 

characterized as follows: the stems are either single or branching 

sparingly; flattened, spherical, or cylindrical; usually very 

small but in one form up to 6 inches in diameter and height. 

The surface of the stem is covered with small but prominent, 

noncoalescent tubercles, spirally arranged. Areoles are small and 

entirely on the tips of the tubercles, sometimes with glands pres- 

ent. The spines are variable. The flowers are bell- or funnelshaped. 

The ovary is naked or with 2 or 3 small scales, sometimes 

these having a few hairs or bristles in their axils. The outer 

perianth segments are fringed to entire. The fruits are green at 

first, often changing to tan or yellowish, and then becoming 

dry. They are naked or have several small scales. In shape they 

are from nearly spherical to almost club-shaped. The fruits are 

dehiscent, opening by a ring around the apex, by a lateral slit 

on the upper side, or sometimes rather irregularly by both of 

these. Seeds are black or gray, the surfaces rough or shiny, but 

always textured when seen under the microscope. 

The members of this genus are once again cacti which fall between 

the major groups, the Echinocacti and the Mammiliarias, 

overlapping each to some extent. Most technical discussions of 

these cacti have become involved with trying to balance the 

characters in which they coincide with the one group against 

the characters in which they agree with the other. This began 

even with Engelmann, who had the type species of this genus 

as an Echinocactus, but who said that this species, with some 

others, “forms a small section of Echinocacti with the appearance 

of Mammillarias named by Prince Salm Theloidei.” Although 

he insisted that they were still “true” Echinocacti, he 

repeated that they “… constitute the closest and most imperceptible 

transition to Mammillaria subgenus Coryphantha.” 

To show the reasons for the divergent opinions over these 

cacti in the past, and the way they overlap both adjacent major 

cactus groups while actually falling outside of either one, we 

will mention here the most significant of the characters involved. 

They share with the Echinocacti the following points: the 

areoles are monomorphic with the flower coming at or near the 

tips of the tubercles; the flowers are similar to those of the 

Echinocacti, the ovary often with 2 or 3 tiny scales and occasionally 

these with a few bristles in their axils; the fruit becomes 

dry and splits open—but they differ from the Echinocacti 

by having no ribs and by having mucilage cells, which are not 

found in any recognized Echinocactus. On the other hand they 

share with the Mammillarias the following characters: the 

stems are tubercled instead of ribbed; the ovary is sometimes 

naked or has only 2 or 3 scales—while differing from them by 

producing the flowers from a monomorphic areole at the tip of 

the tubercle and by having dry, dehiscent fruits. In possessing 

mucilage cells, as Dr. Boke has pointed out, they look toward 

the Echinocerei. The result of all this is that this genus is left 

standing with those few others which are somewhat alone, outside 

of any of the major groups. Buxbaum has considered it


significant, because of its peculiar combination of characters, as 

an ancestor of other groups, but other scholars have disputed 

his theories on this. 

The members of this genus can be as exasperating to the ordinary 

cactophile as to the taxonomist. If it is difficult to view 

them in the proper systematic niche, it is even harder to view 

them in their native habitat. They are all extremely retiring 

cacti. They are usually so well camouflaged in their natural environment 

that there are places where it is more rewarding to 

hunt for them by feel than by sight. And it is not easy to find 

their locations. With the exception of one species, they all occupy 

very small ranges, several only a few miles in extent, and 

some are noted more for their rarity than for anything else. 

Each is restricted to a particular soil type or geologic formation, 

and some are associated with one other specific plant. The one 

species which is more widespread is usually a high mountain 

inhabitant where only the hardy collectors will come across it. 

So these are especially challenging little cacti not seen by 

many people and perhaps fully appreciated by only the specialist. 

However, they are part of the huge group known as cacti 

and they contribute to its amazing diversity. 

Pediocactus simpsonii var. simpsonii (Eng.) L. Benson 

“Mountain Cactus” 


stems: Globose or sometimes even a little elongated in the 

growing season, but usually depressed and often almost flat 

in the winter. These stems are up to 5 inches in diameter and 

1 to 6 inches tall. They are almost always single, but on rare 

occasions clustering. The surface is covered with spirally arranged 

tubercles which are conical or sometimes somewhat 

pyramidal, 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long. The color of the surface 

is light green. 

areoles: The areoles, situated on the tips of the tubercles, are 

circular or nearly so. When young, at the apex of the plant, 

they are large, to 3/16 of an inch in diameter, with much long 

white wool, but when older they shrink to 1/8 of an inch or 

so and lose most or all of their wool. 

spines: There are 15 to 30 radial spines which are white or 

whitish, rigid and straight, but very slender, radiating, and 

1/4 to 1/2 inch long, the shortest and most slender of them 

being at the top of the areole. On mature plants there are 5 

to 11 widely spreading central spines. These are heavier than 

the radials, rigid, straight or nearly so, and 3/8 to 3/4 of an 

inch long. They are whitish, cream, or pale yellow below, 

with the outer half of each darkening to brown or red-brown. 

flowers: Bell-shaped, opening rather widely. They are 5/8 to 

1 inch in diameter and length, and are pale pink, pale purplish, 

whitish, or yellowish in color. The ovary has several 

small scales near its top. The outer perianth segments are 

broadly rounded, greenish with pink to whitish, somewhat 

fringed, ragged, or notched edges. The inner segments are 

pink, pale purple, whitish, or yellowish, almost linear, with 

pointed tips and entire edges. The stamens are yellow, the 

stigma with 5 to 7 yellowish lobes. 

fruits: 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch long. Almost spherical to shortcylindrical. 

The fruits are green, sometimes suffused with reddish, 

later becoming dry. When ripe they split open somewhat 

irregularly along the upper side. The seeds are gray or 

black, the surface rough, 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch long in largest 

measurement. 

Range. Occurring far north of our area in Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. From these states it enters Ari- 

zona and the northern mountains of New Mexico. 

Remarks. This cactus is a mountaineer. It is seldom if ever 

found below 6,000 feet in altitude, and ranges happily up to 

10,000 feet in the high Rockies. There are reports of its having 

been collected even above that altitude, but I have not been 

able to verify them. However, one thing is certain. This cactus 

scorns the extreme cold and the snow of the high mountains. 

Give it a sunny south slope for light and warmth in the summer 

and it will gladly sit all winter in the snows. It can stand an 

amazing amount of cold and moisture such as would kill most 

other cacti almost over night. 

The adaptation which this cactus has made to the high mountain 

climate is all gain in those mountains. Yet with every such 

gain something is usually lost, and this cactus has almost completely 

lost the ability to live where most of its fellows reside, 

in the hot, dry desert below the mountains. It can be kept alive 

and healthy in gardens in central New Mexico, but this is about 

its limit. It languishes and dies in two years or so in the low 

altitude and greater heat of San Antonio, even when kept more 

moist than its relatives. Those trying to grow this cactus should 

remember and try to simulate its mountain habitat, or they will 

have trouble. 

This species was first discovered and named by Engelmann. 

He observed it as a result of several expeditions over many 

years and described it very fully. However, he was from first 

to last convinced that it was an Echinocactus, and called it al- 

ways Echinocactus simpsonii. 

Coulter followed Engelmann entirely, but in 1893 the plant 

was called by M. E. Jones Mammillaria simpsonii, this indicating 

that already its position between the two major groups was 

becoming noticed. K. Schumann found a plant in Colorado 

which he called Mammillaria purpusii, and this is thought to 

have been the same plant. 

In 1913 Britton and Rose first set this species off from both 

the Echinocacti and the Mammillarias. They originated a new 

genus for this species alone, calling it Pediocactus simpsonii. The 

genus name is not at all apropos to this mountain cactus and 

seems to have been prompted by a doubtful report that the

genus Pediocactus 105 

cactus was once found on the plains of Kansas. However, it has 

remained as the valid name for this cactus, and a whole group 

of others have joined this species in the genus. 

Engelmann’s very complete description of the species is that 

of what, to be taxonomically correct, we must call variety simpsonii. 

Besides this Engelmann described a smaller variety which 

he called variety minor, and Coulter added a variety robustior 

from Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado. 

Although everyone has mentioned it, variety minor has not 

ever been described very completely. It appears to be a smaller 

form of the species found in Colorado, but there are few definite 

characters to establish it. It has been said that some specimens 

found in northwestern New Mexico might be this form, 

but as there are doubts about them, the variety is not listed as 

definitely one within our area. It should be noticed in this connection 

that a young, immature specimen of Mammillaria borealis 

which has not flowered and on which the grooves of the 

mature areoles have not yet formed fits the description of variety 

minor very well. This may be the explanation of some of the 

specimens of variety minor. 

Be that as it may, the typical variety of the species is found 

in the mountains of northern New Mexico. It is a beautiful 

cactus and one of our most hardy forms for cold climates. 

Pediocactus knowltonii L. Benson 

“Knowlton Cactus” 


stems: Very small, 1/2 to 1 inch in diameter. These stems are 

depressed-globular or globular, a fraction of an inch to a 

maximum of 11/2 inches tall. Individuals usually have single 

Stems, but sometimes they form small clusters. Each stem is 

covered by small tubercles only 1/16 to 1/10 of an inch long. 

areoles: Almost circular at first, becoming elongated oval. 

These areoles are very small, being only about 1/24 of an inch 

in length. They have much white wool at first, which be- 

comes shorter with age, but is quite persistent. 

spines: There are 18 to 24 radial spines, which lie pectinate 

or even recurve somewhat and are 1/24 to 1/16 of an inch long. 

They are somewhat flattened and magnification reveals fine 

hairs upon them. In color they are white, pinkish, or reddish- 

tan. 

flowers: Opening widely and when fully open about 3/4 of 

an inch across by about 3/8 of an inch long. They are pinkish 

in color, with the ovary naked. The outer perianth segments 

are entire and blunt, the inner segments somewhat pointed. 

The stamens are yellow. The stigmas are 4 in number and rose- 

purple. 

fruits: Egg-shaped or somewhat club-shaped, about 3/8 of an 

inch long, becoming tan, dry, and dehiscent. The seeds are 

black and about 1/16 of an inch long. 

Range. Known only from one area in northwestern New Mexico, 

near the Los Pinos River just south of the New Mexico- 

Colorado border. 

Remarks. This is one of the very small, very inconspicuous new 

species in this genus which have only recently been discovered. 

It was first described in 1960 by Dr. Benson from plants dis- 

covered by the late Mr. Fred G. Knowlton. 

The cactus is quite clearly a Pediocactus. Very small, with 

nothing outstanding in stem, spine, or flower development, it 

has no special interest because of any feature except its rarity. 

However, for those who are intrigued by this, it is rare enough 

to make up for all it lacks otherwise, because it is definitely in 

the running for the most rare cactus of our area. It has been 

found so far only on gravelly hills near the Los Pinos River in 

New Mexico. Its population is apparently small, even there, 

and collectors should avoid decimating the species. 

Pediocactus papyracanthus (Eng.) L. Benson 

“Paper-Spined Cactus,” “Grama-Grass Cactus,” “Toumeya” 


stems: Ovate or nearly so when young, becoming cylindrical. 

Most often the stem remains single, but old plants sometimes 

give off several branches by proliferation of several areoles 

on the sides of the stem. The surface of the stem is covered by 

dark green tubercles 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch long when mature. 

areoles: Round or nearly so, very small on immature stems, 

but up to 3/16 of an inch long on robust stems. With yellowish 

wool at first, this becoming gray and short, but persisting. 

Sometimes active areoles have 1 to several pinkish glands on 

the upper edge of each. 

spines: There are 6 to 9 radial spines which are straight, rigid, 

and flattened, and which radiate evenly. They are from less 

than 1/8 of an inch to as much as 1/4 of an inch long; the 

lowermost is heavier, wider, and longer than the others. They 

are white or gray in color, often snowy white. There are also 

1 to 4 central spines. The lowermost central, which seems always 

to be present after the very early stage, is greatly flattened, 

up to 1/10 of an inch wide at the base, flexible, papery 

in texture, and always to some extent twisted and curved. On 

young areoles it tends to stand at least somewhat upward, 

but lower down on the sides of the stem it may be aimed in 

any direction. It is from 3/4 to 11/4 inches long, usually mottled 

brown at first, fading to pale gray or whitish. Mature 

plants usually have 1 to 3 upper centrals, curving upward. 

They are similar to the main central except shorter and very 

much more slender, as well as usually less flattened.


flowers: Bell-shaped, not opening very widely, whitish in 

color. They are 3/4 to 1 inch long and wide. The ovary usually 

has a few small, toothed scales upon it, but may be bare. The 

outer perianth segments are triangular in shape with their 

edges entire or ragged, but not fringed. Their midlines are 

dark brownish, the edges whitish. The inner perianth segments 

are practically white. The stamens are cream-colored. 

The style and stigma are also cream-colored, with 4 or 5 

stigma lobes. 

fruits: Almost spherical, 3/16 to 3/4 of an inch long, becoming 

tan and dry at maturity and splitting open by a dorsal slit 

and a ring at the top. They are with or without a few scales. 

The seeds are black, shiny, but with a fine texture under 

magnification. These seeds are up to about 1/8 of an inch long. 

Range. A limited area in north-central New Mexico and an 

even more limited area in northeastern Arizona. In New Mexico 

it is found in a few scattered locations from near Santa Fe to 

the Sandia Mountains near Albuquerque. The range in New 

Mexico and the range in Arizona are not continuous. 

Remarks. This has long been regarded as perhaps the rarest cac- 

tus in our area. It is not profitable to try to decide which of 

several species actually is that, but P. pipyracanthus certainly 

is one of the least seen of them all. 

The rarity of its collection is partly due to its scarcity, but 

also to its excellent camouflage. This species grows in open 

grasslands where it appears to be almost always, if not always, 

associated with the grama grasses, from which comes the common 

name, “grama-grass cactus.” It usually grows in or near 

clumps of these grasses, and in this situation the broad, papery 

central spines look just like dried grass leaves and the cacti 

themselves like clumps of grass. 

Engelmann first described this cactus as a Mammillaria. Later, 

after closer examination, he observed that the flowers arose 

from the unelongated areoles at the tips of the young tubercles, 

and so observed that the plant was really an Echinocactus, as 

the genus was then understood. Coulter, therefore, classified it 

in the genus Echinocactus. 

We have already discussed in the introduction to the genus 

Pediocactus why this cactus and its relatives could not very 

logically remain in the genus Echinocactus. Britton and Rose 

appear to have been correct in separating it from that genus. 

They erected a special new genus, Toumeya, for this species 

alone. It has stood there, all alone, until recently. 

The very recent study of these plants by L. Benson has shown 

what appear to be good reasons for expanding the genus Pediocactus 

to include this cactus. New species only recently discovered 

are in several respects intermediate between the two 

original species, Pediocactus simpsonii and Toumeya papyracantha, 

and it seems that at best Toumeya should be reduced to 

a subgenus or section of Pediocactus.

Genus Epithelantha (Weber) B. & R. 

There seems to be but one species of this genus in the United 

States. It is a very small, but distinctive cactus. 

The whole stem of this cactus is covered with very many, 

very tiny tubercles—apparently the smallest tubercles of any 

United States cactus. Hiding these almost entirely from view 

are very many tiny spines. The growing tip of the stem is in the 

form of a rather distinct depression which is filled with a great 

deal of hairlike wool and covered over by the converging, later 

deciduous tips of the longer spines. This makes it very difficult 

to observe the formation of the tubercles, areoles, and flowers, 

but the way these are formed has assumed much importance and 

has been studied very closely. This is because taxonomically al- 

most everything hinges upon them. 

Originally Engelmann described this cactus as Mammillaria 

micromeris. In most of its characters it is a perfectly good Mammillaria. 

Later, however, something unusual was noticed about 

the cactus. It produces its flower not in the axil of the tubercle, 

but at the top of it. Mammillarias otherwise produce their flowers 

from halfway down the dorsal side of the tubercles to deep 

in the axils. 

When this was noticed it was assumed that the flower was 

produced from within a single, unlengthening, monomorphic 

areole on the tip of the tubercle. This is the situation in the 

Echinocacti. Because of this difference, Weber seemed unable to 

come to a real conclusion about this cactus, listing it once as a 

Mammillaria, once as Echinocactus micromeris, but also coining 

a new name, Epithelantha, for it. He apparently did not officially 

describe this latter as the name of a new genus, however. 

Britton and Rose then took the name Epithelantha and applied 

it to a new and separate genus. This genus, because of the supposed 

production of the flower from within the spine areole, 

has usually been placed in the subtribe Echinocactanae, although 

its other features, such as the naked fruits and lack of ribs, seem 

to point more toward the Mammillarias. 

Recently Dr. Norman H. Boke has done most thorough studies 

of cactus anatomy and development, and studied this species 

very carefully. In the course of his studies he has discovered 

that this cactus does not produce its flower from within a monomorphic 

spine areole after all. The blossom is, in fact, produced 

after a division of the meristem into a determinate spinous portion 

and a separate, indeterminate floral or vegetative meristem. 

This gives essentially a dimorphic areole, very different from 

those of the Echinocacti. It is actually more removed from the 

Echinocactus arrangement than is that of the many Mammillarias 

often set apart as Coryphanthas because they usually have 

monomorphic areoles elongating toward the axils instead of dimorphic 

areoles. The situation in this cactus can be interpreted 

as good dimorphic Mammillarian areoles in which the floral 

meristems merely remain at the tops of the tubercles. Dr. Boke 

notes Moran’s remark that for many years no one has linked 

Epithelantha to Mammillaria, but Boke’s conclusion is that a 

strong case for doing just this can be built. 

This possibility is very attractive, since the cactus is in so 

many ways a better Mammillaria than many of the Mammillarias 

themselves. It does seem that the work of Boke has made it 

impossible to classify it any longer with the Echinocacti, and 

that it points it toward the Mammillarias. Yet the fact remains 

that its flower is produced at the top of the tubercle, which is a 

trait not found in other members of that genus, and this difference 

in itself may be justification for keeping the cactus sepa- 

rate from the genus Mammillaria. 

As a separate genus based upon this cactus, Epithelantha 

seems, like Lophophora and Ariocarpus, to fall somewhere between 

the two major genera, Echinocactus and Mammillaria. It


is worth noting in this connection that the Epithelanthas Possess 

alkaloids similar to those of Lophophora and Ariocarpus, 

which seems to link them in some way. 

I, therefore, leave this genus in this difficult middle area. 

Buxbaum has made elaborate schemes in attempting to relate 

these plants phylogenetically, but others have pointed out that 

entirely different schemes from his could be devised which 

would appear just as logical as his, if different assumptions were 

made to start with. I am not primarily interested here in such 

phylogenetic schemes, so I merely list this as a small genus be- 

cause it seems in some way a separate entity among the cacti. 

Epithelantha micromeris (Eng.) Weber 

“Button Cactus,” “Mulato” 


stems: Spherical or spheroid, usually with a depressed top. 

Usually only 1/2 to 1 inch in diameter, but sometimes to 13/4 

inches. Plants usually consist of a single stem, but are occasionally 

seen with double, and rarely with triple stems. These 

stems are covered with tiny, wartlike or somewhat conical 

tubercles about 1/20 of an inch long. 

areoles: Dimorphic. The spinous areole is at the tip of the 

tubercle, is small and at first has much long hair, which is 

later lost. The flower comes from a separate floral areole 

which appears adjacent to the spinous areole, also at the top 

of the tubercle. 

spines: There are about 20 to 40 slender but rigid spines per 

areole. They are in one series on immature plants, but in 

several series on mature areoles. The outermost series on mature 

plants are the stronger, and the upper ones of these are 

often 1/4 to 5/16 of an inch long when first produced, with the 

outer half of each swollen in diameter until they are somewhat 

club-shaped, but with the tips acute. These form an incurving 

tuft of long spines over the shorter spines and hairs 

of the new growth in the more or less depressed top of the 

mature plant. The enlarged outer sections of these spines break 

off with time, however, and the hairs are shed, leaving the 

sides of the plants with only short spines about 1/16 to 1/8 of 

an inch long. All spines are white, sometimes with faintly 

gray tips. 

flowers: Very small, only about 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch long 

and 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch wide, only partly rising above the 

long wool and spines in the top of the plant and only partly 

opening. They are pale, whitish-pink. The ovary is rather 

clavate, greenish-yellow, and naked. There are 3 to 5 outer 

perianth segments which have greenish-brown or pinkish midlines 

and pinkish-white, somewhat notched or eroded edges, 

in some specimens bearing a few short cilia. There are 5 inner 

petals which are whitish-pink with entire edges. The stamens 

are greenish-white. The style and stigma are greenish-white, 

with 3 or 4 stigma lobes. 

fruits: Club-shaped and 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch long by 1/8 to 

3/16 of an inch in diameter, red, fleshy, and naked, with the 

perianth remains persistent upon them. The seeds are black, 

about 1/16 of an inch (11/2 millimeters) long. 

Range. In the U.S. forming a large arc with the east end in 

Medina County, Texas, near San Antonio, running west from 

there, barely remaining within Texas at the mouths of the Devil’s 

and Pecos rivers and perhaps leaving Texas briefly before turning 

northward through Brewster County in the Big Bend. From 

there following the Davis and Guadalupe mountains northwest 

into New Mexico, passing through the Sacramento Mountains 

to have its northwest end in the Capitan Mountains of New 

Mexico. The western limit in Texas seems to be the Hueco Moun- 

tains just east of El Paso. 

Remarks. The tiny, tidy little button cactus reminds me of a 

very spherical button indeed, and even more of a white, fuzzy 

marble or ping-pong ball. It sits on exposed ridges and hillsides, 

a little white globe among the whitish limestone rocks. It is also 

the only cactus I have ever seen growing in a river bed. I have 

on several occasions found populations of dozens of specimens 

growing among the water-piled rocks in the almost always 

bone-dry beds of west Texas streams. Once, however, I found 

them within ten feet of perpetually running water in the bed 

of a major stream. Specimens in this sort of situation have extensive 

root systems running for several feet in all directions 

through the loose rocks and pebbles among which they stand. 

These roots anchor them against the rushing water which must 

entirely cover them at times, so long as the whole rock jam is 

not dislodged. The almost perfect roundness of the plants is 

what usually betrays their presence on hillsides and ledges where 

the surrounding rocks are almost never rounded, but in a deposit 

of water-rounded rocks they are doubly hard to see. This 

may be why they have not been reported from such a habitat 

before. 

There seems to be only a single form of this genus in the U.S. 

A separate form of this species, variety greggii, was also described 

by Engelmann but it is a larger form found only in 

Mexico. Many have regarded this as merely a synonym, but I 

have concluded that this larger and distinct form does exist. 

Beginning about 100 miles south of the Rio Grande on the road 

to Saltillo, I have seen this other form, which is unlike anything 

I have seen in Texas. I have often found stems of this form to 

3 inches in diameter. Dr. Boke, in the report of his study of Epithelantha, 

gives some interesting details of anatomical differ- 

ences he found between this Mexican form and our U.S. cactus. 

H. Bravo, Marshall, Backeberg and others have described a 

whole list of other Epithelantha forms found in Mexico. I have

genus Epithelantha 109 

seen some of these, and I am sure that some of them are distinct 

from our U. S. cactus, but as they do not enter the United States, 

I will not deal with them here. Perhaps it should be stressed 

that they do not grow in the United States, since some of them 

do from time to time enter the country in the trade. Because of 

this fact, one should be careful about assuming that any plant 

he buys as E. micromeris is actually the U. S. form. I have often 

seen the densely clustering Mexican form, with clumps of 10 to 

20 heads and beautiful rose-colored flowers 2 to 3 times as large 

as those on our cactus, sold simply as E. micromeris, when in 

reality it is quite different. No specimen like this has ever been 

recorded from within the U. S.

Turnefort -> Tournefort 

Genus Mammillaria Haw. 

The members of this genus are for the most part comparatively 

small or sometimes extremely tiny cacti. The plant stems vary 

in different species from depressed and almost flat to globular 

or sometimes even columnar in shape, and are often referred to 

as “heads.” In some species these remain single, while in many 

others they multiply from the base to become caespitose, one 

individual thus sometimes forming a large clump of these 

“heads.” In a few species the stems may branch sparingly from 

higher up on the stem. 

Each stem is entirely covered by a system of nipple-like projections 

called tubercles. These are usually arranged in spiral 

rows, but in a few cases are more loosely organized. These tubercles 

are usually cylindrical or conical, but sometimes may 

have more or less quadrangular bases and sometimes are mildly 

keeled below. 

Very early the knowledge of cacti progressed to the point 

where it became obvious that the huge assortment of forms they 

present could not be left in the one catchall genus Cactus L. By 

the middle of the eighteenth century Miller felt it necessary to 

divide the lot. By using the four old names of Tournefort, he 

separated out many cacti into Pereskia, Opuntia, and Cereus, 

leaving the rest in the genus Cactus. By 1812 even this narrowed 

genus Cactus was too broad, and Haworth abandoned it 

entirely, erecting five new genera out of it, one of which was 

Mammillaria, including all of the unjointed, tubercled cacti. 

Discoveries of new species continued, and as even this genus 

came to include a myriad of forms, the process of subdivision 

began all over again. Engelmann proposed two sections of the 

genus Mammillaria. He had section Coryphantha, which he 

characterized as having grooved tubercles, green fruits, and yellow 

or brown seeds, and section Eumammillaria with groove- 

less tubercles, scarlet fruits, and black or blackish seeds. Lemaire 

very soon elevated the section Coryphantha to a separate genus. 

Many concurred—although not all, as for instance Berger, who 

left this group as a subdivision which he rechristened Eu-coryphantha. 

This was the situation, rather uneasy and not wholly satisfactory 

to anybody, when Britton and Rose presented their 

major study, and they swept it all away by dividing the old 

genus Mammillaria into a whole spectrum of new and much 

smaller genera. Their names are in constant use and are most 

familiar to us today. The old section Coryphantha became the 

genera Coryphantha, Escobaria, Neobesseya, and others, and 

the old genus Mammillaria was eliminated as the rest of its 

forms were separated out into new genera such as Dolichothele 

and Neomammillaria. It seemed that the process of subdivision 

had been carried to its logical conclusion by this courageous 

leap of Britton and Rose, and almost the whole cactophile 

world adopted their array of new genera with surprising speed 

and many sighs ‘of relief. 

But the genera of Britton and Rose were not to go unchallenged 

for long. They were assaulted from two directions. As 

early as 1931 Fosberg questioned the basis for separating Escobaria 

from Coryphantha and concluded that the two should be 

recombined. This was an early expression of a desire for simplification 

by recombination. Many people had already found the 

genera of Britton and Rose so hard to tell from one another 

that it was often more difficult to determine the genus of a 

specimen directly than it was to determine its species first; and 

some had noted that the distinguishing characteristics of these 

genera were not always consistently present. 

But at the same time the trend to still more subdivision was

genus Mammillaria 111 

continued by various students. J. Pinkney Hester conducted 

very detailed studies of the seeds of cacti, and concluded that 

their variations did not well uphold the alignment of Britton 

and Rose’s genera, but actually, if regarded as diagnostic characters, 

would require a new realignment. As a result, in 1941, 

he shifted some species from one to another of these genera and 

erected such new genera as Escobesseya. 

Backeberg had already started subdividing further with his 

subgenera Subgymnocarpae and Neocoryphantha. Buxbaum 

conducted large studies of the cacti and proposed his own new 

subgenera, such as Pseudocoryphantha. He also proposed major 

theoretical schemes of cactus evolution which would appear to 

indicate radical new alignments of the species in this group. 

Thousands of words have been written concerning Buxbaum’s 

phylogenetic theories, but we do not need to study them here, 

because no one has yet actually followed his lead and there has 

been no essentially new scheme for classifying this group since 

Britton and Rose. 

What we do have at the present time are two opposing philosophies 

of classification giving two different concepts of this 

group, the same as they do of the Echinocacti. One considers 

very small differences in plants to be adequate bases for establishing 

genera and this results in lists of very slightly varying 

microgenera. This attitude is well expressed in Backeberg’s major 

work, where all of Britton and Rose’s genera are perpetuated 

and even some new ones added. ‘The other attitude is the more 

conservative one that a genus should be a major group based 

upon some rather obvious and very fundamental differences. 

This attitude regards the newer genera based on very small differences 

as no more than sections or subgenera, or at most micro- 

genera of an entirely different level from such larger plant 

genera as for instance Euphorbia. This approach had recent expression 

in L. Benson’s Arizona Cacti where all of these proposed 

genera were recombined once again into the original genus 

Mammillaria. 

Every serious cactus student is faced today with the battle 

between these opposing views, and even the amateur is affected 

by it, since, in order to be conversant, he often has to remember 

two or even more names for each of his cacti. 

It cannot be said that either view is established at this time. 

The present study does not presume to answer a major taxonomic 

question such as this. It is not even addressed to such a 

purpose. I would have preferred to avoid the issue entirely, but 

under the circumstances even to list a series of species is to take 

sides. 

Since a decision was thrust upon me, I wished to make it as 

intelligently as possible, so before making my decision I have 

studied the arguments for each view and then applied to the 

problem the most recent evidence to come to my attention. After 

the most exhaustive study of which I am capable, I feel constrained 

to follow here the recombination of these cacti under 

the genus Mammillaria and to consider this genus in the older 

and larger sense. The results of research reported since the publication 

of the last major work on these cacti has figured largely 

in my decision, so it may be of value to mention that newer 

evidence here. 

Most significantly, the old distinction between those plants 

with grooved tubercles and those with grooveless tubercles 

which prompted Engelmann to make the first division of the 

group into two sections and which is still so much emphasized 

that all artificial keys use it, seems to have failed us. Dr. Norman 

H. Boke, in a series of very detailed studies of cactus shoot 

form and development, has recently shown that both Coryphantha 

erecta and C. clava, two common Mexican species, may 

have grooved and grooveless tubercles on the same mature heads 

at the same time, or may change the form of their growth back 

and forth from the one to the other. This would appear to make 

it impossible to classify these particular species in either the 

proposed genus Coryphantha or Neomaimmillaria and to make 

it possible for a given specimen to fulfill the characteristics of 

both of these genera at once, which would seem to cast real 

doubt upon the divisions themselves. 

In terms more technical but more meaningful to the botanist, 

the grooved group have areoles monomorphic, which means 

producing from a single meristem not only both vegetative 

structures (leaf primordia and spines) but also the later reproductive 

structures (flowers and branches), while the grooveless 

forms have areoles dimorphic, with two separate meristems, one 

producing only vegetative structures at the summit of the tubercle 

and the other producing only reproductive structures, 

usually at the axil of the tubercle. This distinction appeared at 

first to be an essential one, dividing the whole group handily, 

but here again Dr. Boke was able to show that in the two species 

mentioned above, the areoles may be either monomorphic or 

dimorphic on the same adult head of the same specimen. 

Since these distinctions have broken down, there apparently 

remains no character by which the large group formerly known 

as genus Mammillaria can be divided into two major subdivisions. 

Such things as sepals fringed versus sepals entire, fruit 

green at maturity versus fruit red at maturity, fruit with a few 

scales versus fruit naked, and details of seed form all show exceptions 

on one side or the other in all major subdivisions which 

have been proposed. 

But what about the status of the array of small genera erected 

within this large group of tubercled cacti? As already mentioned 

the division into Coryphantha and Escobaria was challenged 

almost immediately by Fosberg. The distinguishing characters 

usually given of green fruit on the one hand and red fruit on the 

other obviously does not work, because the fruits of some Coryphanthas 

become brownish or reddish when very ripe and those 

of several Escobarias remain green barely flushed with apricot 

on the sunny side. Nor is seed color always reliable to separate 

these two proposed groups. One searches in vain for a valid 

reason why Fosberg has not been followed and why these two

abilitiy -> ability 


groups have been allowed to stand so long in most of the litera- 

ture. 

To make a long story short, all other distinguishing characters 

proposed for these microgenera have proved as uncertain. We 

have, therefore, been left with only such quantitative characters 

as long tubercles versus short tubercles, tubercles grooved all the 

way versus tubercles grooved more or less of the way, flowers 

predominantly yellow versus flowers brownish through pink to 

purple, and so on, which hardly seem adequate to distinguish 

genera—and there are exceptions to all of them anyway. Attempts 

to separate on this sort of basis have resulted in a constant 

shifting of species from one to the other genus and finally 

in the proposal of Escobaria subgenus Pseudocoryphantha Buxbaum 

and subgenus Neocoryphantha Backbg., as well as of 

genus Lepidocoryphantha Backbg., for those which burst out of 

the closely drawn genera. 

The other genera which Britton and Rose proposed for this 

group fare little better. We have seen that monomorphic versus 

dimorphic areoles and grooved versus ungrooved tubercles will 

not divide them. Neither will flower color, since we have the 

whole range of colors in the proposed genus Coryphantha, in 

Neobesseya, and in Britton and Rose’s strictly drawn Neomammillaria. 

Fringed versus nonfringed sepals and even various de- 

grees of fringing in the same species are found in both Coryphanta 

and Neomammillaria. Seed form fails also, with both 

Escobaria and Neomammillaria showing the whole range of 

seed coats, shapes, and hilum positions so completely that Buxbaum 

has to theorize parallel evolution within each of these 

groups because of it. 

It seems that there are no characters left strong enough upon 

which to erect genera and that the whole group is best considered 

one genus, as originally conceived. Dr. Boke’s judgment 

after his research would seem justified: 

In any event, it is my opinion that the discovery of a combination 

of areole monomorphism and areole dimorphism in 

Coryphantha clava and C. erecta weakens one of the principal 

distinctions between the Mammillarias (sensu lato) and 

other tubercled cacti. I think that it also indicates a cautious, 

conservative approach in delimiting genera in these cacti. 

He who can take the larger view will find in the genus Mammillaria 

a rich and diverse group of cacti presenting almost 

every sort of interesting variation on the theme of the small, 

tubercled cactus body. As a group they present all of the challenges 

to his ability at collecting, classifying, and culturing 

cacti which the most ardent cactophile can desire. 

For those who are fascinated by the Britton and Rose type of 

genus divisions and who want to concern themselves with this 

sort of thing, as well as for those who may be familiar with 

only those plant names, I have added for each form described 

here the name which seems to be the most valid one under the 

microgenus system. 

KEY TO THE MAMMILLARIAS 

1a. Diameter of stems on mature plants 2 inches or more and the 

length of the tubercles 1/4 of an inch or more—2. 

2a. Stems on mature plants hemispherical to flattened, always as 

broad as they are tall on normal specimens and usually much 

greater in diameter than in height—3. 

3a. Areoles always dimorphic, with the spinous portion at the 

tip of the tubercle and the floral portion in the axil of the 

tubercle and having no groove connecting them—4. 

4a. Central spines 1 or 2 per areole, short and always straight; 

outer perianth segments entire—5. 

5a. Color of the plant surface deep green or blue-green; 

tubercles firm and their bases quadrangular and more 

or less keeled; flowers whitish, rose, or pinkish—6. 

6a. Radial spines 5 to 9; tubercles strongly keeled and to 

Is of an inch long; plant to 12 inches in diameter 

—M. meiacantha. 

6b. Radial spines 9 to 26; tubercles with bases quadrangular 

but not so strongly keeled; plants to about 5 

inches in diameter—7. 

7a. Radial spines 20 to 26 —M. heyderi var. heyderi. 

7b. Radial spines 9 to 20—8. 

8a. Radial spines 14 to 20 —M. heyderi 

var. applanata. 

8b. Radial spines 9 to 13 —M. heyderi 

var. hemisphaerica. 

5b. Color of plant surface light yellowish-green; tubercles 

flabby and egg-shaped to cylindrical; flowers brightly 

yellow —M. sphaerica. 

4b. Central spines 1 to 4 and at least some of them hooked; 

outer perianth segments fringed—9. 

9a. Radial spines 8 to 15; flowers bright purple with about 

20 inner perianth segments and 11 yellow stigma lobes 

—M. wrightii. 

9b. Radial spines 14 to 22; flowers paler pinkish-purple 

with about 40 inner perianth segments and 5 to 9 green 

stigma lobes —M. wilcoxii. 

3b. Areoles normally and predominantly monomorphic and prolonged 

into a groove extending halfway or more toward the 

axil of the tubercle on mature stems, with the flower pro duced in 

the end of this groove—10. 

10a. Tubercles equal in size or nearly so on a given stem and 

arranged regularly; central spines 0 or 1 per areole and 

1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long; flowers greenish-yellow, brown- 

ish, or pink; fruits scarlet when ripe—11. 

11a. Flowers greenish, greenish-yellow, or brownish, sometimes 

streaked with pink; the outer perianth segments 

fringed —M. similis. 

11b. Flowers pure pink without stripes or zones of various 

colors; the outer perianth segments not fringed, but en- 

tire —M. rosiflora. 

10b. Tubercles unequal in size and shape on a given stem and 

arranged irregularly; centrals 1 to 4 per areole and 3/4 to


2 inches long; flowers purplish or rose-pink; fruits re- 

maining greenish when ripe —M. runyonii. 

2b. Stems on mature plants spherical to columnar, usually taller 

than they are broad and often markedly so—12. 

12a. Having at least one and often several hooked central spines; 

areoles dimorphic with the spinous portion at the tip of the 

tubercle and the floral portion in the axil of the tubercle, 

the two never connected by a groove —M. microcarpa. 

12b. Without hooked centrals; areoles mostly or entirely monomorphic, 

the flower always produced at the end of the undivided 

areole which is prolonged into a groove running at 

least part of the way down the tubercle—13. 

13a. Having fleshy taproots and 2 to 8 central spines to 21/4 

inches long; flowers purplish —M. macromeris. 

13b. Having no fleshy taproots and having central spines not 

over 15/8 inches long—14. 

14a. Having one brownish gland in the groove formed by 

the elongated areole —M. bella. 

14b. Without glands—15. 

15a. Centrals 0 to 4 on mature plants—16. 

16a. Centrals present—17. 

17a. Centrals not hooked—18. 

18a. Flowers yellow, orange-yellow, or yellow with 

red centers—19. 

19a. Stems single or very sparingly branched; 

flowers yellow or orange-yellow, sometimes 

reddish when fading, but not yellow with 

red centers; radials and centrals to at least 

3/4 of an inch long—20. 

20a. Plants large and robust, to at least 6 

inches tall and 4 inches or more in diameter 

when old; tubercles 1/2 to 1 inch long 

—21. 

21a. Radials 6 to 16; outer perianth segments 

lacerated and more or less 

fringed 

—M. scheeri (in part). 

21b. Radials 14 to 28; outer perianth segments 

entire and smooth 

—M. scolymoides. 

20b. Plants small, to a maximum of 3 inches 

tall or wide; tubercles 3/8 to 1/2 inch long 

—M. echinus (in part). 

19b. Stems greatly branching by new heads arising 

from the grooves in old tubercles all 

around their bases to form large masses of 

often dozens of stems; flowers yellow with 

red centers —M. sulcata (in part). 

18b. Flowers pale pink to deep rose-purple 

—M. ramillosa. 

17b. One central hooked —M. scheeri (in part). 

16b. Centrals absent—22. 

22a. Tubercles over 1/2 inch long; radials 3/8 to 3/8 of 

an inch long; flowers yellow with red centers 

—M. sulcata (stunted or atypical plant). 

22b. Tubercles 1/2 inch or less long; flowers not yel- 

low with red centers—23. 

23a. Radials 3/8 to 1 inch long; flowers yellow 

—M. echinus (stunted or atypical plant). 

23b. Radials only 1/8 to 1/2 inch long; flowers light 

purple —M. hesteri. 

15b. Centrals 4 to 17 on mature plants—24. 

24a. Fruits green or greenish when ripe, sometimes becoming 

brownish or apricot on part of the surface 

when very ripe, but never bright red—25. 

25a. Radial spines 12 to 20—26. 

26a. Flowers rose-purple to deep purple and 1 inch 

or more long and wide; stigma lobes 7 to 12; 

at least some of the spines over 1/2 inch long 

—27. 

27a. Tubercles 3/8 to 1 inch long; centrals pale 

mottled, and brown-tipped, but never 

blackish over half or more of their lengths; 

flowers 11/2 to 21/2 inches across when fully 

opened; seeds 11/2 to 13/4 millimeters long 

with ventral hila—28. 

28a. Radials to only 5/8 of an inch or so long; 

stigma lobes 7 or 8 in number and rose- 

purple in color; seeds about 11/2 millimeters 

long, dark brown, with the hila 

small —M. vivipara var. vivipara. 

28b. Radials to around 1 inch long; stigma 

lobes 8 to 10 in number and white in 

color; seeds about 13/4 millimeters long, 

light brown in color, with the hila large 

—M. vivipara var. arizonica. 

27b. Tubercles 1/2 inch or less long; centrals very 

dark brown or purplish black over one-half 

to all of their lengths; flowers 1 to 11/2 

inches across when fully opened; seeds 2 

millimeters long with subbasal hila 

—M. vivipara var. borealis. 

26b. Flowers white, pink, or very pale rose in color 

and about 3/4 of an inch long; stigma lobes 5 

or 6; all spines 1/2 inch or less long 

—M. varicolor. 

25b. Radial spines 20 to at least 60—29. 

29a. Flowers 1 inch or more in length and width; 

spines strong and somewhat flexible; seeds 1/2 

to 21/2 millimeters long—30. 

30a. Flowers deeply and brilliantly purple or 

else reddish-purple; radial spines white or 

white tipped light brown—31. 

31a. Flowers 2 inches or more long and broad; 

radials 20 to 30; seeds dark brown—32. 

32a. Tubercles about 3/4 of an inch long; 

centrals 4 to 7 and straw-colored or 

whitish; flowers deep purple with 7 to 

9 rose-colored, blunt stigma lobes; seeds 

oval, brown, 2 to 21/2 millimeters long, 

with the surfaces very finely pitted 

—M. vivipara var. radiosa. 

32b. Tubercles about 1/2 inch long; centrals 

6 to 12 and purple-black or dark


brown; flowers reddish-purple with 6 

to 10 pure white or slightly pinkish, 

somewhat pointed stigma lobes; seeds 

21/2 to 3 millimeters long, markedly 

reniform and much flattened, with 

their surfaces shiny smooth and un- 

pitted —M. fragrans. 

31b. Flowers 1 inch or only slightly more in 

width and length; radials 20 to at least 

60; seeds light brown —M. vivipara 

var. neo-mexicana. 

30b. Flowers yellowish suffused with purple; 

radial spines straw-colored with reddish 

tips —M. vivipara var. deserti. 

29b. Flowers less than 1 inch in length and width; 

spines heavy but very brittle and glassy, 

breaking at slight pressure; seeds I millimeter 

long —M. albicolumnaria. 

24b. Fruits bright red or scarlet when ripe—33. 

33a. Stems hardly over 2 inches in diameter; length 

of radial spines 1/8 to 3/8 of an inch; 4 to 7 centrals 

with one conspicuous, heavy central standing 

porrect or turned downward a little; flowers 

over 1 inch in diameter, opening widely, lavender-white 

or very pale purplish in color, with 5 

or 6 white stigma lobes —M. tuberculosa 

(in part). 

33b. Stems to 23/4 inches in diameter; radials 1/2 to 

1 inch long; 7 to 17 centrals without a conspicuous, 

heavy, porrect one; flowers 3/4 of an inch 

or less in diameter and not opening widely, 

pinkish in color streaked with brown and with 

4 or 5 very green stigma lobes —M. dasyacantha. 

1b. Diameter of stems on mature plants less than 2 inches and 

length of tubercles 1/4 of an inch or less—34. 

34a. Radial spines 13 to 18; all spines club-shaped, remaining 

thick almost their whole length and coming to a point very 

suddenly —M. nellieae. 

34b. Radial spines 20 or more; spines not club-shaped, but awl- 

shaped, bristle-like or hairlike—35. 

35a. Centrals present—36. 

36a. All spines rigid—37. 

37a. Having a fleshy taproot—38. 

38a. Single or sparingly clustering; radials 24 to 36 in 

number; tubercles grooved all of the way from the 

tips to the axils by the greatly elongated, mono- 

morphic areoles; stigma lobes bright yellow 

—M. duncanïi. 

38b. Densely clustering with dozens of heads in a typical 

plant; radials 40 to 85 in number; tubercles 

either ungrooved or grooved to around 1/2 of their 

lengths; stigma lobes pure white —M. leei (in part). 

37b. Roots all fibrous—39. 

39a. Stems single to sparingly branching; 1 to 2 inches 

thick and standing well over 3 inches tall when 

old—40. 

40a. Centrals from very bulbous bases; flowers coming 

from the sides of the stems, 1/2 inch or less 

in diameter and dark red in color; tubercles not 

grooved —M. pottsii. 

40b. Centrals not conspicuously bulbous; flowers 

produced at the summit of the stem, an inch or 

more in diameter and clear lavender or very 

pale purplish in color without darker midlines 

—M. tuberculosa (in part). 

39b. Stems branching greatly into large masses, but each 

stem no more than 11/4 inches thick or 3 inches 

tall—41. 

41a. Radial spines 20 to 30, gray or straw-colored 

tipped with brown; centrals 5 to 10, 3/8 to 5/8 of 

an inch long and dark brown, red-brown, or 

black for most of their lengths; stigma lobes 

green —M. roberti. 

41b. Radial spines 24 to 85 and all white in color; 

centrals 6 to 22, 3/8 of an inch or less in length; 

stigma lobes white—42. 

42a. Radials 24 to 45 —M. sneedii. 

42b. Radials 40 to 85 —M. leei (in part). 

36b. Radial spines soft, flexible, and hairlike 

—M. multiceps. 

35b. Centrals absent; radials 40 to 80 in number, slender and 

bristle-like but rigid—43. 

43a. Spines pubescent under magnification —M. lasiacantha 

var. lasiacantha. 

43b. Spines smooth and naked under magnification 

—M. lasiacantha var. denudata. 

Mammillaria scheeri Muehlenpf. 

[Coryphantha scheeri Lem.; Coryphantha muehlenpfordtii 

(Poselgr.) B. & R.] 

“Long-Tubercled Coryphantha,” “Needle ‘Mulee’” 


stems: Spherical at first, becoming egg-shaped or somewhat 

conical when old. These stems grow to 9 inches tall by 51/2 

inches in diameter. They are usually single, but sometimes 

have one or two branches at the base. The surface is bright 

green or even yellowish-green. It is formed into large, rather 

soft, spreading tubercles. These arise from broad bases often 

3/4 of an inch or more across, becoming cylindrical above and 

reaching an over-all length of 3/4 to 11/2 inches. 

areoles: Monomorphic. When young the areoles are very 

woolly. Upon maturing they consist of a roundish spinous 

portion at the tip of the tubercle and a long, narrow, deep, 

groovelike portion running part or all of the way down the 

upper side of the tubercle. In the groove are often one or 

more brownish glands. 

spines: 8 to 16 stout to very stout radial spines radiating or 

slightly spreading outward. These are from 1/2 to about 11/4 

inches long, the lower ones the heaviest and longest. They 

are round and proceed from slightly bulbous bases. There are


also 1 to 5 central spines 3/4 to 11/2 inches long, stouter than 

the radials. One is very stout and stands porrect. This spine 

may be straight, curved downward slightly over its whole 

length, or in some individuals straight with a hooked tip. The 

other centrals are more nearly like the radials and spread upward 

in front of them. When growing, all spines are reddish 

or brownish with blackish tips. On some specimens they remain 

for a long time yellowish—especially the main central— 

but on others they very soon become ashy-gray. 

flowers: About 2 inches long and wide. Orange, bronze, or 

bronzy-yellow at first, darkening to reddish as they wilt. The 

outer perianth segments are lacerated and sometimes this effect 

on their edges approaches a true ciliated fringe. The 20 

or so inner segments are narrow below, widening to their 

broadest near the tips, which are often somewhat pointed and 

also toothed. The stamens are orange, the style short and 

with 6 to 10 yellowish or flesh-colored stigma lobes. 

fruits: Egg-shaped to almost club-shaped, 1 to 11/2 inches 

long. The surfaces are smooth. They remain greenish. The seeds 

are dark red-brown with shiny, smooth surfaces. They are 

about 1/8 of an inch long and are flattened ovate. 

Range. Extreme west Texas and the southern edge of New 

Mexico into Arizona and Chihuahua. Specifically, from the 

Pecos River near where it enters Texas to the Davis Mountains, 

Marfa, and Presidio, Texas, and west. In New Mexico apparent- 

ly not north of the Organ Mountains, but found from there west 

into Arizona. 

Remarks. This cactus was well described by Engelmann as a 

“stately plant.” It is the largest in bulk of the Mammillarias in 

our area. A fine old specimen actually gives more of an impression 

of a barrel cactus than of this group. But unless we are 

aware of the size which is attained by some of the Mammillarias 

in Mexico we may have an erroneous concept of the Mammillarias 

as all small, delicate cacti. It is fortunate that this large 

species enters our area to set things straight. 

However it is unfortunate that so few people see this fine 

cactus. Although it has quite a large range in the United States 

it is nowhere common. I have collected it numbers of times in 

widely distant places, but I have never seen a stand of this 

species, and, in fact, never collected more than one plant at any 

given location. The small number of specimens of this species in 

any dealer’s stock makes it seem likely that the plant nowhere 

grows in quantity. So it remains a little-known species highly 

prized by the cactophile who happens to possess one. 

Perhaps the scarcity of the plant has led students over the 

years to write about it from insufficient observation. Certainly, 

the naming of this species has been royally confused—with the 

confusion persisting right down to the present. 

Muehlenpfordt apparently started things off in 1847 by describing 

a Mexican plant and naming it Mammillaria scheeri. 

Unfortunately the type of his plant is unknown. When Engelmann 

studied the cacti of Texas and wrote up this cactus he was 

not at first sure that he had the same plant, but knew that he 

had something very similar, so he called the Texas plants M. 

scheeri var. valida. However, after he had seen Mexican specimens 

he became convinced that there was only one form involved 

and stated in “Corrections to the Cactaceae of the 

Boundary” that the variety agrees exactly with Mexican specimens 

of M. scheeri, and so seems to have withdrawn the idea 

of a separate variety. 

Even before this, however, in 1853, Poselger had redescribed 

the cactus as an Echinocactus. By an interesting coincidence he 

used the name of the original describer for it. Poselger’s name, 

therefore, came out Echinocactus muehlenpfordtii. This name 

Engelmann, Lemaire, Coulter—everyone in that century, and 

even Wooton and Standley in this—ignored. They all regarded 

the original name of M. scheeri as valid and used it. Lemaire 

very early split this cactus off from the Mammillarias as a Coryphantha, 

but even in doing this he called it Coryphantha scheeri. 

But when Britton and Rose made their big break with tradition 

they broke cleanly. They resurrected Poselger’s name (when 

he mistook the species for an Echinocactus) and rechristened 

the cactus Coryphantha muehlenpfordtii. This is therefore the 

name for the cactus which these great popularizers of the cacti 

have caused to be the most familiar in recent years. 

But the return of this species to the genus Mammillaria cannot 

be merely a shifting to Mammillaria muehlenpfordtii, since 

Forster, in 1847, used that name in a way that makes it a synonym 

for Mammillaria celsiana Lem., a Mexican species. We see 

no problem in returning to the first name of all, which was 

Mammillaria scheeri, but L. Benson did. He returned this species 

to its original genus, but in his 1950 work on Arizona cacti 

he chose to use still another obscure name for the species, a 

name which had been coined by Cory and which Marshall had 

mentioned. It was Coryphantha engelmannii, and Benson’s 

name for the plant, therefore, became Mammillaria engelmannii 

(Cory) Benson. The reason for this latest substitution may be the 

fact that the type of Muehlenpfordt’s M. scheeri is lost, but if 

we drop all original names for all species of which the type is 

lost, the roster of botanical names will be greatly altered. 

One may take his pick among all of these names and have the 

cactus as a memorial to any one of those early cactus students 

he wishes, but whichever name finally prevails, the plant is a 

large, beautiful, and proud cactus which must have a dry, sunny 

situation, but which if treated properly contributes a spate of 

remarkably beautiful flowers of a color unusual among the 

cacti. 

A closely related form is Mammillaria robustispina Schott. 

This is very well named, since it has the stoutest spines of any 

Mammillaria in the United States. Its spines actually equal those 

of many Echinocactus horizonthalonius specimens in thickness. 

Benson’s 1950 description of M. robustispina is so broad that 

some Texas specimens of M. scheeri could fit it, and Earle has 

recently fallen into this trap, combining it with our species as 

Coryphantha muehlenpfordtii var. robustispina. Benson’s dis-

Bodeker -> Boedeker 


tribution map of M. robustispina implies that its range enters 

New Mexico, and Earle states its distribution to include southwestern 

New Mexico. I do not know whether there has been a 

referral of some ordinary New Mexico M. scheeri specimens to 

this other form or not, but I do know that the real Mexican 

M. robustispina specimens which I have seen are very different 

from our cactus, and I can find no record of that form’s having 

been collected in New Mexico. 

Mammillaria scolymoides Scheidweiler 

[Coryphantha scolymoides (Scheidweiler) Boedeker] 


stems: Single, spherical to conical, and to at least 6 inches 

tall and 4 inches in diameter. The surface is deep bluish-green, 

with some grayish glaucescence. The tubercles are to 1 inch 

long, tapering from bases as wide as the length, firm, and 

overlapping upward. 

areoles: When mature the areoles are prolonged beyond the 

spinous part into deep grooves extending all the way to the 

bases of the tubercles. These grooves are bare except for a tuft 

of wool at the base of each, in the axil of the tubercle. 

spines: Radial spines 14 to 28 in number, 3/4 to 11/8 inches 

long, evenly radiating except at the top of the areole where 

they are so crowded together as to be bunched into a bundle. 

There are 1 to 4 heavy central spines, usually 3 of them turned 

upward and spreading in front of the upper bundle of radials 

and the lower one standing out conspicuously and 

curving downward from the middle of the areole. These centrals 

are all about 1 inch long. All spines are yellowish and 

hornlike when young, then gray with dark tips. 

flowers: About 2 inches long, clear yellow at first and later 

darkening to a reddish color, but not having a red center. The 

outer petals are short, pointed, with entire edges, and total 

about 20 in number. The inner petals are similar except longer, 

wider, and about 35 in number. The filaments are pinkish, 

the anthers pale orange-yellow. The stigma has 9 rough, yellowish 

lobes about 1/4 of an inch long. 

fruits: Not seen. They failed to develop during the four years 

that a number of the plants bloomed in my garden. 

Range. Some of the higher elevations of the Big Bend of Texas: 

most common in the Glass Mountains near Alpine. There was 

an early collection made near the lower Pecos River which was 

referred to this species. 

Remarks. This form has been a source of much confusion, and 

its position in the classification is still not settled, but it does 

appear as a definitely recognizable form separate from anything 

else found in Texas, and so must be listed here. Scheidweiler 

first described it in 1841 from specimens collected in 

Mexico, and Engelmann followed him. Then later a small plant 

was collected on the Pecos River in Texas which Engelmann 

classified as M. scolymoides. Coulter saw plants from various 

locations in Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico which he put 

under this name. Both Engelmann and Coulter, however, felt 

enough uncertainty about their classifications to suggest the 

possibility that their plant might be only a form of Mammillaria 

cornifera DC, a species which occurs in Mexico. Schumann 

relegated it to Mammillaria radians DC, another Mexican species. 

Britton and Rose took Engelmann’s and Coulter’s suggestions 

as certainty and merely listed it as a synonym of Coryphantha 

cornifera without describing it, so it is almost unknown 

since their time. This may be proper, or perhaps it may end up 

as Mammillaria cornifera var. scolymoides, but regardless of the 

name, this is a cactus which west Texas collectors are bound to 

find and wonder about. 

The cactus is fully as near to Mammillaria echinus as to any 

other species. Small specimens are almost indistinguishable from 

that cactus except for their longer and heavier spines and tubercles. 

Many have been distributed under that name. But anyone 

who has ever seen a large, mature specimen cannot but 

recognize the difference between them. M. scolymoides grows 

at least twice as large as M. echinus and in its prime is fully as 

tall and as impressive as M. scheeri, only remaining a little 

smaller in diameter than that species. In regard to maximum 

size, my description exceeds that of Engelmann, which has been 

the one copied by most other students, because Engelmann apparently 

saw only a small specimen and had no idea of the size 

it can attain. 

All specimens I have collected have come out of the Glass 

Mountains, a small range of mountains northeast of Alpine, 

Texas. Although I have seen many specimens in dealers’ stocks 

which apparently came from other mountains deeper in the Big 

Bend, I have been unable to trace them any more exactly, since 

they were brought out of these mountains by crews of laborers 

who roam these areas digging cacti for the trade. 

I have collected two specimens of this cactus which, although 

showing all the other characters of the species, lacked the central 

spines. One of them had been badly damaged and was recovering 

from a serious wound on one side. Later, under cultivation, 

both of them put on normal centrals on new growth. I 

believe, therefore, that this is an abnormal growth form reverting 

to the immature condition under bad situations. As such it 

would be parallel to the same sort of reversion which occurs in 

the species M. echinus and which was the basis for the supposed 

species M. pectinata. 

Mammillaria echinus Eng. 

[Coryphantha echinus (Eng.) B. & R.] 


stems: Usually spherical, but sometimes becoming egg-shaped


or conical when old. The plants almost always consist of 

single stems, but sometimes branch at the base when old to 

form small clumps of up to about 6 stems. These stems are 2 

to 3 inches tall when mature. They are covered with very 

firm, conical tubercles about 3/8 to 1/2 inch long, which turn 

upward and somewhat overlap those above them. 

areoles: At first nearly round, remaining so on some specimens 

until the plants are very large. But when matured normally 

the areoles of the plants are elongated by a groovelike 

extension which may extend only part of the way or all of 

the way to the base of the tubercle. The flower is produced 

from the end of this groove. There is white or brownish wool 

in the grooves at the tip of the plant where they are growing, 

but on the sides of the plant the grooves are bare except for 

a tuft of wool remaining at the base of each groove. 

spines: There are 16 to 30 radial spines growing around the 

edge of each areole. They are 3/8 to 1 inch long, and radiate 

evenly all around the areole except at the upper edge, where 

they are more numerous and bunched. They lie flat against 

the plant or even curve back toward the plant a little, interlocking 

with spines of neighboring areoles. They are slender, 

but very rigid, round or sometimes slightly flattened from 

side to side. When young they appear yellowish and partly 

translucent like the material of horn, and when old they become 

gray. They usually have black or dark brown tips. There 

are also 3 or 4 much thicker central spines growing from the 

center of the typical adult plant areole. These have enlarged 

bases, are round, and extend about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch in 

length, usually being gray with black tips; but a plant is occasionally 

found on which these centrals are black almost all 

the way to their bases. Two or three of these spines are turned 

upward so that they lie directly upon the upper radial spines. 

The lowest central spine always stands straight out from the 

center of the areole. It is thick and conspicuous, usually perfectly 

straight, but sometimes curves downward. Immature 

plants lack the central spines entirely, having only the radial 

spines, and sometimes poor growing conditions will keep a 

plant from growing centrals when it is otherwise mature. An 

injury or a reversal of good conditions will sometimes cause 

new growth on a typical plant to be without these centrals. 

flowers: At least 3 inches across and to 2 inches tall, the 

color a very clear sulphur yellow. The outer petals are narrow 

and brownish-green, with yellowish, smooth edges. The 20 to 

30 inner petals are about 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch wide, pointed, 

with the edges slightly ragged toward the tips. They are clear 

yellow in color. The filaments are rose-pink. The anthers are 

bright orange. The style is about the length of the stamens. 

The stigma is made up of 10 to 12 rough, cream-colored lobes 

about 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch long. 

fruits: Oval or egg-shaped, to nearly 1 inch long, light green 

in color. The remains of the flowers stay upon them. The seeds 

are dark brown, smooth surfaced, kidney-shaped, and about 

11/2 millimeters long. 

Range. An area of southwest Texas from near the mouth of the 

Pecos River up to about the level of Fort Stockton, and from 

there southwest into the mountains of the lower Big Bend area. 

I find no record of its occurrence west of Marfa, Texas. 

Remarks. This is a very common little cactus in a rather limited 

area of west Texas. It seems to be confined to the eastern part 

of the Big Bend. Early students collected it as far east as the 

lower Pecos River, but it seems not to have been seen that far 

east for many years. 

The cactus, when typical, sits as a small sphere or cone only 

2 or 3 inches high. Its spines cover it and enclose it completely. 

On each areole there is one heavy central spine up to 1 inch 

long standing straight out, perpendicular to the surface of the 

plant, or nearly so. This gives the cactus a striking resemblance 

to the Echinoderm called the sea urchin, and for this reason 

Engelmann gave it the name it bears. 

Early descriptions of the species always listed it as not clustering, 

but dealers have been bringing many specimens out of 

the more inaccessible mountains of the lower Big Bend where 

they must have better conditions, and these are sometimes 

branched around their bases to form small clusters of up to half 

a dozen heads. 

A hundred years ago, when Engelmann first studied these 

cacti, he described Mammillaria echinus very plainly. At the 

same time he also described another form identical in every way 

to this one, except having no central spines. He called this form 

M. pectinata, from the comblike appearance of the radial spines. 

From that time on there has been discussion by every student of 

these two forms, some stoutly maintaining them to be separate 

species and others trying to combine them as varieties. 

As a result of growing these cacti and observing them over a 

period of years, I have satisfied myself that the form called 

M. pectinata is only an immature or abnormal growth form of 

M. echinus, and that the names are, therefore, synonymous. Immature 

specimens of M. echinus under about 1 inch in diameter 

always lack central spines and are identical to M. pectinata in 

armament. Central spines normally appear gradually on new 

areoles of these plants as they grow past 11/2 inches or so in 

size. 

But what about larger specimens and even blooming specimens 

described by Engelmann as having no centrals, on which 

he based his M. pectinata? This sort of thing has been seen by 

any student who has looked over any number of these plants, 

since it is fairly common among them. But I have found that a 

normal M. echinus with large centrals can often be caused to 

put out new growth lacking centrals merely by inflicting an 

injury on it, or giving it poor growing conditions. For example, 

I have a plant which I bought from a dealer as M. pectinata. It 

had 3 spherical heads, each about 11/2 inches across, and on no 

areole was there a central spine. But upon looking closely I


could see that these three heads grew from a single short base. 

This was the remains of what had once been a large M. echinus 

which had suffered so severe an injury to its upper part that 

only this short section had been left. But it had unmistakably 

been M. echinus, since the old spines of it, when dug out from 

under the edges of the new growth, had a full set of centrals in 

each cluster. The new growth it had put out after its injury 

consisted of 3 perfect miniature heads with no centrals. Now, 

two years later, these new heads have reached a size where they 

are maturing, and the first centrals are showing up upon them, 

proving that when grown they will form a triple-headed M. 

echinus which has grown from the one form to the other twice 

in its lifetime. 

In confirmation of this, I have a specimen of typical M. echinus 

collected near Marathon, Texas. It has been growing in a 

pot for several years. Something in the transplanting or the lack 

of some necessary materials since has caused this one plant to 

put out growth entirely without centrals for the past two years. 

In other words, the base of this plant is now M. echinus and its 

summit is now M. pectinata. It has been blooming every year, 

proving that this growth without centrals, although typical of 

the immature, can also occur on mature, flowering plants. It 

seems obvious, then, that the two forms are one and the same 

cactus. 

Mammillaria sulcata Eng. 

[Coryphantha sulcata (Eng.) B. & R.] 

“Nipple Cactus,” “Finger Cactus,” “Pineapple Cactus” 


stems: Rapidly and densely clustering, new stems growing 

from the grooves on old tubercles around the base of the 

plant. Old plants are often masses several feet across, and 

made up of dozens of heads. Individual stems are spherical, 

usually with somewhat flattened tops, and often wider than 

tall. Mature stems will be 3 inches across and about 11/2 to 

3 inches tall. The surface is dark green and soft, divided into 

tubercles which are nearly cylindrical, the bases on old ones 

becoming somewhat broadened. They curve upward to overlap 

slightly on old specimens, but it is more common for them 

to stand out from each other. Because they are very soft, 

when the plant is shrunken from lack of water they often sag 

downward and give the plant an untidy, irregular appear- 

ance. Mature tubercles are to about 3/4 of an inch long. 

areoles: Practically round and very woolly at first and remaining 

so on immature growth. On mature growth they are 

elongated by the formation of groovelike extensions which 

reach to the axils of the tubercles. These grooves are filled 

with much white or yellowish wool when young, making the 

top of the plant woolly, but they are almost bare when old. 

spines: There are 8 to 15 radial spines 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch 

long, which radiate evenly from the edge of the areole. They 

are round and rather heavy, yellowish and partly translucent 

at first, then gray with black or dark red-brown tips. There 

may be no central spine, or to as many as 3 per areole, this 

much variation often being found on the same plant. If the 

central is single, it usually stands perpendicular to the stem. 

If two are present, one is usually perpendicular or turned a 

little downward, while the other is turned upward. When 

three are present the one is still in the perpendicular or downturning 

position, while the other two spread upward, sometimes 

almost against the upper radials. The centrals are the 

same length as the radials, but heavier. They are usually the 

same color, but on occasional plants they will be streaked 

with black almost to their bases on only the upper sides. 

flowers: 2 or 3 inches across and 1 to 2 inches tall. They 

vary from a greenish-yellow to a dark golden-yellow. The 

centers are usually very bright red, but on rare specimens this 

red is a paler brownish-red or even almost nonexistent. The 

outer petals are short and greenish with yellowish, smooth 

edges. There are 20 to 30 of them. The inner petals are long 

and rather narrow from narrow, red bases, the upper part 

being golden and the same width as the outer petals, tapering 

gradually to a definite point. The upper margins may be entire 

or sparingly ragged and toothed. There are about 25 inner 

petals. The filaments are bright red, except in the rare flowers 

almost without red, where they are greenish. The anthers are 

yellow. The style is equal in length to the stamens on some 

plants and somewhat longer on others, greenish, and ending 

in 7 to 10 yellow, greenish-yellow, or cream-colored lobes. 

fruits: Oblong, green, about 3/4 of an inch long. The seeds 

are light brown, about 1/16 of an inch (11/2 millimeters) long, 

with the surface pitted. 

Range. South-central Texas within a triangle the points of 

which lie just north of Houston on the east, near Fort Worth 

on the north, and near the Pecos River on the west. 

Remarks. This cactus does not present any striking form of 

growth. Its stems are not large, and even the old clumps which 

may be up to two feet or more across are low, uneven clusters 

presenting no particular beauty of appearance. It likes to grow 

under the junipers, oaks, and brush plants of the limestone hills 

at the edge of the Edwards Plateau. It is rarely found in the 

more open country farther north, but there are a few records 

of its having been collected to near Fort Worth. It apparently 

never grows on the coastal plain or in deep south Texas. 

If undistinguished ordinarily, this cactus shows its beauty 

when it blooms. Its flowers are large and usually of a satiny, 

golden color unmatched by any other species I have ever seen. 

With the red centers and sheaves of red filaments these make 

some of the finest blooms on any of our cacti. 

Very rarely one comes across a plant of M. sulcata which has 

a more greenish-yellow flower with the red center almost com-


pletely lacking and only represented by a faint brownish-red 

shading at the very base of the petals. I believe that this is the 

cactus which was at hand when early students described it first 

as Mammillaria similis robustior Eng., later as M. wissmannii 

Hild., and still later as Neobesseya wissmannii (Hild.) B. & R. 

I therefore present the probability that these names are all synonyms 

of M. sulcata. See the discussion under Mammillaria si- 

milis for my reasons for this suggestion. 

The beauty of its flowers, together with the fact that it is 

not strictly a desert species, should make this cactus the logical 

choice for dish gardens and windowsill growing. It does not rot 

so easily as most, and so can stand much more water in the soil 

and humidity in the air. If given a limestone soil it should do 

well and bloom in almost any situation. 

After giving this cactus the name M. sulcata in his original 

description, Engelmann later renamed it M. calcarata, but it 

must be called by its earliest name. 

Mammillaria ramillosa (Cutak) 

[Coryphantha ramillosa Cutak] 


roots: Entirely fibrous. 

stems: Single or very sparingly clustering, to 31/2 inches in 

diameter, spherical or nearly so. The tubercles are about 3/4 of 

an inch long, tapering from very much flattened bases which 

are wider than the tubercles are tall. These tubercles are firm, 

are arranged regularly, and overlap upward very much. The 

color is dark green. 

areoles: Monomorphic, becoming linear and extending as 

grooves to the axils of the tubercles. Woolly at first, but bare 

when mature except for a small tuft of wool at the end of 

each groove in the axil of the tubercle. 

spines: There are 14 to 20 slender radial spines 3/8 to about 

1 inch long. They radiate evenly around the areole, are flattened, 

usually curving and twisted, and gray in color, often 

with darker tips. There are 4 central spines which are also 

slender, but which are round, 1 to 15/8 inches long, gray mottled 

with brown, and spreading and curving in all directions. 

The radials are pinkish when growing and the centrals winecolored. 

flowers: Varying from pale pink to deep rose-purple in color. 

They are about 21/2 inches long and 2 inches wide, often unable 

to open so fully because of the long spines around them. 

The outer petals vary from small, green scales on the flower 

tube to greenish-purple, linear, unfringed segments. The inner 

petals are about 1 inch long and to 3/16 of an inch wide, the 

lower half white, while the upper half is pink to rose-purple. 

The filaments are white, the anthers pale orange. The style is 

about the length of the stamens. There are 6 or 7 stigma lobes 

1/8 to 1/4 of an inch long. 

fruits: 3/4 to 1 inch long, oval or egg-shaped, green, covered 

with minute white or silvery, hairlike scales which give them 

a silvery sheen. The old flower parts remain upon them. The 

seeds are brown, less than 1/16 of an inch (1 millimeter) long, 

very broad above with flattened sides below and a long, nar- 

row point of attachment toward the end of the ventral side. 

Range. The southeastern corner of Brewster County, Texas, 

from near the Stillwell Ranch along the Rio Grande to below 

Sanderson, Texas. Also found in a very small area close to the 

Rio Grande within the Big Bend National Park, just down- 

stream from Mariscal Canyon. 

Remarks: This cactus presents a dilemma to those who would 

subdivide the genus. By all of its vegetative characters it is a 

relative of the large, yellow-flowered Mammillarias just listed, 

which are often called Coryphanthas, yet its large flower is 

definitely purplish and reminds one of Mammillaria macromeris, 

which is placed by Backeberg in a separate genus, Lepidocoryphantha. 

Most have been inclined to regard it as a closer 

relative of the latter cactus, but if two separate genera are made 

here, this cactus will hardly fit into either of them: the purple 

flower looks odd in the one and the plant lacks the fringed 

sepals and the taproot of the other. When one recalls that the 

yellow-flowered Mammillaria scheeri of the first group has 

more or less fringed sepals anyway, the only conclusion seems 

to be that any division on the basis of fringed or entire sepals or 

of flower color is certainly less than generic in significance. 

M. ramillosa is distinguished from the purple-flowered M. 

macromeris, which grows close by it, by the facts that M. ramillosa 

forms firm, compact, spherical, squatty stems, while 

M. macromeris is more cylindrical in shape, with longer, looser, 

flabbier tubercles. The spines of the former are more slender, 

especially the round centrals. It has only small fibrous roots, 

instead of the large taproot of the other, and never forms the 

large carpets of plants which that other species does, even in 

its most favorable locations. Most specimens I have seen of 

M. ramillosa have been single stems, but sometimes it clusters 

sparingly. 

The significance of the minute hairs on the fruit surface has 

not been determined. The fruit was not seen by the original describer, 

and so far as I know these hairs have not been noticed 

before. They are too tiny to be easily visible to the naked eye 

except by the silvery sheen they impart to the whole surface of 

the fruit. They are, however, so numerous that the surface of the 

fruit approaches the condition described as being hirsute. I have 

seen such a covering of hairs on no other cactus fruit. Because 

they are so tiny I find it hard to think of them as scales or hairs 

in the same sense as those on the fruits of the Echinocacti. If 

one did equate them with those this would open up a whole 

new realm of speculation for the theorists. 

M. ramillosa was discovered in 1936 by Mr. A. R. Davis, a


great collector of the Big Bend cacti. It was described by Ladislaus 

Cutak in 1942. It grows on the limestone hills along the 

Maravillas and Reagan canyons of southeastern Brewster County 

and along a few other smaller canyons farther east. This is 

very inaccessible territory, and very few of the cacti have been 

brought out, so that the plant is almost unknown even today. It 

can be most easily seen in a small location in the Big Bend 

National Park where it is fortunately protected. This seems to 

represent a second location for the plant and is perhaps the 

second and discontinuous range mentioned by Davis. 

The cactus is a rather attractive one, presenting a tidy and 

symmetrical growth. Its slender spines, however, are extremely 

untidy, curving and spreading at all angles, and making it look 

much like a bunch of dead, gray grass stems, which must be its 

particular form of camouflage. 

Mammillaria macromeris Eng. 

[Coryphantha macromeris (Eng.) Lem.] 

“Long Mamma” 


roots: Adult plants have long, fleshy taproots. 

stems: Usually short columns to about 4 inches tall, but 

sometimes to 8 inches; to about 3 inches thick. These stems 

may remain single, but usually cluster by the formation of 

new stems from the grooves on the lower tubercles. The clusters 

often form flat mats of stems, but occasionally round 

up to form hemispherical mounds. Seeds often germinate and 

grow close around the bases of mature plants. This, with the 

branching, sometimes produces masses of the plants up to sev- 

eral feet across. The stems are made up of very soft, flabby, 

long tubercles, arranged regularly and standing upright at the 

top of the stem, but usually flattened and either curving upward 

or curving and standing out at various angles on the 

sides of the stems. These tubercles are 3/4 to 11/2 inches long, 

cylindrical, and dark green in color. 

areoles: Each tubercle on an adult plant is grooved with a 

deep groove which usually runs about halfway down the tubercle 

length, but sometimes goes all the way to the axil. This 

groove is almost entirely bare when old, but has a little short 

white wool in it when young. It is the linear extension of the 

areole forward from the spinous portion, and the flowers, or 

lower on the stem the new shoots, arise from within this 

groove. 

spines: There are 10 to 18 slender radial spines. They are 5/8 

to 2 inches long, the upper ones tending to be the longer ones. 

They are gray in color, sometimes mottled with pale brown. 

They are flattened and ridged and usually twisted and curved. 

There are also 2 to 8 heavier central spines on mature 

plants, these 1 to 21/4 inches long, spreading in all directions 

from the center of the areole. They are mottled brown, dark 

brown, purplish, or black. They grow angled and often 

ridged, either straight or twisted and curved, from bulbous 

bases. 

flowers: Light purple or pinkish in color, 2 inches tall and 

wide. These flowers would usually open wider if they were 

not prevented from opening fully by the long spines around 

them. The green ovary has several white-edged, fringed scales 

upon it. The 20 to 30 outer petals are short, narrow, and 

greenish-brown with pink, fringed edges. The 20 to 25 inner 

petals are about 11/4 inches long and 3/16 of an inch wide, the 

midlines deep pink and the edges almost white. These edges 

are rough and often fringed, and the ends, while pointed, are 

also toothed and notched. The filaments are rose-colored, the 

anthers pale orange. The style is a little longer than the stamens. 

The stigma has 7 to 10 rough, white lobes about 3/16 of 

an inch long. These lobes are slender, and each has a smooth, 

pinkish point like a soft spine on the end. 

fruits: Almost round or broadly egg-shaped, 5/8 to 1 inch 

long, greenish in color. The seeds are practically spherical, 

light brown in color, and smooth. 

Range. Southern New Mexico into Mexico and southeast along 

the Rio Grande in Texas to Rio Grande City. 

Remarks. This cactus is very common around Las Cruces, New 

Mexico, and is easily found around Presidio, Texas. Otherwise 

it occurs sporadically over a large area, including the area 

along the course of the Rio Grande where it becomes rather 

common again as far as Rio Grande City, Texas. It grows on 

the stony crests and sides of low hills, where it is almost always 

found under the light shade of shrubs and trees. In such places 

it sometimes forms mats of closely standing plants extending 

over a number of square feet. 

M. macromeris is remarkable for its long, soft, loosely standing 

tubercles. These, however, give it a rather untidy appearance, 

just the opposite of the neat, symmetrical body we admire 

in most cacti, and cause it to be less of a favorite with cactus 

fanciers than some others. It does have a beautiful flower, how- 

ever, and can be a very fine pot plant. 

This cactus shares with many others the habit of budding new 

stems from the grooves of old tubercles. There is nothing unusual 

about this, since the vegetative meristem is in these monomorphic 

areoles located at or near the end of this elongated 

areole. But the grooves usually extend only halfway or so down 

the long tubercles in this plant, and the new little stems appear 

quite out of place bursting out of the grooves only a short distance 

below the ends of the tubercles instead of out of the axils. 

There have been attempts to make much of this peculiarity, even 

to using it to set this species off in its own new genus, this 

called by Backeberg genus Lepidocoryphantha. But sober reflection 

makes it seem obvious that this is no really essential 

difference from any of the other Mammillarias having monomorphic 

areoles. In fact, Mammillaria sulcata sometimes has


similarly short areoles and in this case branches in the same 

way. 

There have been described some varieties of M. macromeris, 

but the cactus is very variable, and it is hard to separate forms 

exactly. Specimens with light central spines, longer and straighter 

than the average, seem to be the basis for the variety longispina 

of Schelle, and specimens with black or very dark, shorter, 

and more twisted and curved centrals may be his variety nigrispina, 

but they both grow together, and the differences seem of 

doubtful significance. The plants do seem to become smaller in 

their maximum size in the eastern part of their range, and also 

to average fewer centrals than those farther west, but the flowers 

are identical, and no varieties have been set up for this 

difference. 

Engelmann stated that Mammillaria dactylothele Labouret 

was a variety of this species, but Britton and Rose consider it a 

synonym. 

M. macromeris will grow very well if given perfect drainage 

and enough heat and sunlight. It blooms well when healthy, but 

one should remember that it needs room to develop its long taproot, 

so will not do well in a shallow pot. When specimens are 

collected the long roots are often broken off, as they grow deep 

into very hard and rocky soil. The plants may live after this, 

but will usually sit without growing or flowering for years until 

they can replace their taproots. This is why large plants of this 

species are often so disappointing in performance after being 

brought in. 

Mammillaria runyonii (B. & R.) 

[Coryphantha runyonii B. & R.] 

“Runyon’s Coryphantha,” “Dumpling Cactus” 


roots: Having a large, succulent, carrot-shaped taproot. 

stems: Highly caespitose by producing many irregularly sized 

and shaped stems from the top of the taproot, the whole mass 

of these stems sometimes up to 18 inches or more across. The 

tubercles are so irregularly arranged on most specimens that 

one can hardly speak of separate stems at all, but on other 

plants the mass of tubercles is divided roughly into irregular 

heads up to about 2 inches tall and 11/2 inches thick. The 

tubercles, which stand at almost any angle, vary in size on 

the same plant, but most of them are around 3/8 of an inch 

long with the maximum being about 3/4 of an inch long. They 

are very soft, tapering from very broad bases which are 

often wider than the tubercle is long. 

areoles: The spinous portion of the areole is small and practically 

circular, but the mature areole is prolonged from this 

in the form of a groove running about halfway down the 

tubercle, but never to the axil. The flower is produced from 

the end of this short groove which is naked after completion. 

spines: Usually there are 6 to 11 radial spines, but there is a 

tendency for some individuals to produce very many very 

small tubercles, each having as few as 3 radials. The radials 

are usually 1/4 to 1/2 inch long, but may occasionally grow to 

1 inch long. They are evenly spaced around the areole, are 

straight and round, and yellowish in color at first, then turning 

gray. There may be 1 to 4 straight, round central spines 

3/4 to 2 inches long, which spread in all directions from the 

center of the areole. These are gray mottled with brown. 

flowers: Purplish or rose-pink, 13/4 inches tall and 2 inches 

in diameter, opening widely, the petals sometimes even recurving. 

The outer petals are greenish or purplish, covered 

and fringed with white hairs. The inner petals are about 3/16 

of an inch wide, long and pointed, the edges smooth except 

for being somewhat toothed toward the tips. The filaments 

are pinkish, the anthers pale orange. The style is a little longer 

than the stamens, and pale pink. The stigma has 6 to 10 lobes 

which are white, 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch long, fairly thick, and 

not pointed. 

fruits: Green, 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch long, oval. The seeds are 

brown. 

Range. The lower Rio Grande Valley from near Roma, Texas, 

to near Brownsville, and into adjacent Mexico. 

Remarks. This is probably the most untidy and ill-organized 

of all cacti with normal growth. It sometimes takes on the appearance 

of a cristate or monstrous growth. Assuming that it 

starts from a single stem, branching must occur very quickly, 

since I have never seen a plant so small that it was not already 

a cluster of tiny heads. These heads branch so fast and so irregularly 

that it is typical for the larger plants to present a completely 

disorganized mass of small tubercles at all angles. The 

whole thing is very low to the ground, not over 2 or 3 inches 

high, but may be quite broad. Mr. Runyon, its discoverer, said 

that a large plant, with its fleshy root, might weigh 50 pounds. 

One should hardly look for such huge specimens now, however, 

as all of these old clumps seem to have been uprooted long ago, 

and one should be thrilled to find any specimen over 6 inches 

in diameter today. 

M. runyonii grows on gravelly hillsides overlooking the Rio 

Grande, and to a few miles north of the river. It may have 

grown in the lower flats of the valley also, but very little of the 

valley proper is still uncultivated, so its locations are now few 

and far between. It always prefers partial shade, and will not 

do well in full sun. 

The plant was first described by Britton and Rose after their 

break-up of the genus Mammillaria, so it has been almost universally 

known as Coryphantha runyonii. 

In 1934 Werdermann described a Coryphantha pirtlei found 

in Starr County, Texas. The description of that plant does not 

present any character which lies outside the descriptions already 

given for M. runyonii or which would enable one to distinguish 

it from that species, except that his plant was said to occur


sometimes as a single stem. Starr County is the area where M. 

runyonii is most common, and I have not been able to find there 

any specimens which I could separate from the rest of the population 

and designate as a separate form. At the same time I 

must admit that I have not found there any individual with a 

single stem. Since M. runyonii is rather variable, I am inclined 

to consider this name as a synonym, or at best a possible variety 

of M. runyonii, but there can be no certainty about the plant 

until it is re-collected. 

Mammillaria similis Eng. 

[Neobesseya similis (Eng.) B. & R.] 

“Nipple Cactus” 



stems: Occasionally growing individually, but usually clustering, 

often to form large, irregular masses up to a foot or 

more across when old. Each stem is spherical, usually wider 

than it is tall, growing up to 4 inches in diameter, but the 

average being 2 or 3 inches. The stem is covered by tubercles 

up to 7/8 of an inch long on large plants. These are cylindrical 

on the upper part of the plant, but the older ones on the 

sides of the stem become somewhat flattened and overlap up- 

ward a little. 

areoles: On immature plants round or oval. On mature 

growth each tubercle is deeply grooved its whole length on 

the upper side with a groove which is an extension of the 

areole into or nearly to the axil. The whole areole is at first 

filled with white wool, but it later becomes bare except for a 

tuft which persists at the base of the groove in the axil, where 

the vegetative meristem is. 

spines: There are 10 to 17 slender radial spines. They vary in 

length with the size and age of the plant, from 1/8 to 1/2 inch 

long. They are fairly equal on any one areole, except that the 

1 or 2 uppermost ones are usually much more slender than 

the others. There is often no central spine, but about as often 

there is one central which is very slightly longer and heavier 

than the radials. It either stands straight out, perpendicular 

to the plant surface, or else is turned upward sharply in front 

of the upper radials. All of the spines are gray to white, sometimes 

with brown tips, and when young are covered with tiny 

white hairs or scales only visible under a magnifying glass, 

but these hairs are soon worn off and the spines then often 

appear smooth, yellowish, and hornlike. 

flowers: 1 to 2 inches tall and the same in diameter, with 

very narrow, linear, sharply pointed petals. The color of these 

flowers varies from plant to plant from greenish, bronze, 

gold, gold streaked with pink, or pale, almost clear yellow. 

Most commonly all of these shades are mixed in the same 

flower. There are 15 to 20 outer petals which are greenish 

with fringed, yellowish or whitish edges. There are 20 to 25 

inner petals which are even narrower than the outer, about 

1/8 of an inch wide near their bases and tapering very gradually 

to a sharp point. These are clear yellow, gold, chartreuse, 

or bronze, often with pinkish midlines, and with unfringed, 

smooth edges. The filaments may be white, light green, or 

yellow. The anthers may be yellow or pale orange. The style 

is very much longer than the stamens and green or yellowish 

in color. The stigma has 4 to 6 green or yellowish lobes, which 

are 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch long and which in some plants are 

slender and smooth, while in others they are thicker and 

rough. 

fruits: Spherical to oval in shape, 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch long. 

They remain green and below the spines of the plant between 

the tubercles for nearly a year. The second spring they turn 

bright scarlet. They then remain where they are and shrivel 

and harden unless plucked out from their protected places by 

birds or animals. The seeds are approximately 1/16 of an inch 

(11/2 to over 2 millimeters) across, are almost spherical in 

shape, and black in color, with pitted surfaces. 

Range. Generally, Kansas and eastern Colorado south through 

Oklahoma and north Texas to near San Antonio. More specifically, 

I have found records of this form’s occurrence in a long 

but narrow belt from south-central Kansas through central 

Oklahoma into Texas, including the Dallas and Fort Worth area 

and on down to near San Antonio and Columbus. I find no 

record of it west of a line from San Antonio to approximately 

Oklahoma City, and must regard the Colorado specimens as 

either an isolated population or else an extension of the Mon- 

tana and Idaho population, which is a form separate from ours. 

Remarks. As most people have met with this cactus, it is a small, 

irregular clump of spherical stems producing flowers with narrow, 

sharp-pointed petals of a curious greenish-yellow color 

often striped with browns and pinks. It has appealed mostly as 

a curiosity, growing in areas where few if any other cacti are 

found. Only a few people have seen it in its glory, an old clump 

a foot or more across, made up of dozens of little heads, and 

covered with 20 or 30 flowers in its blooming period. When 

seen this way it is recognized as a beautiful cactus to be cherished. 

The cactus grows equally well in loamy places on the central 

plains or on calcareous hilltops. It does not like the full sun in 

the summer, shrinking up and even dying when totally unshaded. 

In its native habitat it is shaded just enough by the prairie 

grass growing over it on the plains and by shrubs and brush on 

the hills. It is much more tolerant of moisture than most cacti, 

but will still rot quickly if placed in poorly drained, heavy soil. 

It is rather common in the hills on all sides of Austin, Texas, 

and is met with occasionally in a band of territory about 100 

miles or so wide which includes Waco, Fort Worth, and Dallas, 

Texas. It may be found, but is not at all common, north of this 

in a band of about the same width through central Oklahoma,


until it becomes rather common again between Ponca City and 

Tulsa, Oklahoma. From there north rare populations have been 

found in Kansas, mostly near the Arkansas River and below 

Hutchinson, Kansas. I find no record of it north of this. 

There has been much confusion about Mammillaria similis 

from the beginning, and it is not all cleared up even today. The 

first cactus of this sort described was a plant from the upper 

Missouri River area. It was described very briefly by Nuttall in 

1818, called Cactus mammillaris. In 1827 Sweet renamed this 

plant Mammillaria missouriensis. 

In 1849 Engelmann secured this plant from Fort Pierre on 

the upper Missouri, which is near Pierre, South Dakota. He also 

felt it necessary to rename the cactus, and called it Mammillaria 

nuttallii, after its discoverer. But Engelmann already had a very 

similar cactus discovered in central Texas. In 1845 he had named 

this Texas cactus Mammillaria similis. So we have had from this 

early time two forms, one commonly known as M. missouriensis 

(Engelmann’s M. nuttallii), discovered in the far north, and the 

other, M. similis, found deep in central Texas. No doubt every 

serious cactus student has struggled with these two, with the 

questions of whether they are different or not, how they are 

related, and what to call them. 

We must credit Engelmann with wrestling with these problems 

himself. By 1856 he had studied many more specimens 

from wide areas, and by then he must have concluded that these 

two forms were very close to each other, for he came up with a 

new naming system for them. The northern M. missouriensis he 

now called M. nuttallii var. borealis, and said that it grew from 

Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, western Kansas, and 

eastern Colorado. The southern M. similis he now called M. nuttallii 

var. caespitosa, ranging, he said, from the Kansas River to 

New Braunfels, Texas. The point is that he made them varieties 

of the same species. 

From this time on some chose to call them two separate species 

and some to call them varieties of the same species, while at 

the same time placing them in almost every conceivable genus. 

The result was that Poselger in 1853 used for our Texas form 

the name Echinocactus similis; Small in 1903 used Cactus similis; 

Britton and Rose in 1913 and again in 1921, Schulz in 1930, 

and Backeberg in 1960 used Neobesseya similis; while Watson 

in 1878 used Mammillaria missouriensis var. caespitosa; Coulter 

in 1896 used Cactus missouriensis var. similis; and Schumann in 

1898 used Mammillaria missouriensis var. similis. Whether it is 

correct to place this form as a separate species or as a variety of 

the other form seems impossible to state categorically even today. 

I list it here as a separate species, mostly because the recent 

studies have been rather consistent in doing this, but I summarize 

the actual known differences between the two so that the 

reader may come to his own decision. 

There is no actual difference of stems or tubercles between the 

two except that the southern M. similis usually grows to a larger 

maximum size, but this may well be due to the better growing 

seasons in the south. The spines are essentially the same in num- 

ber and character in both, except that, once again, the maximum 

length is slightly greater in the southern form. The flower diameter 

and length of the northern M. missouriensis is about 1 inch, 

while M. similis flowers vary from 1 inch across and long in its 

extreme upper range in Oklahoma and Kansas to 2 inches in 

central Texas, with climate seeming definitely to make the difference, 

since plants from Kansas brought to San Antonio and 

grown in my collection doubled the size of their flowers the 

second year. 

One flower character is given as definitely different in the 

two forms. M. missouriensis is stated to have 2 to 5 stigma lobes 

which are very short, about 1/12 to 1/20 of an inch long, while 

M. similis has 4 to 6 lobes 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch long. This does 

not seem to be influenced by environment. The size of seeds, 

which are only about one-half as big in the former as the latter, 

also seems significant. But these things are about all that can be 

definitely given to divide them—a fact which leaves them so 

close that a good case can be made for calling them mere vari- 

eties of the same species. 

Anyone collecting in the Southwest need not worry about 

distinguishing between the two, however, as it seems certain 

that the northern form does not come into Oklahoma or Texas. 

From southern Kansas down all of them appear to be the same 

southern M. similis. 

Most books repeat the listing, as either a variety of this species 

or as a closely related separate species, of a cactus which I 

do not believe exists as a separate form at all. Engelmann first 

described this most doubtful form as a variety, Mammillaria 

similis var. robustior, and then later as M. nuttallii var. robustior. 

Others, such as Watson and Coulter, followed him in this, 

calling it M. missouriensis var. robustior, but did it on the 

strength of nothing more than Engelmann’s preserved specimens, 

which were collected in 1845 and 1847 by Lindheimer and by 

Bigelow. In 1898 Hildmann elevated it to a species for the first 

time, calling it Mammillaria wissmannü. Everyone has followed 

him since then, and the species is listed in all the books on the 

Texas area, although most of the authors have failed to collect the 

plant and have merely followed Britton and Rose, who copied 

the earlier description by Engelmann, reproduced a drawing 

said to be of the form from Blühende Kakteen, and called the 

cactus a Neobesseya. The only new material on this cactus since 

Engelmann’s time is a photograph in Backeberg’s 1960 work 

purported to be of the plant and credited to Thiele. 

Over a period of years I have searched for this cactus throughout 

central Texas, where it is supposed to be found. I have not 

been alone, as a perennial project of most Texas cactophiles is 

the unending search for the “yellow-flowered Neobesseya” having 

the large flowers with the unfringed outer petals. I have 

followed many leads, only to find everything M. similis with 

the smaller flower having the fringed outer petals and fewer 

stigma lobes than M. wissmannii is supposed to have. I have 

never found, nor do I know of any collector who has found the 

Neobesseya with the gold-yellow flowers having 7 or 8 stigma


lobes and unfringed outer perianth segments, although I have 

seen many specimens of typical M. similis called this. 

I had puzzled over this situation for a long time, when I was 

shown some plants of M. sulcata from near Kerrville, Texas, 

which were not quite typical. The flowers on these specimens 

were more greenish-yellow than the pinard-yellow I had seen 

before in that species, and the red of the center was almost entirely 

lacking, only represented by a faint brownish stain in the 

very center of the flower. Their collector gave me an idea when 

he speculated that he had in them a cross between M. sulcata 

and M. similis. This I doubt. They were quite clearly M. sulcata, 

but his speculation presented a new possibility, which I entertain 

reluctantly, but which I cannot ignore. It seems highly 

likely that all of the M. similis var. robustior or M. wissmannii 

found by Lindheimer and Bigelow in this same area and described 

by Engelmann were really only these somewhat atypical 

M. sulcata, lacking or nearly lacking the red centers in the 

flowers. 

In support of this theory it should be noted that the size and 

shape of the two are the same, the number and size of the radial 

spines fall within the same range, and the 0 to 3 centrals are the 

same in all respects in both. Add to this the gold-yellow color 

of the flower which is stressed for both, the unfringed petals 

and 7 or 8 stigmas described for both, and the case could easily 

be considered closed. Another remarkable coincidence is that 

M. wissmannii is expressly stated to sprout new stems from the 

grooves of old tubercles, a character which is very striking in 

M. sulcata but not noticeable in M. similis. 

I can cite no clear-cut differences noted so far which could 

separate M. wissmannii from M. sulcata. The fruit character 

should do this, since, if M. wissmannii is so closely related to 

M. similis, its fruit would be red, while the other’s fruit stays 

green. But there has never been a description of the color of the 

fruit on M. wissmannii, so we can settle nothing there. The seeds 

of the two are both described, however, but are practically the 

same size. Since those of M. wissmannii are merely described as 

“dark,” we cannot know whether they were actually black like 

those of M. similis or dark brown like those of M. sulcata. 

In short, I can find no proof that anyone has ever seen anything 

other than some M. sulcata in which the red was lacking 

in the flower, and which were, therefore, thought to be another 

cactus. When I put the specimens preserved in the United States 

National Museum under the name Neobesseya wissmannii side 

by side with specimens of M. sulcata I could not separate them 

by any character showing in the preserved state. Since the range 

in which the two plants are supposed to grow is practically the 

same, the evidence seems to point to the assumption that they 

are one and the same. This would make Mammillaria (Neolloydia) 

wissmannii merely a synonym of M. sulcata. It should at 

least clear up the situation for collectors, in whose gardens I 

have so many times seen the more brightly yellow-flowered 

specimens of M. similis arbitrarily labeled M. wissmannii merely 

because no one can find anything else to bear this label. 

M. similis is an eastern cactus, not strictly a desert habitant. 

It is, therefore, much better suited to the ordinary cactus collection 

or window garden than most. It also has the fine feature 

of being able to take most ordinary winter temperatures over a 

wide area of the U. S. without protection, so long as it is growing 

in a well-drained situation. It is probably the best cactus to 

be grown by the amateur who does not want to bother with the 

intricacies of cactus culture. 

Mammillaria rosiflora (Lahman) 

[Neobesseya rosiflora Lahman] 

Description 

stems: Identical to those of M. similis except reaching a maxi- 

mum of only about 23/4 inches across and clustering more 

sparingly to form only small clumps. 

spines: There are 13 to 16 radial spines to 5/16 of an inch long, 

equal around the areole except for the uppermost 2 of them, 

which are very short and so slender as to be almost bristlelike. 

They are gray with brown tips, and have minute white 

hairs on the spines when they are young. There is apparently 

always one central spine which is about 1/4 of an inch long 

and turned upward. 

flowers: About 11/2 inches across and tall. They are a pure 

pink, without the stripes and zones of various colors found in 

the flowers of the plant’s relatives. The outer petals are narrow, 

but thick and fleshy, and they are not fringed. The inner 

petals are so narrow as to be almost threadlike. They are very 

weak and limp, spreading and bending in all directions. The 

filaments are deep pink, the anthers yellow. The stigma has 

4 to 6 white lobes. 

fruits: Round to egg-shaped, crimson, 3/8 of an inch long. 

The seeds are almost circular, black, pitted on the surface, 

and less than 1/16 of an inch (11/2 millimeters) long. 

Range. Known only from an area about 80 miles long from 

near Tulsa to near Ponca City, Oklahoma. 

Remarks. This form was discovered by Mrs. Marion Sherwood 

Lahman, a great student of Oklahoma cacti, and described by 

her in 1939. She found it in only one location, a prairie just 

west of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Professors Blauch and Gatewood of 

Oklahoma State University collected it again near Ponca City, 

Oklahoma, in 1962, and graciously supplied me with information 

about it, as well as with a cutting of the plant. I am very 

sorry to admit that what ability I may possess at cacti culture 

failed me in this case. I was unable to grow my cutting to blooming 

stage, or even long enough to secure an adequate photograph 

of it. I find no recorded collection of it between Tulsa and Ponca 

City, but it must be assumed that it grows as a rare form in the 

area. 

There is hardly enough information concerning this cactus to


decide definitely its relationships to other species. In both instances 

mentioned above there were found numerous plants of 

M. similis growing within a matter of feet of the M. rosiflora 

specimens. No character of plant body or growth has been 

found to distinguish the two. Without the flowers one cannot 

segregate them at all, but M. rosiflora has flowers of clear pink, 

unadulterated by any other colors, with extremely narrow, 

weak, entirely unfringed petals, which set it apart when in 

bloom from even the pinkish-flowered M. similis, with its petals 

striped and streaked with browns, grays, greens, or yellows, and 

its outer segments fringed. The flowers of M. rosiflora are strikingly 

beautiful, about the same shade of pink as a typical flower 

on Echinocactus texensis. They remind one somewhat of those 

of Mammillaria vivipara, but there seems no close relationship 

here. The same peculiarities of flower which set this form apart 

from M. similis also set it apart very clearly from the pinkish- 

flowered populations of M. missouriensis found in Montana and 

called by Britton and Rose Neobesseya notesteinii. 

It will be a worth-while achievement when someone can again 

locate and collect this very rare form so that more may be learned 

about it. Unfortunately a very large proportion of the flat 

prairies of Oklahoma where it is found have been turned to 

cultivation, reducing greatly the chances that this cactus will get 

adequate study. 

Mammillaria vivipara (Nutt.) Haw. 

“Spiny Star,” “Ball Cactus,” “Pincushion” 

Description Plates 31, 32, 33 

stems: Spherical to columnar and single to greatly clustering 

by offset heads from around the base. Individual stems measure 

from about 2 to at least 5 inches tall and wide. The surface 

is deep green in color and is divided into many cylindrical 

or tapering tubercles which are regularly arranged and 

spreading or slightly overlapping upward. 

areoles: Round or nearly so on immature plants, but the 

upper part of the areole elongated on mature plants into a 

narrow groove running from the spinous portion of the areole 

at the tip of the tubercle to the reproductive part in the 

axil of the tubercle. When young these areoles are filled with 

much white or yellowish wool, but when old, on the sides of 

the stems, the wool is usually worn off and they are bare. 

spines: Various forms have from 12 to at least 60 radial 

spines. These are slender, straight, radiating rather evenly 

around the areole. They are firm, 3/8 to about 1 inch long, 

white, white-tipped dark, or grayish with brown tips. There 

are also 3 to 12 central spines which are straight, spreading, 

rather slender to medium in thickness and 1/4 to 11/4 inches 

long. These centrals are from whitish or yellowish with dark 

tips through mottled brown to partly or completely dark 

brown or purplish-black. 

flowers: Purple, violet, or rose, usually very bright in color, 

but one form has pale purplish coloring. From about I to 21/4 

inches in length and diameter. The perianth segments are 

lance-shaped to linear, the outer ones greenish and fringed 

and the inner ones purple and entire. The stigma has 5 to 10 

white to rose-purple lobes which are obtuse in some forms 

and pointed or even mucronate in others. 

fruits: Oval in shape, 1/2 to 1 inch long, not including the 

dried perianth, which persists, remaining green or in some 

cases becoming brownish when very ripe. The seeds are 

approximately 1/16 of an inch (1 to 21/2 millimeters) long, almost 

spherical to oval or curved ovate. They are light or dark 

brown and with the hila ventral or subbasal, concave or con- 

vex, and oval to linear in the different forms. 

Range. Including for the species as a whole a huge area of the 

North American continent from the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Texas on the east through all the states 

southwest to California and deep into Mexico. 

Remarks. It seems almost impossible for any but taxonomists 

to think of this species as a single unity. Collectors of cacti rarely 

get to collect in more than a fraction of its vast range and 

rarely see all of the forms together at one time, and so they 

usually pick up one or two of this species’ varieties and then go 

to the verge of distraction trying to determine which forms they 

have. This is often hard to determine even with all of the stages 

of all of the varieties before one, and is almost impossible when 

one has only the vegetative stages of one or two varieties to 

study. 

Perhaps because of this difficulty of getting an overview of 

the whole wide-ranging species, its various forms have more 

often than not been thought of as separate species themselves, 

even though Engelmann, the original describer of most of them, 

recognized that they were merely varieties of one large unity 

and his first descriptions list them that way. Subsequent writers 

could not conceive of them that way, and soon they were all 

listed as separate species. The listing of these supposed species 

by most authors over a long period as though they were completely 

and obviously distinct has been a great disservice to 

cactophiles, many of whom have been turned into feuding rivals 

over these forms, thinking of them as separate species. It was 

clearly of prime importance to be able to identify them correctly, 

and yet they are so closely related that with only limited 

material to study, mistakes were bound to be made. I have even 

heard of cactus clubs being split over the interpretation of some 

of these forms. If only the fact could be remembered that this 

is one very large and variable species and that the different 

forms, which we can all notice but which are so close that we 

can only understand them after a great deal of study, are no 

more than very close and perhaps to some degree even intergrading 

varieties, then perhaps cactophiles would be less con- 

cerned about placing a given specimen exactly. 

It would no doubt be better if those who can collect only a


form or two of this species would content themselves with 

knowing that they have Mammillaria vivipara. However, knowing 

the marvelous inability of the cactophile to be satisfied with 

this sort of halfway identification, I am following this species 

description with an account, as clear as I can make it, of each 

of the varieties of this species occurring in our area. But I must 

warn those who would follow to the varietal level that here 

they are embarking upon some of the most stormy seas of controversy 

in all of cactus study, that all of the winds of argument 

about these forms are still not spent, and that there are those 

who will maintain that even in these varieties which seem the 

most certain we have no secure harbors. But no doubt this, which 

is one of the most common little cacti over a huge part of this 

continent, deserves the effort it takes to understand its confusing 

varieties. 

It is important before going any farther to understand that 

Mammillaria vivipara (Nutt.) Haw. is not to be equated with 

Cactus viviparus Nutt., which became the Coryphantha vivipara 

(Nutt.) B. & R. The former is from the beginning an inclusive 

taxon, taking in, as described by Haworth, all of the then- 

known range of spine numbers, plant sizes, amount of clustering, 

and geographical area of the plant. On the other hand the 

latter, in the sense used by Nuttall and Britton and Rose, is only 

a very strictly delimited northern form of the species, one segment 

of the total species, and in modern taxonomic usage 

should be called Coryphantha vivipara var. vivipara (Nutt.) 

B. & R., if one follows their generic scheme, or Mammillaria 

vivipara var. vivipara (Nutt.) if the species is returned to this 

genus. 

Mammillaria vivipara var. vivipara (Nutt.) 

[Coryphantha vivipara (Nutt.) B. & R.] 


stems: As the species, except that the stems are always practically 

globular or even depressed-globular, never columnar, 

and they grow to only about 21/2 inches in diameter. 


spines: There are 12 to 21 radial spines on each areole. These 

are slender, 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch long, and very white, sometimes 

with brown tips. There are 1 to 8 central spines which 

are usually 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch long, and only slightly heavier 

than the radials. There will always be 1 to 3 centrals directed 

outward and downward. These are the heaviest spines. The 

rest of the centrals will be standing upright at the top of the 

areole, spreading fanwise in front of the upper radials, and 

varying in thickness, some of them being almost as fine as the 

radials themselves. There is variation in the color of these 

centrals from plant to plant. Most commonly they are light 

brown or honey-colored, often mottled with whitish, and 

often with darker tips or other darker zones, but never with 

blackish coloring. 

flowers: Deep magenta or purple in color, not opening widely, 

11/8 to 13/4 inches tail and 11/2 to 2 inches across, having 

very narrow petals. The outer petals are greenish or brownish 

with pink edges fringed part or all the way to the tips by 

long, pink cilia. The petals are about 1/8 of an inch wide near 

the base, tapering gradually to a sharp point. The inner petals 

are 3/4 of an inch long and 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch wide, with 

edges smooth or sometimes very finely toothed, tapering over 

their length to a sharp point. There are at least 30 outer petals, 

about 17 to 20 of them elongated and the rest so short as 

to be almost like fringed scales. There are about 30 to as many 

as 47 inner petals. The filaments are green at their bases, the 

upper parts becoming pink. Anthers are bright orange. The 

style is the same length as the stamens, or sometimes slightly 

longer. The Stigma has 7 to 10 dark rose-purple lobes, which 

are slender and about 3/16 of an inch long. They are always 

somewhat pointed, and may have spinelike mucrones on the 

ends, but do not always have these. 

fruits: Oval in shape, 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch long, light green 

in color, becoming brownish when old. The seeds are light 

brown in color, their surfaces finely pitted. They are approximately 

1/16 of an inch (1 to 11/2 millimeters) in length and 

very thick so as to be almost round, except for the concave 

hila. 

Range. From Canada south through Montana, the Dakotas, 

Nebraska, and Kansas across the northwestern corner of Oklahoma 

into extreme northwestern Texas, and across eastern Colorado 

into northeastern New Mexico. 

Remarks. M. vivipara var. vivipara was discovered very early, 

its first description having been made by Nuttall in 1813 under 

the name Cactus viviparus. It is the small, northern cactus found 

in parts of Canada and the northern plains where few other 

cacti grow. Apparently it is immune to freeze damage, so it 

grows anywhere in the north where there is not too much moisture 

and where the soil is right for it. It is quite easily rotted by 

continued dampness in the wrong soil, its requirement of alkaline 

soil no doubt keeping it from growing any farther east than 

the western Great Plains. 

Within our area of study it is limited to the northwest, as 

though it cannot survive the severe heat in which its relatives 

revel. It is found in scattered locations over all of Oklahoma 

northwest of a diagonal line running from near Enid to the 

southwest corner of the state. It is the form of the species found 

in the upper Texas Panhandle, but the Red River and its upper 

tributaries seem to mark the southern edge of its penetration in 

Texas. It grows in the northeastern corner of New Mexico, particularly 

around Raton, and down nearly as far southwest as 

Santa Fe. This large area of Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico 

is its home, where it grows on sandy hills and plains; it is not a


mountain species, and its range stops short of the high moun- 

tains in both Colorado and New Mexico. 

The close relatives of M. vivipara var. vivipara with which it 

is often confused will be described in detail following this discussion. 

It may not be distinguished from them by any one characteristic, 

and from some of them it can hardly be told at all 

when it is not in flower or fruit. It can be said that it has fewer 

radial spines than most other forms of the species, but this fact 

alone will not always separate it from all of them. Part of the 

confusion over these varieties has arisen from attempts to distinguish 

them on radial number alone. 

When it blooms, variety vivipara can be recognized by the 7 

to 10 stigma lobes which are long, slender, and pointed, sometimes 

to the extent of having spinelike tips, as well as being very 

beautiful dark carmine to pink in color, but never white. 

For still more certainty about the identification of his plant, 

the collector must nurture it further until it forms its fruits. He 

can then check the seeds it produces, and here find what appears 

to be the most certain character to distinguish it. Variety 

vivipara has medium brown seeds which are egg-shaped to 

almost round except for concave, oval hila, and which have 

roughly pitted surfaces. They are approximately 1/16 of an inch 

(1 to 11/2 millimeters) long. This distinguishes the variety from 

its close relatives, all of whose seeds are different in size and 

detail. 

Within itself the variety varies. The description mentions that 

the color of the centrals varies from plant to plant. However, 

they never have blackish zones, and they are always some shade 

of brown, usually predominantly honey-colored. Neither does the 

amount of clustering the plants do have any significance, as this 

varies greatly. The first descriptions cautioned us that it grows 

either singly or profusely clustering; nevertheless, the two types 

of growth appear so different that all through the years there 

have been attempts to separate them as two forms, the simple 

and the clustering. Yet I have plants taken from only a few feet 

of each other, identical in every respect except that one specimen 

has grown a single stem while its neighbor has grown as 

many as 7 heads. 

Perhaps the most ambitious attempt to divide up the species 

on this sort of character was made about 25 years ago by Mrs. 

Marion Sherwood Lahman, one of the most ardent collectors 

and students of Oklahoma cacti. She described a total of 6 species 

of this group in Oklahoma, including 2 new ones, but all of 

them fall within the limits of the species M. vivipara in the sense 

used by Haworth, and as she separated them on only such general 

and variable characters as amount of clustering, it appears 

that her taxa have only doubtful significance. 

When dealing with this cactus it must always be remembered 

that the name, Mammillaria (Coryphantha) vivipara has been 

and still is used with two very different meanings. Some use this 

name to refer specifically to the cactus which grows in Nuttall’s 

type locality on the upper Missouri River. This is the exact form 

which grows, as Engelmann well stated in his earliest writings, 

from the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers down to Santa Fe and 

no farther southwest, and which has only 12 to about 20 radial 

spines. But as new, very similar forms were discovered, they 

were all designated by Engelmann as merely varieties of one big 

species, so they were listed as M. vivipara variety or subspecies 

borealis, neo-mexicana, radiosa, and so on. So as the name M. 

vivipara came to mean the species encompassing all of these 

varieties, writers—Haworth started it, followed by Engelmann 

himself in his later writings—began to give a description under 

this name so broad as to take in everything (as for instance saying 

M. vivipara had 12 to 36 or more radials). It is obvious that 

here the name is being used to refer to a different entity than 

the limited northern form. The practice of keeping the original, 

typical form separate by calling it M. vivipara var. vivipara 

would have minimized the confusion which resulted, but this 

practice was not followed at that time, so the form we are discussing 

here got lost among its own relatives as its name was 

applied to them all. 

When understood in this sense, the variety vivipara is a small, 

retiring cactus which is content to huddle unseen in the prairie 

grass of the northern plains, but which is amazingly hardy and 

which produces very beautiful flowers in their season. It is seldom 

common, and as the grass of northwestern Texas and 

western Oklahoma has been trimmed ever shorter by overgrazing, 

these little plants more and more lose their protection and 

are carried home as curiosities, thus becoming more and more 

scarce. I observed this order of events myself on the outskirts of 

Amarillo, Texas. Some years ago I searched for the plant in a 

particular area there without success. Then, a few years ago, as 

that city was increasing in size, homes were built in the area 

where I had unsuccessfully searched, and the ranchland became 

small lots for ponies. After their intensive grazing, when I visited 

in one of the new homes, I saw from the window several specimens 

of the cactus in the almost table-bare lot. Even more recently 

I noticed that all of these specimens had been taken. With 

this process and with the cultivation of so much prairie, one has 

now to look for this cactus in rough places. 

Mammillaria vivipara var. radiosa Eng. 

[Coryphantha radiosa Rydberg] 


stems: As the species, except always ovate to columnar when 

mature and very rarely and sparingly clustering. These stems 

grow to 5 inches tall and about 3 inches in diameter. The 

tubercles are cylindrical and to about 3/4 of an inch long. 


spines: As the species, except that the radial spines are always 

white, sometimes tipped with brown, very slender, to 1/2 inch 

long, and 17 to 30 in number. The central spines are 4 to 7 in


number, spreading from the center of the areole in no set pattern. 

Most commonly there will be 1 or 2 rather heavy downturning 

centrals and the rest will stand erect almost against 

the upper radials, but I have seen some specimens with only 

4 centrals and all of them erect—the lower ones lacking entirely. 

These centrals are light in color, honey- or straw-col- 

ored, often with large zones of white. 

flowers: About 2 inches across and 21/4 inches tall, very deep 

violet in color. The petals are 1 to 11/4 inches long and very 

narrow, being about 1/8 of an inch across. The outer ones are 

40 to 50 in number, with about 17 of these elongated, and are 

greenish in color and fringed; while the inner ones are 30 to 

40 in number and violet with entire edges. The filaments are 

deep violet, while the anthers are deep orange. The style is at 

least 3/16 of an inch longer than the stamens, and pink. The 

stigma has 7 to 9 rose-colored lobes which are 3/16 to 1/4 of an 

inch long and fairly slender, but not pointed. 

fruits: About 3/4 of an inch long, oval, and green in color. 

The seeds are rather dark brown with a finely striated surface, 

more than 1/16 of an inch (2 to 21/2 millimeters) long, and 

oval, with the ventral surfaces convex and the hila linear in 

shape. 

Range. From the southern slopes of the Arbuckle Mountains in 

Oklahoma south to a line from near Austin, Texas, west past 

Fredericksburg to Sonora, Texas. The area comprises a triangle 

with its three points near Springer, Oklahoma, and Austin and 

Sonora, Texas. 

Remarks. This is a form which usually passes for Mammillaria 

vivipara var. vivipara. Admittedly it differs from that variety 

only in minor characters of the plant body, and very careful 

observation alone will separate them. Variety vivipara always 

has globose stems and 12 to 21 radials, while the stems of variety 

radiosa become elongated and columnar and it has 17 to 30 

radials. The difference of flowers is also minor, the flowers of 

variety radiosa being larger—in fact definitely the largest and 

most deeply colored of the various forms in this species found 

in our area—but beyond that about all that can be said is that 

the stigma lobes of variety radiosa are never pointed as they are 

in variety vivipara. 

I would surely not blame anyone for thinking we were splitting 

spines here if we listed these as two separate species: they 

are difficult even as varieties. It would be much easier to consider 

these two cacti the same and be done with it, but a hundred 

years ago Engelmann saw a consistent difference in the 

seeds of the two cacti, and we must recognize it. The seeds of 

variety radiosa are unmistakably different, almost twice as large 

in each direction as those of variety vivipara; they are full and 

convex on all surfaces, as well as darker brown, and their surfaces 

are very finely pitted, where the seeds of variety vivipara 

are small, flattened, and concave, and lighter brown with more 

coarse pitting. There is more difference between these two than 

among the seeds of all the various and otherwise vastly differ- 

ent Echinocerei, and this species provides the only instance I 

know where cacti almost identical in other respects have such 

basically different seeds. 

Amazing confusion has arisen out of Engelmann’s changing 

schemes to relate all the forms in this species. In his Plantae 

Lindheimerianae in 1850, before he was combining, he had M. 

vivipara described as it is still found in Nuttall’s type locality, 

and at the same time he described as a separate species a Mammillaria 

radiosa with the type locality, “Sterile, sandy soil on 

the Pierdenales” (the Pedernales River in central Texas). This 

plant he described as having 20 to 30 radials, being columnar 

and having different seeds from M. vivipara. It is a very distinct 

form, treated very fully later by Coulter, and is exactly 

the form we are discussing here. 

But in trying to combine forms, Engelmann later confused an 

originally clear picture. First, in the Synopsis of the Cactaceae, 

he reduced M. radiosa to a variety of M. vivipara and put some 

newly noticed forms, borealis, neo-mexicana, and texana as 

subvarieties under it, in so doing expanding his description of 

radiosa and no longer reserving this name for the Texas form. 

But at the same time he did not lose the identity of the Texas 

form, since it remained as the subvariety texana. Then, still later, 

swinging back a little the other way, in the Cactaceae of the 

Mexican Boundary he elevated radiosa to a subspecies and the 

three taxa under it to varieties. 

Coulter even later returned M. radiosa to species status again, 

and added to it numerous other varieties found all the way to 

California, giving it the broadest definition of all. 

This name, therefore, has many meanings in the literature, but 

in the present study I use it in the sense of the original description 

in the Plantae Lindheimerianae. It is in no way a synonym 

of M. vivipara, as many have thought, but is a definite Texas 

and Oklahoma form not found anywhere west of Texas, and its 

only synonym among Engelmann’s names is the subvariety name, 

texana. 

It is one of the largest forms of this species, has large, loosestanding 

tubercles, and extremely fine flowers. It is a localized 

form of the species and, since no other variety of this cactus 

grows in its area, identification of field-collected plants should 

not be a problem. 

This may possibly be the Oklahoma form called Coryphantha 

radiosa by Lahman, but her description is so incomplete that it 

is hard to be certain. 

Mammillaria vivipara var. neo-mexicana Eng. 

[Coryphanta neo-mexicana (Eng.) B. & R.) 

“Spiny Star,” “Pincushion,” “New Mexico Coryphantha,” “Estria 

del tarde” 


stems: As the species, sometimes growing as single stems, but


usually forming small clusters. Individual stems are spherical 

at first, becoming short columns when old. The maximum size 

seems to be 31/2 to 4 inches tall by 21/2 inches thick. The tubercles 

measure to 1/2 inch long and are cylindrical or sometimes 

somewhat flattened from top to bottom and crowded close to- 

gether. 


spines: Each areole has 20 to 40 slender radial spines to 3/8 of 

an inch long, white, sometimes with brown or purplish tips. 

These form a fringe of spines around each areole and interlock 

with those of neighboring clusters to hide almost completely 

the flesh of the plant. There are also 6 to 15 central spines on 

each areole of the adult plant. These are white or yellowish 

with purplish to light brown tips, grow to 3/4 of an inch long, 

and spread out in all directions and at all angles from the 

center of the areole. 

flowers: About 1 inch tall and broad, and violet in color, 

sometimes shading at the center to deep rose. The outer petals 

are narrow, pointed, and fringed. The inner petals are also very 

slender and sharp pointed, having smooth edges, and are very 

deep violet in color. The filaments are green at the bases, becoming 

pink above. The anthers are orange. The style is as short 

as the stamens and reddish in color. The stigma lobes are 7 to 

10 in number, pure white, short, fat, and not pointed. 

fruits: Green, oval in shape, and 5/8 to 15/8 inches long. The 

medium brown seeds are approximately 1/16 of an inch (about 

2 millimeters) long, ovate or almost reniform, with the bodies 

curved around the ventral, concave, linear hila. The surfaces of 

the seeds are pitted. 

Range. The mountain areas of central Colorado and New Mexico, 

south into Mexico, west into Arizona and east into Texas 

from El Paso and the Guadalupe Mountains to near Fort Stockton. 

The plant is very rarely, if ever, found in Texas south or east 

of Marfa. 

Remarks, This is a comparatively distinct member of this closely 

knit group. It is fairly easily distinguished from its relatives by 

the more numerous spines, the more closely crowded and smaller 

tubercles and the smaller flowers with the short, heavy, white 

stigma lobes only about 1/8 of an inch long. Its seeds are also 

distinctive. 

Mammillaria vivipara var. neo-mexicana is the mountain member 

of the species. Engelmann once remarked that it was found 

in the Sandia Mountains at a 13,000-foot altitude. I do not know 

that it has been seen since at this extreme altitude, but it grows on 

the hills, and its range takes in all of the high mountains of New 

Mexico and the Guadalupe and Davis mountains of Texas. 

At first, Engelmann called this form subvariety neo-mexicana of 

his Mammillaria vivipara subspecies radiosa, and later he spoke 

of it as a variety of the species. He apparently never did consider 

it a separate species. Small was the first one to elevate it to a 

separate species, calling it Cactus neo-mexicanus, and Nelson 

then placed it back into the Mammillarias as a full species. Britton 

and Rose followed, but called it Coryphantha neo-mexicana. 

It is clearly one of the spiny stars most removed from the typical 

M. vivipara var. vivipara, but since the earliest studies concluded 

it to be part of that species and recent usage seems to have come 

back to that opinion, we list it here as a variety. 

It also became common to list Engelmann’s other two subvarieties, 

borealis and texana as synonyms of neo-mexicana. To do this 

is to be so superficial as to overlook the differences which Engelmann 

noticed and outlined carefully when he first separated 

them, differences of spine numbers and colors, stigmas, flowers, 

and seeds. To insist on their existence as separate forms is not to 

deny that there may be intermediate specimens—as Engelmann 

cautions—nor to state flatly that they are all entirely separate 

species. The latter position obviously cannot be maintained successfully, 

and no doubt it was this problem, arising when all of 

these forms were assigned species rank, that caused the attempt 

on the part of some students to dismiss them as synonyms. But 

each of these forms has a separate, continuous range within 

which it presents consistent characteristics, and we feel constrained 

to list them as distinct varieties rather than enlarging 

the description of this form and making it almost meaningless 

in an attempt to contain them. 

Mammillaria vivipara var. borealis Eng. 

“Sour Cactus” 


stems: As the species, but usually single and only rarely found 

in small clusters. Individual stems are usually spherical, but 

when old become more or less egg-shaped. The maximum size 

seems to be about 3 inches tall by 2 inches in diameter. The 

tubercles grow to about 1/2 inch long, are closely crowded, 

and overlap upward. 


spines: Having 12 to 22 white, slender, short radial spines 

and 3 to 6 central spines which are arranged much like those 

of the typical variety vivipara, one usually turned downward 

and the other 3 to 5 spreading upward just in front of the 

upper radials. These centrals, or at least the upper halves of 

them, are wholly purplish-black or maroon. 

flowers: Small, only about 1 to 11/2 inches tall and the same 

in diameter. The petals are 3/4 of an inch or less in length and 

1/8 or more in width. The outer petals, about 20 in number, 

are brownish and fringed; the inner ones are lavender, deep 

pink, or pale violet, and entire. All petals are sharply pointed. 

The filaments are pink and the anthers pale orange. The style 

is about the same length as the stamens, and the stigma has 8 

to 12 rather long, slender, pale pink lobes, which are blunt.


fruits: Egg-shaped, to about 3/4 of an inch long, greenish, 

often becoming brownish or even faintly flushed with brownish 

red when very ripe. The seeds are very light brown or 

straw-colored, approximately 1/16 of an inch (2 millimeters or 

so) long, oval in shape, with the surface finely pitted. The 

hilum is near the end of the seed and is round, or nearly so. 

Range. New Mexico from northwest of Santa Fe past Zuni 

northwest into Colorado, Arizona, and Utah. 

Remarks. This small cactus of the northwestern New Mexico 

mountains is apparently limited to the western side of the Continental 

Divide. It has been generally overlooked by students, 

and we usually find it included in their files of several other 

forms, while their descriptions of those other forms have therefore 

usually been broadened to include it, leading to much con- 

fusion. 

Engelmann first called this cactus Mammillaria vivipara var. 

radiosa subvar. borealis. A number of later writers ignored it 

entirely, but Britton and Rose listed it as a synonym of their 

Coryphantha neo-mexicana. Backeberg seems to leave it as a 

synonym of that form, which, however, he reduced to a variety 

of the species. How it ever got so closely connected with variety 

neo-mexicana is hard to understand. It seems to be the nearest 

relative west of the Continental Divide of the typical northeastern 

form, variety vivipara, even as variety radiosa can be 

regarded as the nearest southerly relative of that typical variety. 

It is much further removed from variety neo-mexicana by several 

characters. It is closer to variety radiosa than to any of the 

southern or western varieties; but it remains a much smaller 

plant in over-all size and in size of tubercles; it has fewer radial 

spines, darker-colored centrals, and probably the smallest flowers 

of the group, while variety radiosa has the largest. The size 

of seeds is about the same in these two cacti, but otherwise they 

differ. 

Its relationship to the other western forms of this complex 

species is more difficult, and since the variety borealis has almost 

universally been ignored, we find almost no attempts to 

deal with it in any recent works on these cacti. The reason for 

this fact is quite interesting. 

First of all, in trying to see the reason for resurrecting this all 

but forgotten name and to understand in general the western 

forms of this species, which venture into the area covered by 

our study far more than most people realize, we must face and 

deal with one of the most remarkably persistent errors in all of 

cactus study. Almost throughout the literature on cacti we run 

across the name Mammillaria aggregata. Britton and Rose 

thought there was a plant of this group in New Mexico which 

they listed under the name Coryphantha aggregata, and Mrs. 

Lahman even had it growing in Oklahoma. There are whole 

files under this name in most herbaria. It persists to the present, 

Benson listing M. vivipara var. aggregata (which apparently 

included the form variety borealis) in his scheme, while Backeberg 

used Coryphantha vivipara var. aggregata for a clustering 

form of New Mexico and on west. We will never understand 

the western forms until we understand this persistent name aggregata. 

Engelmann coined the name in 1848 in Emory’s Report, for 

a plant observed on the Gila River. His description of this plant 

was very incomplete, as he did not see its flowers or fruits. He 

said it made hemispherical clusters of several feet across with up 

to 100 to 200 heads. He started the whole misunderstanding by 

a simple speculation that Mammillaria aggregata, “appears to be 

allied to M. vivipara.” How the plant he saw on the Gila ever 

reminded him of the small, flat clusters of the species M. vivipara 

in the first place is hard to see, but it did, and the name 

has been applied to that species very often, even down to the 

present. 

Engelmann had made a snap judgment on this plant without 

even seeing flowers or fruits. He was wrong, and as soon as he 

knew he had made an error he corrected it manfully. Concerning 

this report, he wrote in the Report of the Ives Exploration 

in 1861, as follows: “Cereus phoeniceus, Pacif. Rail. Rep. Synop. 

Cact., Echinocereus coccineus Wisliz. Rep. N. Mex., note 9. This 

is Mammillaria aggregata, Emory’s Report, 1848, and the ‘Aggregated 

Cactus’ of the explorers of the western parts of New 

Mexico and the Gila regions.” 

How anything could be more clear than the above statement 

is hard to see. Engelmann is stating that the name is an error, 

actually a synonym of Echinocereus coccineus, and that there is 

no Mammillaria which should bear the name aggregata at all. 

Early students such as Coulter, Rydberg, and Wooton were 

aware of the true identity of this plant and did not list the name 

among the Mammillarias. But Britton and Rose apparently 

overlooked the retraction of the name and set up a species, 

Coryphantha aggregatus. What their plant of this name was apparently 

cannot be known for sure. 

Engelmann would no doubt be astounded could he know that 

one hundred years after his retraction of the name it is still listed 

in the most respected works on the cacti of the area. This 

illustrates the harm that can be done by the easily tossed-off 

speculation, and should certainly prompt authors to restrain 

themselves from casual speculations. 

Since all modern accounts of the M. vivipara complex in New 

Mexico and Arizona which I have examined still list this defunct 

name, usually as a vague catchall, it becomes our task to 

sort out the specimens filed under the name and place them in 

the valid taxa in which they really belong. When we do that we 

find that they all settle into the valid taxa comfortably, but that 

the process resurrects some almost forgotten varieties and that it 

extends the known range of some others much farther east than 

is usually recognized. 

How variety borealis, which hardly clusters at all, was included 

in a supposed variety aggregata of hemispherical masses 

to 200 heads is hard to see, but once we look for it we find it 

there. Or specimens may be classified under several other names. 

For instance, Boissevain’s Coryphantha radiosa is mainly va-


riety borealis, but his description of it is skewed a little to include 

M. vivipara var. arizonica. He never suspected that vari- 

ety arizonica grew in Colorado, but some of the specimens upon 

which he based his C. radiosa were clearly this form. 

If we can clear away the accretion of the years of confusion 

over such errors, we find growing, never profuse but surprisingly 

widespread, here and there upon the hills and lower mountains 

of northwest New Mexico and southwest Colorado and 

into northeast Arizona as well as Utah, a small, usually single- 

stemmed spiny star with few and very weak radials and few 

but very dark-colored centrals. It has small flowers, pale by 

comparison with most of its relatives, and very light brown 

seeds. It is retiring in habit and appearance, and probably does 

not mind greatly being overlooked so generally or else being 

merged with its more robust neighbors. Its name is rather fitting, 

as it is the most northern form of this species other than 

the typical variety vivipara. 

Mammillaria vivipara var. arizonica (Eng.) 

[Coryphantha arizonica B. & R.] 

“Sour Cactus,” “Arizona Coryphantha” 


stems: Simple or occasionally clustering sparingly to form to 

3 or 4 stems. The individual stems are spherical to ovate or 

conical and robust, becoming sometimes to 4 inches in diameter 

and as much as 5 inches tall. The tubercles are cylindri- 

cal and rather loose-standing, and to 1 inch long. 


spines: With 13 to 20 radial spines which are slender but 

rigid and long, varying from about 5/8 to 3/4 of an inch as a 

rule, but said to have reached 11/4 inches in length. They are 

whitish, but not pure white, usually with brown tips. The 

centrals are 3 to 6 in number, spreading, rather stout, about 

5/8 to 7/8 of an inch long, and yellow or gray below with deep 

brown or purplish-brown above. 

flowers: Large and showy, about 2 inches in diameter and 

length, rose-pink to rose-purple in color. The 30 to 40 outer 

segments are slender and fringed and greenish-brown. The 40 

or so inner segments are linear and entire and sharply pointed. 

The stigma has 7 to 10 white, blunt lobes. 

fruits: Oval and green. The seeds are approximately 1/16 of 

an inch (about 13/4 millimeters) long, broadly egg-shaped, 

curved, and beaked around the short, oval, greatly concave, 

ventral hila. They are light brown in color, and pitted. 

Range. Widely in the far West, and east from northern Arizona 

into the extreme northwestern corner of New Mexico. Apparently 

restricted in New Mexico to the area bounded by an arc 

drawn from near Gallup past Blanco Trading Post and into 

Colorado near Farmington. 

Remarks. One of the reasons the New Mexico members of this 

species complex have been so hard to understand is that it has 

been assumed that this variety does not grow in that state, but 

that it is strictly an Arizona specialty. Such may be the effect 

of a name. 

But Engelmann in his original description gave no limit to 

this plant’s eastern penetration, saying only, “from the Colorado 

eastward,” and the detailed maps of its range, such as that 

in Benson’s Arizona Cacti show it covering the whole of northeastern 

Arizona right up to the border. Since we know that cacti 

do not respect state boundaries, it is only logical to expect it to 

spill over into neighboring New Mexico. This it does, from about 

Gallup northward, and when we recognize this fact and take 

the specimens which really fit this taxon from the collection of 

various forms put under the erroneous name, Mammillaria aggregata, 

as well as from where they have been deposited under 

other names, we have a nice array of records for the cactus over 

the extreme northwestern corner of New Mexico. 

M. vivipara var. arizonica is a robust form of the species in 

stem size, spination, and flowers. Although it clusters only sparingly, 

its stems are large and strong, with long tubercles. Its 

spines are not numerous as in some forms, but are stouter than 

those of any form yet discussed under this species. The spines, 

together with the loose-standing tubercles, give it the appearance 

of a bold, open-growing, well-protected plant which contrasts 

in appearance with the smaller, more delicate, more retir- 

ing variety borealis and variety vivipara. It more resembles variety 

radiosa of Texas, but has much more rigid and darkercolored 

spines. Its flowers are also the only other ones approaching 

in size and brilliance those of variety radiosa. However, 

they are more pinkish than the deep violet blossoms of the Texas 

form. On the other hand, the seeds of variety arizonica are the 

closest in size and shape to those of variety vivipara of any 

other form, but they are much lighter in color. 

Mammillaria vivipara var. deserti (Eng.) non L. Benson 

[Coryphantha deserti (Eng.) B. & R.] 

Description 

stems: As the species, except apparently always simple and 

unbranched. These stems are at first globose, later becoming 

oval or egg-shaped and growing to a maximum of about 4 

inches tall by 31/2 inches thick. They have short, cylindrical 

tubercles to about 1/2 inch long which are close-standing and 

compact, but not overlapping. 


spines: Having 22 to 35 radial Spines which are 3/8 to 3/4 of 

an inch long, spreading almost pectinate and interlocking 

with those of adjacent tubercles. The upper and lower radials 

are rather slender, but the lateral ones are stout and rigid.


They are all gray, the larger ones usually tipped with brown. 

There are 5 to 10 central spines, the lower 3 to 5 of these 

being porrect or spreading outward, heavy, awl-shaped, and 

1/4 to 3/8 of an inch long. The upper 2 to 5 of them spread upward, 

are more slender, and are 1/2 to 5/8 of an inch long. All 

centrals are straw- or honey-colored below with red-brown 

tips. 

flowers: Small, about 1 inch long and wide. In color these 

flowers are pale pinkish suffused with cream or tan. The outer 

segments are brownish and fringed; the inner ones are entire 

and often described as straw-colored with pinkish tips. There 

are 5 or 6 whitish stigma lobes. 

fruits: Short, oval, about 1/2 inch or so long. They remain 

green in color for a long time, but are sometimes suffused 

with brown or even faint maroon when very ripe. The seeds 

are 1/16 of an inch (11/2 to 2 millimeters) long, dark brown, 

pitted, obovate, and somewhat curved around the round or 

oval, convex or flat, ventral hila. 

Range. Entering New Mexico from southern Arizona. Found 

in the strip of New Mexico west and south of Silver City. 

Remarks. Originally described as a California cactus, but soon 

known from Nevada, this form was later traced east across 

Arizona. Now we find a population along the Arizona border 

and a short distance into New Mexico which seems clearly this 

plant, marking another penetration into our area by a western 

form and giving this cactus a very wide range. 

The cactus as it grows in New Mexico and as described above 

is not to be confused with another plant described under this 

name in many accounts of the western cacti. Borg and Boissevain 

equate this cactus with Mammillaria alversonii Coult., a 

larger, clustering form restricted to southern California. Benson 

gives for M. vivipara var. deserti (Eng.) L. Benson a description 

almost totally unlike that of either Engelmann or Coulter and 

with limits which would appear to exclude the type itself, listing 

15 to 20 slender white radials and only 3 to 5 centrals— 

white, tipped with brown. Only the small, straw-colored flower 

of his description is the same as in the earlier descriptions, 

and it seems obvious that whatever his plant may be it is not 

the same as what Engelmann and Coulter meant by M. deserti— 

nor is it the cactus we see in southwestern New Mexico. 

Be that as it may, we have a cactus with a definite range in 

New Mexico which duplicates the more western form originally 

described as M. deserti. It is a robust but single-stemmed cactus 

whose short, compact tubercles are almost completely covered 

by its very numerous, interlocking spines. Only variety neomexicana 

has such a profuse covering of spines, and the spines 

of that cactus are white and much more slender. This cactus, 

with its ashy-gray radials and its brown centrals which are all 

relatively heavy, gives quite a different impression. It most resembles, 

of any form in this species, variety arizonica, but is 

much more squat and compact, with much shorter tubercles, and 

many more and much more appressed, more stout spines than 

on that relative. The form, spines, and general appearance of 

variety deserti are similar enough to those of Echinocactus intertextus 

var. dasyacanthus Eng. that I have several times felt very 

foolish for at first mistaking it for that cactus of an entirely 

different genus. 

Originally treated as a separate species, this cactus has been 

incorporated, along with others, into the broad Species complex 

of M. vivipara. If this placement is correct, it is the most distant 

from the typical form of that species, both in its characters and 

its range. The population of this cactus found in New Mexico 

forms a distinct entity there, and must be taken into account in 

gaining any adequate concept of this complex as it occurs in 

that state. Whether or not one sees it as the same cactus as the 

California variety deserti, which I believe it to be, no collection 

of New Mexico cacti is complete without it. 

Mammillaria fragrans (Hester) 

[Coryphantha fragrans Hester] 


stems: Almost always occurring singly, very rarely with one 

or two branches from the base. Becoming conic to cylindrical 

when older, and growing to a maximum of 8 inches tall by 

about 3 inches in diameter. The tubercles are 3/8 to 5/8 of an 

inch long, usually being around 1/2 inch on typical plants. 

They are soft and oval in shape, being flattened dorsally and 

somewhat broadened above the base to about 3/8 of an inch 

wide before they taper toward the tips. 

areoles: Monomorphic, mature areoles lengthening to form 

grooves extending nearly to the bases of the tubercles, with 

white wool in the grooves when they are young, but later 

bare. 

spines: There are 20 to 30 slender radials to 1/2 inch long, and 

white in color. There are 6 to 12 centrals to 5/8 of an inch 

long, which spread at all angles from the center of the areole. 

They are mostly purple or very dark brown, only the bases of 

them being gray; with age they usually become entirely black. 

flowers: About 11/2 to 2 inches across and tall, cup-shaped 

or even bell-shaped, magenta or reddish-purple in color. The 

outer petals are greenish with pink edges fringed with long 

white hairs. The inner petals are narrow, pointed, reddish- 

purple shading to light pink at the edges from greenish bases, 

with edges entire or very slightly ragged near the tips. The 

filaments are greenish below to pink above. The anthers are 

orange. The style is about the length of the stamens or a little 

longer. The stigma has 6 to 12 pure white to pinkish lobes 

which are long and more or less pointed, but rather thick. 

fruits: Greenish, becoming yellow-green when ripe, oval in 

shape, and to 1 inch long. The seeds are kidney or bean shaped, 

approximately 1/8 of an inch (21/2 to 3 millimeters) long, and


much flattened. Their translucent surface is rich red-brown 

and shiny smooth, with no pitting, but with a pattern of minute 

checks showing through from inner layers when viewed 

with a microscope. The hilum is ventral or nearly so, oval or 

oblong. 

Range. The Big Bend of Texas, from near Sanderson on the east 

to the Rio Grande west of Alpine, but apparently not north of 

the southern slopes of the Davis and Van Horn mountains. 

Remarks. Here is yet another form which only the closest observation 

will reveal to be separate from the complex group just 

listed. It apparently was not distinguished from M. vivipara 

var. neo-mexicana by any of the earlier students, which is not 

surprising since its armament of spines comes within the range 

of that variety, and the accounts of some other students can 

only be understood by assuming that they failed to distinguish 

it from M. vivipara var. radiosa. For these reasons it was overlooked 

until described as a separate species by Hester in 1941. 

Mr. Hester carried on extensive studies of the seeds of cacti, and 

no doubt his discovery of this plant with seeds so much larger 

than those of M. vivipara var. neo-mexicana and different in 

almost every detail of shape and surface first caused him to 

notice its other less marked differences from that plant. It was 

in the same way, by noticing the remarkable seeds, that I first 

learned that my supposed variety neo-mexicana specimens from 

near the Rio Grande in the Big Bend were different from those 

collected farther northwest. Much later I learned that I had 

stumbled upon Hester’s cactus. 

There are few definite or measurable characters of the plant 

body by which to recognize the cactus before it fruits. It is a 

much larger cactus than variety neo-mexicana, growing double 

the height of that species when at its maximum, and it also differs 

in that it almost never branches. Its tubercles are also unusual 

in that they broaden out above their bases and are flattened 

on their upper sides, this giving them a curious ballooned 

appearance which seems unique in this form, but which is not 

always obvious in specimens suffering from drought or winter 

shrinkage. Its central spines are very dark, the dark coloring 

extending farther down on them than on any other relatives 

except perhaps some of the northwestern specimens of M. vivipara 

var. borealis. 

The flower of M. fragrans differs from its relatives in several 

minor ways. Its petals are shorter. Its stigmas are intermediate 

in length between those of the eastern M. vivipara var. radiosa 

and the western variety neo-mexicana, but are usually pure 

white, and only sometimes a light pink. Its flowers are very 

fragrant with a sweet scent from which comes its name, while 

those of variety neo-mexicana have almost no scent and those 

of the eastern M. vivipara forms have a very strong and pungent, 

but very green scent which is not sweet. 

Hester seems to have failed to distinguish sometimes between 

his own new form and the old form, M. vivipara var. radiosa, 

and as a result he gives the range of M. fragrans as extending 

almost to Fort Worth, Texas, and into southern Oklahoma. In 

actuality M. fragrans differs almost as completely from variety 

radiosa as it does from the other M. vivipara varieties, and the 

range of variety radiosa stops just northeast of where the range 

of this plant begins. 

This cactus may also be part of the M. vivipara complex. It 

is similar enough to it so that the assertion would be easy. Yet 

with no real evidence for the combination, and with the seeds 

so different, such a combination seems premature. 

This is a rare cactus restricted to the lower Big Bend of Texas, 

but on some hillsides or in some alluvial valleys it may grow in 

fairly extensive populations. Perhaps it extends into Texas from 

Mexico, but this is not known. During some limited trips into 

the very rough mountains across from the Texas Big Bend I did 

not observe the cactus. 

Mammillaria tuberculosa Eng. 

[Escobaria tuberculosa (Eng.) B. & R.] 


stems: Globular to egg-shaped at first, becoming upright cylinders 

1 to 2 inches thick, said to grow to 7 inches tall, but 

not usually exceeding 5 inches and often much shorter. The 

stems are single until large, then sprout slowly around their 

bases to form small clusters. The color of the surface is a dull 

gray-green. The stem is composed of many separate tubercles 

usually about 3/8 of an inch long, but sometimes not over 1/4 

of an inch. These tubercles are practically cylindrical when 

young, but their bases broaden horizontally so that they become 

somewhat rhomboid and about as wide as they are tall 

when old. They are somewhat crowded, and mature tubercles 

turn upward so that they overlap each other. 

areoles: Small and round on immature stems. On mature 

stems a groove runs all the way to the base of each tubercle 

on its upper side, as the linear extension of the areole from 

the spinous portion at the tip of the tubercle to the floral part 

of it in the axil. When young, this groove is filled with wool, 

but when old only a tuft of this white wool remains in the 

axillary end of the groove. 

spines: On each areole there are 20 to 30 radial spines, which 

are slender but stiff, radiating in all directions around the 

areole. They are white and vary in size, those at the top of the 

areole being very small bristles, while those around the sides 

and bottom of the areole are to 3/8 of an inch long and rather 

firm. There are 4 to 9 central spines which are gray-white 

with purplish ends; 4 of these are always much heavier than 

the radials, with 3 of them spreading upward and to 5/8 of an 

inch long, while the lowest of these 4 always stands abruptly 

outward or turns a little downward. This lowest central is the 

heaviest spine of all, and is conspicuous. On young plants 

there are only these 4 centrals, but with age there may be 3


to 5 more centrals added above the others, standing upright 

with the earlier upper ones; they are never quite as heavy or 

as long as the first and are intermediate between those and 

the radials. There is a definite tendency for the spines to be 

shed from the older part of the stem, leaving the base bare of 

spines. 

flowers: 3/4 to 13/8 inches across and 3/4 to 1 inch tall; opening 

widely. The color of the flower is a very delicate lavender- 

white or extremely pale purple. The outer petals are greenish- 

brown with almost white, fringed edges. They are to 3/4 of an 

inch long and 1/8 of an inch wide, and there are 16 to 18 of 

them. The inner petals are 10 to 15 in number, 3/4 to 1 inch 

long, and only 1/8 of an inch wide, very pale lavender fading 

to almost white at the edges. The filaments are cream, while 

the anthers are cream or pale yellowish. The style is white, the 

same length or just longer than the stamens. The stigma is 

made up of 5 or 6 white lobes which may be short and thick 

or slender and to as much as 3/16 of an inch long. 

fruits: Egg-shaped to oblong, about 3/4 of an inch long, and 

bright red. The seeds are very small, usually around 1/2 milli- 

meter long, and brown in color, with the surface pitted. 

Range. The mountains of the Big Bend region of Texas, and 

from there southward into Mexico, westward across southern 

New Mexico, and into southern Arizona. 

Remarks. Mammillaria tuberculosa is usually spoken of as one 

of the most common cacti of far west Texas and southern New 

Mexico. In the trade, plants are shipped by the hundreds from 

this area under the name Escobaria tuberculosa. However, it 

appears that the species is actually much less common than is 

usually thought, at least today, and that most of those specimens 

now in collections under this name are actually another species. 

The reasons for this confusion are several, and we must understand 

them if we are to understand this species. There are several 

plants known commonly as Escobarias which are very close in 

most of their characteristics. They are small plants with many 

spines and small flowers, and it requires painstaking work, usually 

with a magnifier, to recognize the characters which divide 

them. We are often reluctant to go to this trouble, and the one 

thing seized upon to distinguish M. tuberculosa from its relatives 

with a minimum of effort—indeed, the character for which it is 

named—is an unfortunate choice, since at least two other forms 

show this fully as much as it does. This is the tendency of these 

cacti to shed their spines on their older tubercles at the bases of 

the stems. These old tubercles then become corky and dead- 

appearing, rather unsightly bumps. Perhaps my own experience 

with these plants should show the problem, as well as illustrate 

the differences between the confusing forms. 

I remember well when I collected plant after plant, mature 

specimens of which showed this naked, rather ugly base—so, 

knowing no better, I had to call them all M. tuberculosa. Many 

of these specimens bloomed, and I thought I had the species. 

They matched those my collector friends called by that name 

and the bins of dealers were full of the same plants under the 

same name. 

But what about its relatives—M. dasyacantha, for instance? 

Try as I might, I couldn’t find this closely related form. Everyone 

was vague about it, and finally I was persuaded that it was 

merely a minor variation of M. tuberculosa, for all practical 

purposes the same. 

During all of this time I had one specimen which appeared 

slightly different from the others. I was dissatisfied with it because, 

year after year, it refused to bloom, even when growing 

beside all of the others which put out their small brownish-pink 

flowers in numbers. Finally, one June, this plant bloomed—not 

with flowers like the others, but with flowers nearly twice as 

large and opening out widely where the others remained at best 

bell-shaped, and with a clear whitish color where the petals of 

the others were pinkish with definite brown midlines. Its 5 or 6 

white stigma lobes contrasting with the 5 very green stigmas of 

the common plants emphasized the difference. 

Only after discovering these differences did I get my magnifier 

and compare the spines of these plants, and to my delight I 

found that my newly flowered specimen had 5 centrals with the 

upper ones standing upright against the upper radials while the 

lower one stood out and slightly downward and was especially 

heavy. Examination showed that my common, brownish-flowered 

plants all had 7 or more comparatively slender centrals 

spreading irregularly. Much later I was able to observe that my 

reluctant bloomer had brown seeds, while my other plants had 

black seeds. I had M. tuberculosa and M. dasyacantha side by 

side, both with naked, corky bases. 

M. tuberculosa, when known from its relatives, is apparently 

a plant much less often seen than it is thought to be, while that 

similar cactus coming in such numbers out of the Big Bend and 

called so widely by this name is really its relative, M. dasyacantha. 

M. tuberculosa is easily distinguished when in bloom by 

the details of its larger and much more delicately colored flowers, 

but it blooms reluctantly in cultivation. It is much more 

difficult to distinguish without the flowers, but the arrangement 

of the central spines—particularly the presence of the stout 

lower central standing out by itself—is the best clue. In general, 

it is a smaller plant than M. dasyacantha, its spines having purplish 

ends instead of brown, and not as completely obscuring 

the stem as do those of its relatives. 

This cactus has also been referred to by the name Mammillaria 

strobiliformis, and this name still persists in some authors, 

making it necessary for us to review the origins of these names 

so that we may evaluate them. 

In 1850 Scheer described what most agree was this cactus, 

giving it the name M. strobiliformis. His description, however, 

was vague, and in 1856, when Engelmann first studied the plant, 

he thought he had a different cactus and originated a new name 

for it, M. tuberculosa. Later, realizing his mistake, Engelmann 

tried to retract his own name, stating, in the “Corrections to the 

Cactaceae of the Boundary”: “M. tuberculosa is clearly identical


with M. strobiliformis Scheer in Salm. Hort. Dyck (1850), as I 

have ascertained by a careful examination of the original specimens 

(now dead) in the collection of Prince Salm. Mr. Scheer’s 

name, having the priority, must be substituted for mine.” 

It would seem that nothing could be more clear, and the periodic 

return to the use of the name M. strobiliformis even to today 

is based upon this statement. But the ways of taxonomic 

priority often lead through mazes of cross-references, and it was 

soon noted that the name M. strobiliformis had already been 

twice used before Scheer’s use of it. In 1848 Muehlenpfordt had 

applied the name to what is generally agreed to be the already 

described M. sulcata Eng. Then, also in 1848, in the Wislizenus 

Report, Engelmann himself had described a plant under that 

same name. There has been rare agreement through the years 

since that Engelmann’s M. strobiliformis of 1848 is actually 

Echinocactus (Neolloydia) conoidea, first described by De Candolle 

in 1829. This leaves it of little interest to us here, but all 

of this does render the M. strobiliformis of Scheer twice a homonym 

and, therefore, an invalid name for the plant we are discussing, 

and it leaves Engelmann’s M. tuberculosa as, after all— 

unless there is another turn to the maze which we have missed— 

the first name for this plant valid under taxonomic rules. 

Borg repeats Quehl’s list of five varieties under this species, 

but the descriptions of these are very general and seem almost 

impossible to distinguish in actuality. Several of them appear to 

indicate the two forms listed next in our study, seeming to show 

characters clearly outside the limits of this species. However, I 

have noticed that the New Mexico specimens of this species are 

often slightly different from the Texas ones, being smaller, with 

more rounded, often almost spherical, fruits. Further study of 

these differences might lead toward some of Quehl’s varieties or 

might show these differences as only environmental. 

The name Escobaria orcuttii appeared in a catalog, without 

description, in 1925. In 1926 Rose mentioned a Neolloydia orcuttii. 

It was said by him to have 15 centrals, but a rose-colored 

flower and 6 long, white stigmas. These characters would seem 

to give a curious intermediate between M. tuberculosa and M. 

dasyacantha. But no location for the plant was ever given except 

“U.S.A. (Texas?).” The plant has not been reported by any 

recent students, and it seems best to dismiss it entirely, at least 

until it can be found and described exactly. 

Mammillaria dasyacantha Eng. 

[Escobaria dasyacantha (Eng.) B. & R.] 


stems: Practically spherical when young, becoming elongated 

and cylindrical when older. The young plants Consist of single 

stems, and they often remain this way all their lives, but occasionally 

old plants sprout at their bases to form small clusters 

of several stems. They sometimes grow to a maximum of 

8 inches tall and 23/4 inches thick. Their tubercles are cylindrical 

and straight in young plants, but become definitely flattened, 

somewhat overlapping, and 3/8 to 1/2 inch long on old 

plants. The oldest tubercles on the bases of the plants usually 

become bare of spines and remain as discolored, dead-appear- 

ing bumps. 

areoles: The spine-bearing portions of the areoles are at the 

tips of the tubercles, the floral part in the axils, and the 

tubercles are marked all the way to their bases by grooves, 

woolly when young but nearly naked when old, which are 

the narrowed portions of the areoles connecting the two extremities. 

Immature areoles consist of merely the small, round- 

ed spinous portion. 

spines: Radial spines 25 to at least 35 in number, radiating 

all around the areole. These are white in color, usually about 

1/2 inch long, but sometimes to almost a full inch in length. 

They are very slender, the upper ones being almost bristlelike. 

There are also from 7 to as many as 17 centrals which 

fill the center of each areole and spread irregularly in every 

direction. These are slender, some of them being almost as 

slender as the radials. They vary in length, most being about 

5/8 of an inch long, but occasionally some are as short as 3/8 

of an inch, and some—particularly the upper ones—sometimes 

grow to a full inch. The lower parts of them are white, 

while the tips are reddish-brown. 

flowers: 1 inch tall and 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch across, not opening 

widely, whitish to pale pink in color. The outer petals are 

1/2 to 5/8 of an inch long, 3/16 of an inch wide, and pointed, 

with the edges fringed. The midlines of these are greenish- 

brown, fading to whitish at the edges. There are 8 to 10 of 

them. There are 13 to 16 inner petals, which are the same 

width and length, and taper gradually to pointed tips. They 

have brownish midlines; the edges are tan, whitish, or pink. 

The filaments are pale pink or cream, the anthers bright yellow. 

The style is bright green and ends in 4 or 5 very short, 

very green stigma lobes which are deeply grooved on their 

ventral sides. 

fruits: The fruits of this plant are egg-shaped to somewhat 

elongated, 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch long, and dark red or scarlet. 

The seeds are small, practically round, about 1/2 to 1 millimeter 

long, pitted deeply on their surfaces, and a shiny black 

color. 

Range. The mountains of the lower Big Bend region of Texas, 

extreme southern New Mexico, and south into Mexico. 

Remarks. In extreme southwestern Texas this is the common 

species of the group often called Escobarias. It is also the largest 

species of the group. It is found on slopes and ledges in the 

mountains, and even on the summits of the higher mountains, 

often being found growing in the moss-filled crevices of high, 

exposed rock surfaces. In fact, some of those locations show 

many young plants without any mature ones, apparently be-


cause the seeds have germinated where there is too little soil to 

support them to maturity. I had to bring home some of these 

miniature specimens from rocky crevices near the summits of 

the Chisos Mountains and grow them several years before they 

put on mature spination, bloomed and fruited, and I knew they 

were this species. It is interesting to speculate about the means 

by which seeds are distributed to these high locations. I would 

suspect that birds deposit them there after eating the fruits of 

lower-growing mature plants. 

The distinguishing characters of M. dasyacantha were discussed 

in connection with the preceding species, the other species 

with which this one is so widely confused, and under whose 

name I have seen scores of these cacti being distributed. Without 

flowers M. dasyacantha is recognized by its comparatively 

thicker stems, its numerous, slender central spines spreading irregularly 

and without a conspicuous, heavier central standing 

outward or downward in the areole. With its flowers it is easy 

to distinguish, because its flowers do not open widely, and they 

have conspicuously green stigmas, fewer outer petals, and more 

as well as broader inner petals than the flowers of M. tuberculosa. 

When fruited it may be told by its shiny black seeds which 

are so different from those of M. tuberculosa that Hester felt it 

necessary to propose a separate genus, Escobesseya, with this 

species as its type species. 

It seems important to note that the juvenile plants of M. dasyacantha 

are so markedly different in almost all characters from 

the adults as to be taken for other forms. These young plants are 

spherical, sometimes even with depressed tops. When very young 

their tubercles do not possess any grooves, they have 18 to 22 

white, translucent radial spines 1/8 of an inch long, and they 

have uniformly only 2 central spines per areole, one pointing 

directly upward and one downward, each 3/16 of an inch long. 

By the time the plants get to be about 1 inch in diameter, the 

new tubercles begin to have short grooves, the radials begin to 

be up to 1/4 of an inch long, and there begin to be 4 centrals to 

the areole arranged as points of a cross and to 1/2 inch long. 

When the plant is about 13/4 inches in diameter and height more 

centrals start to appear, and soon the plants begin to lengthen 

out and take on their adult appearance. 

Although this cactus is fairly common, it is a plain one in all 

of its stages, and the extent to which both this and the previous 

species have been ignored by almost everyone may be seen by 

the fact that neither of them seems to have been given a com- 

mon name, even in the local area. 

Mammillaria duncanii (Hester) 

[Escobesseya duncanii Hester] 


roots: Having one, or often several fleshy, carrot-like tap- 

roots 1/4 to 1 inch in diameter and sometimes to as much as a 

foot long before tapering. 

stems: Practically spherical to broadly ovate or somewhat 

conical, to about 2 inches tall by 11/4 inches in diameter. The 

stems are usually single, but a few double- or triple-stemmed 

specimens have been seen. The stem is covered by small tubercles 

about 1/8 of an inch long. 

areoles: Monomorphic, being elongated into a groove from 

the spinous portion on the tips of the tubercle to the floral 

portion in the axil, with some white wool in the axillary portion 

at first. 

spines: There are 24 to about 40 radial spines which are slender, 

straight, 3/16 to 3/8 of an inch long, and white or white 

with very slightly brownish tips. There are 3 to 16 central 

spines, although the usual number is about 8. These spread 

very widely and are around 3/8 of an inch long, white, tipped 

with light brown. 

flowers: 5/8 to 3/4 of an inch long and about 1/2 inch wide, 

not opening widely. They are pale pink, or whitish with pinkish 

zones. The ovary is smooth and rounded. The outer perianth 

segments are pointed, the outermost with a few cilia on 

their margins. They are pinkish with whitish edges. The inner 

segments are entire, pointed, their midlines pink and their 

edges whitish. The filaments are whitish, the anthers pale 

orange. The stigma has 4 to 6 yellow or sometimes almost 

chartreuse lobes. 

fruits: Club-shaped, 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch long and about 3/16 

of an inch wide, not including the persistent perianth, becoming 

bright red when ripe. The seeds are practically spherical, 

black in color, with the surface pitted and the hila basal. 

Range. A small area of Brewster County, Texas, a few miles 

west and north of Terlingua, Texas. Said to have been collected 

also in New Mexico, but this fact has not been verified. 

Remarks. This obscure little cactus was described in 1945 by the 

very meticulous observer of Big Bend cacti, J. Pinckney Hester. 

He described it under the name of Escobesseya duncanii. It has 

hardly been seen since. 

I was fortunate to receive a number of specimens of this species 

from Mr. Homer Jones, a dealer friend in Alpine. He had 

gotten them from the type locality a few miles north of Terlingua, 

Texas, and was so good an observer himself that he recognized 

he had something unusual. Although both Mr. Jones 

and I have searched in the area since that time, we have not 

been so fortunate as to collect the cactus again. Neither has it 

appeared in the large number of cacti from the general region 

passing through his business. I believe that it is extremely rare. 

Along with the giving of the type locality in Brewster County, 

Texas, in his original description of the plant, Mr. Hester 

added that it was also found “in a low range of mountains a 

few miles west of Hot Springs, New Mexico.” This has prompted 

much searching for the species in New Mexico. I have searched


for it there myself without success. Some have reported finding 

it in New Mexico, but the two or three of these plants from 

New Mexico labeled thus which I have been privileged to examine 

in herbaria have definitely not been this form. They appear 

to be the smaller form which M. tuberculosa often takes in 

New Mexico; one of them with brown seeds which prove this 

identification. Therefore, I think that the question of whether 

the plant grows in New Mexico is still in doubt. Hester may 

have overstated the range of the cactus because of misidentifying 

some New Mexico specimens, as he did that of M. fragrans 

by including with it some specimens of M. vivipara var. radiosa. 

Another interesting possibility is that the New Mexico in his 

article is a misprint and he meant to refer to Hot Springs, Texas, 

which is in Brewster County. However this may be, it seems 

necessary to doubt the existence of this cactus in such a discontinuous 

range in New Mexico until obvious specimens of it come 

forth from that state, and there seem to be none so far. 

In the general characteristics of its spines, its flowers, its fruits 

and seeds, the cactus is very close to M. dasyacantha. Except for 

certain peculiarities, it might pass for a dwarf form of that cactus. 

Its seeds are so close to those of M. dasyacantha that Hester 

placed it with that species in his proposed new genus, Escobesseya, 

apart from all others. It is, however, set off from M. dasyacantha 

by the unusual fleshy taproot, by its smaller size and its 

yellow stigma lobes. It is a most interesting, but very unobtru- 

sive little rarity. 

Mammillaria albicolumnaria (Hester) 

[Escobaria albicolumnaria Hester] 

“The White Column,” ‘The Silverlace Cactus” 


stems: Oblong or cylindrical almost from the beginning, 

nearly always single, only a few plants having been seen 

with 2 or 3 stems. These stems are said to grow to 10 inches 

tall, but are rarely seen over 5 inches. The maximum diameter 

seems to be about 21/2 inches. The tubercles of the stem are 

about 3/8 of an inch long, tapering to points from rhomboid 

bases about as wide as they are tall. The bases of old plants 

become naked of spines in most cases. 

areoles: Monomorphic, but elongated on mature stems to 

run the whole length of the tubercle, the spinous part at the 

tip, the floral part in the axil, and the rest of the areole a 

narrow groove connecting the two. On younger specimens the 

areoles usually extend only part way down the tubercles. 

There is white wool in the grooves when they are young, but 

most of this disappears with age. 

spines: Each areole has 25 to sometimes at least 35 radial 

spines, which are fine and some of them almost bristle-like 

but which are very rigid and brittle. They are to 3/8 of an inch 

long, are very white in color, and are somewhat translucent. 

There are also 11 to as many as 17 central spines to 5/8 of an 

inch long. They are heavier than the radials and fill up the 

center of the areole, spreading in all directions. They are pink 

or very light red when growing, then translucent white with 

red-brown tips. The spines are all very brittle. 

flowers: Small, not opening widely, but remaining funnelshaped. 

They are pink in color and are usually only 3/8 to 5/8 

of an inch wide and 3/4 to 1 inch tall. The outer petals are 

greenish-brown in the midlines with whitish edges fringed all 

the way to the pointed tips. There may be 16 to 26 of them. 

The inner petals are 25 to 26 in number, pale pink to whitish, 

narrow, and pointed in shape, and their edges are not fringed. 

They are about 1/8 of an inch wide. The filaments are white 

and the anthers yellow. The style is shorter than the stamens 

and pink in color. The stigma is made up of 3 to 7 white or 

pale pink lobes which are short and thick. 

fruits: On this cactus the fruits are oblong or club-shaped, 

to 5/8 of an inch long and 1/4 of an inch thick. The lower half 

of the fruit remains greenish in color when ripe, but the upper 

half becomes a pale yellowish or apricot color. The seeds are 

brown, pitted on the surface, and about 1 millimeter long. 

Range. Found only in the extreme southwestern corner of Brewster 

County, Texas, near the localities of Terlingua and Lajitas. 

Remarks. This little cactus was not found by the early students 

who hunted cacti in Texas, probably because of the limited size 

and the ruggedness of the area in which it grows, one of the 

most inaccessible locations in the Big Bend. It was first described 

in 1941, and very few people saw it for some years after that. 

In recent years, however, dealers have had crews of men combing 

the mountains of the Big Bend for cacti, and hundreds of 

this species have gone into the trade, mostly under the name of 

Mammillaria (Escobaria) dasyacantha. 

Some students would like to combine this cactus with the 

three just listed into one species, but it is impossible to do this 

without ignoring the differences in their seeds which are great 

enough so that Hester, who no doubt observed more of them 

alive than any other student, felt it necessary even to place them 

in different genera. And this cactus is the one of the four which 

has spines and flowers most like M. dasyacantha but seeds like 

M. tuberculosa, so that it cannot well be placed as a variety of 

either. 

In general plant and spine characters this form seems very 

much like M. dasyacantha. It never grows as large, however, 

and usually does not cluster. It is set off from that species by 

the translucent whiteness and the brittleness of its spines, which 

break easily upon handling, rather than by their numbers or arrangement. 

I have often demonstrated this character by breaking 

spines off a specimen with the pressure of a finger. This may 

seem a small point upon which to base a species, but there are 

other confirming characters. Its many more numerous petals,


white stigmas, greenish-apricot fruits, and brown, different 

shaped seeds set it apart effectively from M. dasyacantha, with 

its fewer petals, green stigmas, scarlet or deep red fruits, and 

black seeds. 

Backeberg, on the other hand, considers it as synonymous with 

Quehl’s variety durispina of M. tuberculosa. However, the spines 

themselves very easily show it is not M. tuberculosa, as it has 

too many of them and lacks the heavy lower central which is 

characteristic of that cactus. Add to that the great difference in 

flower form, size, number of petals; the pale color of our plant’s 

fruits as compared with the rich red of those of M. tuberculosa; 

and the size of its seeds, which are up to twice those of that 

species, and it seems it cannot be put under that species either. 

So M. albicolumnaria seems to stand, a charming little “white 

column” from the very wildest mountains of the Texas Big Bend, 

which has become such a favorite with collectors as to be the 

only one of these four to possess a generally used common name. 

Mammillaria varicolor (Tieg.) 

[Escobaria varicolor (Tieg.) Backbg.] 


stems: Apparently single except when injured, in which case 

they branch to form several heads. Normal stems are eggshaped, 

to 5 inches tall and nearly as broad with tubercles to 

about 1/2 inch long, conical from broadly flattened bases, turning 

upward to overlap greatly when old. 

areoles: On mature stems the areoles are elongated to run as 

narrow grooves from the spinous portions at the tips of the 

tubercles to the floral portions in the axils. They are naked 

except for large tufts of white wool at the floral region. This 

wool makes the growing tips of the plants very fuzzy, and it 

persists on old tubercles, making the axils woolly. 

spines: There are 15 to 20 very slender, white, semitranslucent 

radial spines. Some of them are to 1/4 of an inch long, but 

many of them, especially the upper ones, are weak bristles as 

short as 1/8 of an inch long. There are usually 4, but occasionally 

5 centrals, which are to about 1/2 inch long, heavier than 

the radials, and yellowish at the bases, with the upper part of 

each central brownish or purplish. They are semitranslucent 

and hornlike. The lower central stands out, perpendicular to 

the plant body or downward, while the 3 or 4 upper centrals 

spread fanwise in front of the upper radials. 

flowers: Almost pure white, pink, or very pale rose in color. 

They are 3/4 of an inch long and 11/4 inches in diameter. The 

outer petals are 11 or 12 in number, 3/4 of an inch long, 

fringed all the way on their edges, and brownish with pinkish 

edges. The inner petals are 26 or 27 in number, 1 inch long 

and 1/8 of an inch wide, pointed, their edges smooth, and 

various in color, as above. The filaments and anthers are 

bright yellow. The style is a little longer than the stamens and 

white. The stigma has 5 or 6 white lobes which are about 1/8 

of an inch long and slender. 

fruits: Ellipsoidal or sometimes slightly curved club-shaped, 

with the wilted perianth persistent. Approximately 1/2 to 5/8 

of an inch long by only 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch in diameter. In 

color, when ripe, they are a medium bright rose-red. They 

ripen in August. 

Range. Originally given only as southwestern Texas. I have 

collected specimens from only a small range running from near 

Marathon, Texas, to about 12 miles north of Alpine, Texas. 

Remarks. This is a very obscure little cactus which has no doubt 

been mistaken many times for other forms. It takes a keen eye 

to recognize it from the stem characters alone. When it blooms, 

however, the differences of the flowers from all other forms are 

obvious. Tiegel says that the flowers vary from almost white to 

carmine rose, for which variation he named it. Most which I 

have seen were very nearly pure white to a very pale rose in 

color. This is vastly different from the magenta or purple of the 

other forms most similar to it. Beyond this the yellow filaments 

and less numerous stigma lobes distinguish it from them. 

In his original description of it Tiegel called it Coryphantha 

(Escobania) varicolor, apparently not wishing to commit himself 

as to which of these no doubt too strictly drawn genera it 

really belonged with. There was good reason for doubt as to 

which of these microgenera it really belonged to, since the fruits 

are practically the only means of distinguishing the two microgenera, 

and the fruits of this species were never described. Backeberg, 

however, considered it an Escobaria. Since I have observed 

the fruits, which proved to be red in color, if I thought it necessary 

to place it in either of these microgenera, I would have to 

agree with Backeberg and place it in Escobaria. 

Tiegel described the cactus as always consisting of a single 

stem, which seems to be correct in its normal growth. However, 

the finest specimen I have is a very large old plant which was 

apparently injured after reaching a diameter of about 3 inches, 

and which then put out a cluster of five new heads. I have observed 

numerous specimens with such form in the undisturbed 

wild population, but each of them shows clearly an injury to 

the original growing tip. 

Tiegel only lists the range of his plant as southwestern Texas. 

This takes in an immense territory, and is of little value in trying 

to locate the cactus. It has been so seldom reported since his 

description that little by way of more specific range can be 

given. Even Backeberg remarks that he had one specimen sent 

to him from Texas, but does not locate its place of origin. 

The only specimens I have seen have been those I collected in 

a small area from the Pena Blanca Mountains southeast of Marathon, 

Texas, to the hills just north of Alpine. Whether the range


is any larger than this remains to be seen. It must be rare in all 

of its range. 

Mammillaria hesteri (Wright) 

[Coryphantha hesteri Wright] 


stems: Spherical to egg-shaped, to 3 inches tall and nearly as 

wide. They may occur singly, but usually cluster very rapidly 

to form irregular clumps up to more than a foot across. Each 

stem is covered by tubercles which are cylindrical when young, 

then tapering and turning upward from broad, flattened bases 

and up to 1/2 inch long when old. 

areoles: Roundish on immature stems, then on mature stems 

elongating to form grooves running almost all of the way to 

the axils, with the flowers produced at the ends of these 

grooves. Maturing stems show all degrees of the lengthening 

of the areoles. There is only a very small tuft of wool in the 

base of the groove at first, which usually soon disappears. 

spines: On mature heads there are 14 to 20 radial spines. They 

radiate evenly around the areole, but the upper ones are much 

longer and heavier than the others, the lower ones being only 

1/8 to 1/4 of an inch long, while the upper ones are often 1/4 to 

1/2 inch long. In each areole there is one spine markedly heavier 

than the rest and standing upright against the more slender 

upper radials behind it. This has been considered just a heavier 

radial by all who have described the cactus, but I have 

known people to think it a central spine and so misidentify 

the plant. The distinction here is very fine, as the spine does 

seem to arise from the interior of the areole within the circle 

of the radials. On young stems there are only 12 or 13 short, 

equal, radiating spines. On plants from the type locality all 

spines are very white and translucent at first, later developing 

gray opaqueness with tips of red or purplish-brown. However, 

specimens from near Sanderson, Texas, all have gray or 

tan bases, with the upper two-thirds of each spine red or purple-brown. 

All spines are more or less flattened. 

flowers: Mauve, 1 to 11/2 inches across and tall. The outer 

petals, about 8 in number, grow to about 3/16 of an inch wide, 

are greenish to pinkish, and are fringed with long, white 

hairs. The inner petals, about 22 to 27 in number, grow to 

about 1/2 inch long and 3/16 of an inch or slightly less in width, 

are bluntly pointed, and have edges smooth or slightly ragged. 

They are mauve, darkest at the tips. The filaments are 

white to rose, and the anthers are orange-yellow. The style is 

slightly longer than the stamens and greenish or yellowish 

pink. There are 4 to 6 short, stout, rough, cream-colored or 

white stigma lobes. 


Range. A small area a few miles southeast of Alpine, Texas, and 

another small area a short distance west of Sanderson, Texas. 

Remarks. This and the next species are two of several diminutive 

cacti occurring in very limited areas just south and southeast 

of Marathon, Texas. Each of these areas is so small as to be 

only a few miles across, and is all included in only two or three 

ranches. 

M. hesteri was first discovered by J. P. Hester, and he wrote 

briefly of it in 1930. It was officially described by Wright in 

1932 as Coryphantha hesteri. Immediately, even though it is a 

small and rather insignificant cactus, it became a sought-after 

novelty. The large clusters which used to be available all seem 

to have been removed, and now one has to search well to find 

even a small specimen. Since it occurs in such limited areas, it 

would be very easy for it to be exterminated by too much gathering. 

I am glad to learn that one of the ranches on which it 

grows is now closed by the owner to all cactus digging. This 

should give it an opportunity to increase its sadly depleted 

population. 

Only within the past three years a new stand of this cactus 

was discovered a short distance west of Sanderson. The plants 

from this location are identical to those of the type locality except 

that their spines are much darker in color and the stems 

are more egg-shaped and thus taller. 

In spite of the fact that I have grown this cactus for six years 

and it has bloomed most of these years, my specimens have 

never set fruit. Neither have I been fortunate enough to find 

fruits on wild plants. Therefore I cannot contribute the description 

of the fruits of this species, which apparently has never 

been given. 

Mammillaria nellieae (Croiz.) Croiz. 

[Coryphantha minima Baird, Coryphantha nellieae Croiz.] 


stems: Egg-shaped or cylindrical and very small, usually 

under 1 inch tall and to 3/4 of an inch in diameter, but occasionally 

to as much as 13/4 inches tall. The stems are usually 

single, but sometimes branch above the base. The tubercles 

covering the stem are conic and up to about 1/16 of an inch 

long. 

areoles: Each tubercle has a broad, deep, naked groove run- 

ning the full length of its upper side, which is the linear, 

monomorphic areole running from the spinous portion at the 

tip of the tubercle to the floral portion in the axil. 

spines: There are 13 to 15 definite radial spines which are 1/16 

to 1/8 of an inch long and which lie flat against the plant all 

around the areole. They vary from rather slender to fairly 

heavy. Besides this there are 3 other spines, much heavier and


to about 1/4 of an inch long which stand upright in front of 

and curve slightly backward to lie directly upon the upper 

radials. Two of these are heavy and spread upward, forming 

a rather distinct V. The third is always somewhat smaller, 

and bisects the V formed by the first two. Some authorities 

have called these 3 spines centrals and others have considered 

them only extra-heavy radials, this latter reckoning giving a 

maximum of 18 radials. All spines are pinkish when growing, 

then becoming yellowish until fading to gray. All spines are 

also unique in shape, being round and maintaining their full 

thickness from the bases to the very tips, these tips being then 

suddenly sharp-pointed. This gives the spines somewhat of a 

club-shaped appearance. 

flowers: Rose-purple in color, about 3/4 of an inch tall and 

5/8 to 1 inch in diameter. The outer petals are short and greenish 

with pink, fringed edges. The inner petals are about 3/8 of 

an inch long and about 1/8 of an inch wide, rose-purple, and 

bluntly pointed, with smooth edges. The filaments are greenish 

and the anthers pale orange. The style is short, and the 

stigma has 8 green lobes. 

fruits: Egg-shaped and very small, being usually 1/8 to 1/4 of 

an inch long, green in color, sometimes with a faint yellowish 

blush, with the dried perianth remaining upon them. The seeds 

are about 1/2 millimeter long, blackish, with smooth surfaces. 

Range. Known only from the type locality a few miles south of 

Marathon, in Brewster County, Texas. 

Remarks. This is another of the dwarf cacti found in Brewster 

County, Texas. It grows in crevices of limestone ledges on a few 

hills just south of Marathon. It is often so imbedded in the moss 

of these crevices that the plant itself is almost wholly covered. 

In such situations it is surprising to see the beautiful purplish 

flowers rising up above the moss from the wholly unseen cactus 

below. There are only a few slopes upon which the plants grow 

openly and exposed. 

These little cacti are interesting to see when grown in proper 

surroundings so that they are healthy, but this is not easy to 

arrange. They need very good drainage so that they do not rot, 

but also must have frequent waterings, since these tiny plants 

cannot store much water within themselves. They need heat and 

sun, but appreciate being shaded with something which breaks 

the direct rays of the sun just a little. I know of no collector who 

has succeeded in keeping specimens of this species alive more 

than a couple of years, yet the life-span of the plant must be 

much longer than that. 

This cactus is tiny, but the problems with its names are large. 

It has become almost universally known by the name, Coryphantha 

nellieae, but the name Coryphantha minima was given 

to it in its first description and has precedence. The first of these 

names was given to it in a description written by Croizat in the 

January and February, 1934, issue of Torreya. Strangely, Croizat 

seemed totally unaware that Ralph O. Baird had already 

described the cactus under the name Coryphantha minima in 

the American Botanist, 37 (4), 150–151, 1931. Unaccountably, 

all authorities since that time have omitted mention of this earlier 

description by Baird and used only the later name. Baird’s 

description is in every way more complete and official than 

Croizat’s, except that it lacks the Latin description, but this cannot 

disqualify it, as 1931 antedated the rule requiring Latin de- 

scriptions. 

Most recently, Backeberg transfers the species to Escobaria, 

calling it Escobaria nellieae (Croiz.) Backbg. He says the fruit is 

unknown. This error would have been avoided if he had referred 

to Baird’s description where the fruit was accurately described 

as being green, which is a Coryphantha characteristic. 

Croizat himself had already made the standard argument over 

whether the cactus is a Coryphantha or an Escobaria unnecessary 

by writing, “In the course of a recent study of the Cactaceae 

I have come to the conclusion that the following transfer 

may be desirable: Mammillaria nellieae (Croiz.) comb. nov.— 

Cory. nellieae Croiz. in Torreya 34: 15. 1934.” His conclusion 

here is in line with our approach to this group, but it would 

seem that under this combination the name of this cactus should 

by the rules be rather Mammillaria minima. This would be true 

except for one fact, and because of this Baird must lose even in 

this combination. There had already been a previous Mammillaria 

minima put forth by Reichenbach in Terscheck, Supp. Cact. 

Verz. 1, for a Mexican cactus. Reichenbach’s cactus is now listed 

as a variety of M. elongata DC., but since the name has been 

used once, it cannot be used again for another plant, so we are 

left after all with Croizat’s M. nellieae as the name for our diminutive 

Texas plant. 

The species is easily recognized by the remarkable appearance 

of the spines, which lie tight against the surface of the plant and 

preserve their thickness right up to the points, so that they appear 

very thick for their length and are more like tiny clubs 

than ordinary spines. 

Mammillaria roberti (Berger) 

[Escobaria runyonii B. & R., Coryphantha roberti Berger] 

“Runyon’s Escobaria,” “Junior Tom Thumb Cactus” 


stems: Spherical at first, becoming oblong and to about 3 

inches tall by 11/4 inches thick. Branching very fast and irregularly 

to form large, low clumps of dozens of stems. The tubercles 

covering the stems taper from cylindrical bases and 

are from 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch long. 

areoles: Round and at the tips of the tubercles on immature 

stems. On mature stems they develop from oval to almost 

linear by being prolonged from the spinous portion at the tip 

of the tubercle into a very narrow, very woolly groove running 

from halfway to all the way down the upper side of the


tubercle. Flowers and new branches are produced from the 

end of this groove, at or near the axil of the tubercle. 

spines: There are 20 to 30 slender radial spines which are 3/16 

to sometimes almost 1/4 of an inch long, white in color, usually 

barely tipped with brown. There are 5 to at least 10 central 

spines filling the center of each areole and spreading in 

all directions. These are 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch long, the upper 

ones being much the longer, and are slender. These centrals 

have white bases, but the upper three-fourths of each one is 

dark brown, red-brown, or black. 

flowers: Very inconspicuous in color, 3/4 of an inch in diameter 

and 5/8 of an inch tall, but opening widely. All petals 

are slender and pointed, buff or tan, with midlines of reddishbrown. 

The outer ones are fringed and the inner ones may be 

either with or without fringes. The filaments are pink and the 

anthers yellow. The style is about 1/8 of an inch longer than 

the stamens and reddish-brown. The stigma has 5 or 6 short, 

thick lobes which are green, sometimes yellow-green or even 

brownish-green. 

fruits: Spherical to egg-shaped, 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch long, 

scarlet in color. 

Range. The Rio Grande Valley and its overlooking hills from 

near McAllen, Texas, to the mouth of the Pecos River. Also 

found along the west side of the lower Devil’s River. 

Remarks. This is undoubtedly one of the most perfectly camouflaged 

of the cacti. Even large clumps a foot or more in diameter 

are only a couple of inches high, and the dark-tipped 

spines blend perfectly with the rocky soil around them and the 

grasses usually growing up through them and partly covering 

them. Even the flower is a blending color and gives no aid in 

locating the plant. Only the scarlet fruit is allowed to advertise, 

no doubt so that birds and rodents will come and eat them in 

order to scatter the seeds. 

The cactus was discovered by Robert Runyon, a fine student 

of the cacti of the lower Rio Grande Valley, and it was first 

described by Britton and Rose as Escobaria runyoni. It grows 

upon the rocky hills overlooking the Rio Grande, being most 

common near Rio Grande City and around the lower part of 

what is now the Falcon reservoir. It is still fairly common there, 

partly because it takes a real search to find it, and partly because 

it is too insignificant in size and appearance to appeal to 

those who take home the more beautiful cacti. 

While searching along the lower parts of the Devil’s River in 

West Texas for another cactus, we were very surprised to find, 

growing on the west side of that river, numerous specimens of 

a cactus identical to this one in all respects. It is clearly the same 

cactus, and represents a large increase of the known range of 

this cactus. But this left a large gap between this Devil’s River 

location and the old locations known on the lower Rio Grande, 

where there was no record of its having been seen. This prompted 

careful searching, and we have now located the cactus grow- 

ing all the way past Laredo to Eagle Pass and near Del Rio, so 

there is in reality one continuous range, much longer than at 

first thought. 

There have been problems over the name for this cactus, all 

because of the confusion which has existed over genera. In an 

article in 1929, Berger sought to transfer the whole genus Escobaria 

to Coryphantha. In so doing he met a problem with Escobaria 

runyoni, as there already existed a Coryphantha runyonii. 

He attempted to solve the difficulty by re-naming this cactus 

Coryphantha roberti, using the first name of Mr. Runyon for it 

instead of his surname. 

In 1931 Fosberg attempted to do the same thing again and 

met with the same problem. He coined another new name, Coryphantha 

piercei for this plant. 

This system of combination has not caught on, however, perhaps 

because it did not go far enough. We feel that a combination 

cannot be avoided, and Britton and Rose’s name cannot be 

preserved, no matter what form this combination takes. Under 

our proposal to return both of these microgenera to the original 

genus, Mammillaria, this species becomes Mammillaria roberti, 

since this was the first substitute name suggested. This seems 

especially fitting since it preserves the reference to Dr. Runyon, 

as was intended. 

Mammillaria sneedii (B. & R.) 

[Escobaria sneedii B. & R.] 


stems: To only about 2 inches long and 3/4 of an inch thick. 

These small cylindrical stems branch and cluster very greatly 

to form masses of as many as 100 heads on old specimens. The 

individual stems are composed of many tiny, cylindrical, 

green tubercles 1/16 to 3/16 of an inch long. 

areoles: Round or nearly so on immature stems, lengthening 

somewhat on mature stems to form short grooves running 

from the spinous portion of the areoles at the tips of the 

tubercles to at most one-third of the way down toward the 

axils. Flowering or branching occurs at the ends of these short 

grooves. There is a little white wool in the groove. 

spines: The tubercles are almost entirely obscured by the many 

white spines. There are 24 to 45 radiating outer spines, which 

are about 1/8 of an inch long and very slender, but rigid. There 

are 13 to 17 central spines, which are slightly heavier than the 

radials and 1/8 to 5/16 of an inch long. These centrals are all 

spreading and lie against the radials, except for the middle 

one out of the center of the areole, which often stands outward 

and downward at an angle. All spines are white when 

mature, but pinkish when growing, giving the tip of a growing 

stem a pinkish color. 

flowers: Small—about 1/2 inch tall and broad—not opening


widely, and pink to pale rose in color. The outer petals are 

narrow, with fringed edges. The midlines are rose and they are 

edged in very pale pink. The inner petals are the same color, 

but paler. Their edges are fringed at least half of the way to 

the pointed tips. There are also sometimes notches in the otherwise 

entire margins of these petal ends. The filaments are pink, 

the anthers bright orange. The style is longer than the stamens. 

The stigma has 3 or 4 slender, white lobes. 

fruits: About 1/4 of an inch thick, almost spherical, but a 

little longer than they are thick. They become a deep pink 

when ripe. The seeds are brown, pitted on the surface, and 

less than 1/16 of an inch (about 1 millimeter) long. 

Range. Known only from the Franklin Mountains between El 

Paso, Texas, and Las Cruces, New Mexico. 

Remarks. The tiny, white stems of this little cactus are insignificant 

individually, but in an old plant made up of dozens of 

them, the whole may be a clump up to a foot or more in diameter, 

which is very impressive. Unfortunately, very few persons 

have ever seen such mature plants, and it is unlikely that 

anyone will see such a sight in the future unless he grows the 

plant himself. 

The cactus was brought down out of the higher elevations of 

the Franklin Mountains and shown to Britton and Rose in 1921. 

They first described it in their large work, saying it was known 

from only a single station in those mountains, and that only five 

plants had been found. Immediately many went up looking for 

it, and no doubt dozens of specimens were brought down, dispersed 

to gardens, and never heard of again. Some photographs 

of large clusters were published in various journals, but it is 

doubted that any of these large plants still survive, and in recent 

years even small specimens growing wild have been almost impossible 

to find. The species is no doubt another of those well on 

the way to extinction, and the future for it would look very dark, 

except for the work of Mr. Clark Champie of Anthony, New 

Mexico-Texas. He is the first dealer propagating these Texas and 

New Mexico species from seed instead of relying upon stripping 

nature’s gardens for his stock. Located as he is at the foot of the 

Franklins, he has secured mature plants and has many seedlings 

of M. sneedii, so collectors can continue to have the plant from 

his nursery. 

Mammillaria leei (Böd.) 

[Escobaria leei Böd.] 


roots: Fibrous on young individuals and mostly fibrous when 

older, but usually with a single definite taproot developed 

from the original center of an old clump. This taproot is about 

3/16 to 1/4 of an inch thick and usually runs for some inches 

before reducing. 

stems: Almost spherical at first, later becoming mostly club- 

shaped, but sometimes cylindrical, to a maximum of about 3 

inches long and about 11/8 inches thick, but ordinarily only 

about 1 to 11/2 inches tall and 3/4 of an inch thick. These small 

stems branch and proliferate very rapidly, forming irregular 

clumps of up to several hundred very tightly packed stems, 

such clumps a number of inches across, but only about 2 inches 

high. Each stem is covered with cylindrical tubercles up to 

about 3/16 of an inch long, although often smaller. 

areoles: Consisting on many stems of only circular or elliptic 

areoles on the ends of the tubercles. Whether this represents 

nonflowering, immature stems was not observed, but this condition 

sometimes persists on some of the larger stems. On other 

stems, more or less regardless of stem size, the areoles are 

elongated into grooves extending from the spinous portions at 

the ends of the tubercles to around half of the distance to the 

tubercle bases. The flowers and branches observed came from 

the ends of these grooves. The whole areole is at first very 

woolly, and the wool remains in the grooves. The center of 

the spinous part of the areole is often, but not always, very 

convex and bulging outward. In such cases the spines are 

mostly pushed back in position, where they radiate around 

and form a sort of frame for this convex areole center, this 

giving the stems in such cases a unique, knobby appearance. 

spines: There are very many, very tiny, white radial spines. 

Counting them is difficult, but there seem to be from 40 to at 

least 90 per areole. These are appressed against the surface of 

the plant and often recurve between the tubercles. There are 

also 6 or 7 stouter central spines, white or Sometimes white 

with pale brownish tips. These spines are irregular in length, 

usually about 1/8 of an inch long, but sometimes a few may be 

longer. One of these centrals stands perpendicular to the plant 

body in the center of the areole, but it may be a very short 

one. The rest radiate in front of the radials. 

flowers: Not opening widely. They are about 3/4 of an inch 

long and 1/2 inch wide. In color they are deep pink suffused 

with brownish. The outer petals are brown or greenish-brown 

with light edges fringed by white cilia. The inner petals are 

deep pink in the midlines, the edges lighter and entire. The 

stigma lobes are 4 to 6 in number, short, and white. 

fruits: Oblong or somewhat club-shaped, about 1/2 inch long 

by 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch thick. They remain greenish tinged 

with brownish or faintly pinkish when ripe. The seeds are 

more or less pear-shaped, dark brown, and less than 1/16 of an 

inch (slightly over 1 millimeter) long. 

Range. Known only from several canyons about 30 miles southwest 

of Carlsbad, New Mexico. 

Remarks. This is a very peculiar little cactus. It was apparently 

first collected in 1924 by W. T. Lee, whose name it bears. Since 

that time specimens of it have lain in the U. S. National Herbarium, 

two peculiar, unnamed little specimens to tantalize any-


one working through that collection. One of those specimens is 

a whole cluster with about a hundred stems, most of them hard- 

ly thicker than a lead pencil in their dried condition. 

Several have dealt with these herbarium specimens to some 

extent, but only recently does it appear that the cactus has been 

re-collected. Dr. Rose, in 1925, labeled one of them Neomammillaria 

leei, which would have been its earliest name, but he 

apparently never wrote up the description of this new species. 

It therefore fell to Bödecker to make the first description of the 

cactus in the literature. He did this in 1933, calling it Escobaria 

leei. His description was very incomplete, based apparently 

upon only these two dead specimens. 

Within the past few years several of us have tracked down 

the plant and collected it in the type locality. In 1966 Castetter 

and Pierce published an article on the species, giving the first at 

all complete description, and showing that the plant grows quite 

a bit larger in stem than Bödecker thought. Castetter and Pierce, 

however, in spite of the fact that the fruits remain essentially 

green, leave the cactus as an Escobaria. 

We find this form especially interesting and feel that, in the 

light of the genus problem, it is worthy of much more study. On 

many stems it remains with unelongated areoles. What is an immature 

condition in all cacti seems to persist sometimes throughout 

the life of the stem in this cactus. We have never been able 

to observe whether such ungrooved stems flower, only having 

seen flowers on those with elongated, obviously monomorphic 

areoles. It seems difficult to believe that so many stems would 

remain immature and never bloom. If they do bloom, it might 

be significant to know where the flowers are produced, since the 

groove is absent. 

The cactus is close to M. sneedii, and the ranges of the two are 

not far apart. I was at first tempted to think of them as two 

manifestations of the same cactus, but knowledge of their details 

seems to put this out of the question. 

M. leei comes from a very limited area, so far as is known 

consisting of only a few canyons. The population cannot be 

large. It has been fortunate, no doubt, in being practically overlooked 

until very recently. Let us hope that collectors do not 

now descend upon it and eliminate it, as they seem to have done 

to M. sneedii. 

Mammillaria bella (B. & R.) 

[Escobaria bella B. & R.] 

Description (adapted from Britton and Rose) 

stems: Clustering, the heads about 23/8 to 31/4 inches long and 

cylindrical. The tubercles are 5/8 to almost 7/8 of an inch long, 

marked by a hairy groove, near the center of which there is 

a brownish gland. 

areoles: Not known. 

spines: Radial spines said to be several, whitish, and less than 

1/2 inch long. The central spines are 3 to 5 in number, brown, 

and the longest to at least 7/8 of an inch long. 

flowers: To 3/4 of an inch across, petals pinkish with pale 

margins, narrow and pointed, the outer ones fringed. The filaments 

are reddish, the stigma green. 

fruits: Not known. 

Range. Collected “on hills of Devil’s River, Texas.” 

Remarks. This cactus was collected by Rose and Fitch before 

1914, and described by Britton and Rose in 1922. There is no 

record of its having been collected again. Numerous searches 

along the Devil’s River have turned up no plant with the unique 

characteristic which Britton and Rose emphasize for this one— 

the possession of the gland in the groove of the tubercles—in 

conjunction with so small a stem size, such large tubercles, and 

a smallish, pinkish flower. The nearest I have come to it were 

some specimens found in the area, which roughly approach 

these characters but which turned out to be seedlings of Mammillaria 

macromeris. 

This being the situation, the plant can only be listed upon the 

authority of Britton and Rose as a cactus once collected in Texas. 

There is not even any way to restudy the form. But it seems that 

their authority requires us to list the cactus, and I repeat their 

description here in case—and in hope—someone may yet suc- 

ceed in finding it where all of us have failed. 

Mammillaria pottsii Scheer 


stems: Cylindrical, to about 11/4 inches in diameter and to at 

least 8 inches tall, although usually only 4 to 5 inches high. It 

was reported by Coulter to grow to 12 or 14 inches, but this 

is doubtful. These stems may remain single, but sometimes 

branch above the ground to form small, irregular clusters of 

3 or 4 heads. The tubercles covering the stems are conical to 

egg-shaped, 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch long, rather closely crowded, 

and somewhat overlapping. 

areoles: Dimorphic. The spinous portion on the tip of the 

tubercle is small, round, and especially filled with spines because 

of the enlarged bases of the centrals. It at first contains 

much rather long, white wool, but is later bare. The flower 

develops in or near the axil of the tubercle, together with long 

wool and sometimes a bristle or two, which remain as an axil- 

lary tuft. 

spines: There are 30 to 40 radial spines which are white, very 

slender, but straight and rigid. These are about /lo of an inch 

long and remarkable for being entirely equal in size as they 

radiate around the areole. The number of central spines may 

vary from 6 to 12 from plant to plant, but the number seems 

to be identical in all areoles of any one plant. These centrals 

spread evenly in all directions from greatly enlarged, bulbous


bases. The lower and lateral ones are all 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch 

long and straight, but the upper ones are 1/2 to 5/8 of an inch 

long and curve upward. The lower ones are gray with their 

very tips brownish. The upper ones are gray with as much as 

the outer half of each dark brown, purple, or a peculiar bluish 

color; this color, as they curve upward, gives the tip of the 

plant over which they converge a purplish color. 

flowers: Small, 3/8 to 1/2 inch long and wide, bell-shaped, the 

petals not opening widely, but then recurving toward the tips. 

They are deep red, maroon, or rust red in color. They develop 

around the upper sides of the stem instead of at the summit of 

it. The outer petals are very broad, but with pointed tips, the 

margins usually ragged or irregularly toothed, but not fringed. 

These outer segments are red or maroon with pale, cream- 

colored edges. The inner petals have red to rust-red midstripes 

with rose to pinkish, smooth margins, and pointed tips. The 

stamens are cream-colored. The style is reddish, and there are 

4 or 5 cream-colored or yellow stigma lobes. 

fruits: Club-shaped, up to 5/8 of an inch long, pale or light 

red. The seeds are blackish, pitted, almost oval, and less than 

1/16 of an inch (not quite 1 millimeter) in length. 

Range. The U. S. range is limited to the mountains deep in the 

Big Bend region around Terlingua, Texas, but the plant is widely 

distributed in Mexico. 

Remarks. This is a distinctive cactus unlike anything else found 

in the United States. Its appearance readily distinguishes it from 

all the other Mammillarias we have in this country, and when it 

blooms we have no other cactus with a flower even remotely 

like this one’s small, bell-shaped, red blossom. It seems to be our 

only representative of the large group of Mammillarias found 

in Mexico, with small, bell-shaped flowers. In the United States, 

therefore, it should be one of the most easily recognized of all; 

yet it has a history of serious confusion with other forms. 

It seems that this cactus was first described by Scheer in the 

Salm-Dyck publication of 1850. Perhaps the uncertainty started 

there, as that description mentions wrinkles and a very slight 

groove on the tubercle. This, once the distinction between grooved 

and grooveless had become paramount, would of course make 

one think it something else instead of a Mammillaria in the narrow 

usage of that term. Poselger, in 1853, collected a plant with 

a groove, which Britton and Rose think must have been Mammillaria 

(Escobaria) tuberculosa, but which Poselger himself 

thought was our cactus, although he called it Echinocactus pottsianus. 

But when, in the same year, he apparently collected our 

plant which does not actually have a groove, he thought he had 

a new species and renamed it Mammillaria leona. 

From that time the confusion spread. Engelmann seemed to 

have had a different plant in mind when describing M. pottsii, 

since he said that it has large flowers and grows on the Rio 

Grande below Laredo. Coulter and others more or less followed 

him in this, their descriptions, therefore, being confusing. All 

the way to the present the confusion has remained. Berger, followed 

by Borg, finally called some Mexican plant with a “narrow 

groove” Coryphantha pottsii, and so the plant has been 

put into three different genera. Backeberg has only extended the 

confusion when he says that Mammillaria pottsii was an Escobaria, 

and so uses for our plant the name Mammillaria leona 

Poselgr. once again. 

Britton and Rose seemed to have been among the first to realize 

the source of the confusion. They got back to our cactus 

again in their description, but they were very limited, having 

only one Texas record of this cactus to work with. 

Craig states most clearly the cause of the difficulty in saying 

that the tubercles of this cactus become wrinkled and shrunken 

when dehydrated—as do most—and that since the original description 

mentions both a slight groove and many wrinkles, 

Scheer must have had before him a shrunken, atypical plant, 

and thus the groove he mentioned to start the whole confusion 

was not the natural one of an elongated areole. Through this 

overemphasis on a groove, then, the original name became applied 

to other grooved cacti of the Coryphantha and Escobaria 

microgenera, while the Texas plant, although seldom seen at all, 

was known under Poselger’s name of M. leona. This seems to 

have been the situation until Britton and Rose reapplied the 

original name to the plant again. Since both Craig and Marsden, 

two of our greatest authorities on the Mammillarias, see no difficulty 

in using Scheer’s name, I follow them here. 

Be that as it may, the plant which grows in Texas and which 

we will call by the name of M. pottsii is a beautiful cactus of one 

to several slender, whitish columns over which is thrown a peculiar 

bluish cast by the unusual coloring of the upper centrals. 

It most nearly resembles M. tuberculosa, but is much more beautiful 

because of its more regular and tidy spines. The greatly 

enlarged bases of its central spines are a quick clue for recognizing 

this plant. When it blooms its flowers are fine little bellshaped, 

deep-red blossoms produced in a ring around the upper 

part of the stems. They are small flowers, but they are charming, 

showing that cactus flowers can be small and demure as well as 

large and flamboyant. 

Because of the confusion about M. pottsii which has reigned 

for so long, many of the older accounts of its range cannot be 

trusted. It does not, for instance, grow in Texas below Laredo, 

as Engelmann and Coulter thought. Britton and Rose also make 

the peculiar statement that it comes from the “highlands of the 

Rio Grande.” No doubt the mountains of the Big Bend, where it 

does grow and through which that river flows, are highlands, 

but it does not grow in the mountains of northern New Mexico, 

the “highlands” in which the Rio Grande actually arises. To be 

specific, all specimens of which I know came from the moun- 

tains deep in the Big Bend around Terlingua, Texas. 

The cactus grows well in limestone soil which is well-drained, 

and is often used in dish or windowsill gardens. It is, however, 

a desert species, and needs much sun and cannot tolerate much 

dampness.


Mammillaria lasiacantha Eng. 


stems: Usually single, but sometimes forming Small clusters of 

2 or 3 heads. Each stem is spherical, conical, or egg-shaped 

and small, the maximum appearing to be about 2 inches in 

diameter and only slightly taller. The plant is covered by many 

small, cylindrical tubercles to about 3/16 of an inch long and 

1/8 of an inch in diameter. The axils between these are bare. 

areoles: The spinous portions of the dimorphic areoles are on 

the tips of the tubercles and are small and somewhat eggshaped. 

The floral portions of the areoles remain in the axils 

of the tubercles, the flowers thus being produced in the axils. 

spines: Each areole produces 40 to 60 or more white radial 

spines which lie flat, interlocking with those of the neighboring 

areoles and covering the surface of the plant. These spines 

are so numerous that they cannot all lie in one plane around 

the areole, and so they are produced in several series forming 

3 or 4 concentric rings in the areole, one radiating layer of 

them lying upon the next. They are from about 1/16 to 3/16 of 

an inch long. They may have rough, even pubescent surfaces 

caused by varying numbers of almost microscopic white hairs 

upon them, or they may be smooth of surface. 

flowers: 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch long and the same diameter, 

opening widely. The color is whitish with each petal marked 

by a conspicuous tan, red-brown, or purplish-red midstripe. 

The outer petals are slender, with the ends either rounded or 

bluntly pointed, their margins usually somewhat irregular. 

The inner petals are oblong, rather wide, being 1/16 to 1/8 of an 

inch Wide over most of their lengths, and the tips are smooth 

and rounded or else ragged. The filaments are long and yellowish, 

the anthers yellow. The style is greenish and slightly 

longer than the stamens. The stigma has 4 or 5 small, greenish 

or yellowish lobes. 

fruits: Bright scarlet, club-shaped, and 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch 

long. The remains of the flower persist upon them, and the 

surfaces of the fruits are naked. The seeds are oval in shape, 

black with pitted surfaces, and less than 1/16 of an inch (about 

1 millimeter) in length. 

Range. Entering the U. S. from Mexico along a stretch of the 

Rio Grande from south of Sanderson, Texas, west to El Paso, 

and growing from Sanderson northwest past Fort Stockton 

through the Guadalupe Mountains west of Carlsbad, New Mexico, 

and from the Rio Grande at El Paso into the Sacramento 

Mountains near Almagordo, New Mexico, which seems to be the 

northern limit of the range. 

Remarks. This is another of our tiniest cacti. It usually grows as 

a little ball up to an inch or two in diameter, and is perfectly 

white due to the huge number of white spines entirely covering 

its surface. Very rarely it clusters, but to only 2 or 3 heads. It is 

found growing on the tops of hills where the soil is thin, often 

wedged in between limestone rocks, and it will not prosper un- 

less there is much limestone in its soil. It is usually more or less 

covered by surrounding grasses, but does not seem to require 

shade, as I have collected plants which were totally unprotected 

from the sun and have grown them this way for several years. 

No doubt the huge number of its spines provide its flesh its own 

partial shade. 

It is a real indication of the thoroughness of the early explorers 

that they even noticed this tiny cactus, and remarkable observation 

on Engelmann’s part that he separated this species into two 

other very similar varieties. I have met few cactophiles or even 

dealers who have taken the trouble to do this, since it involves 

using a magnifying glass to distinguish them. 

As a species, M. lasiacantha has had a comparatively uneventful 

taxonomic history. Only one dissenting voice seems to have 

been raised concerning its position as a Mammillaria. In 1951 

Buxbaum, because of seed characters and the fact that the axillary, 

floral part of the areole develops first instead of the spinous 

part—this the reverse of many others in the genus—separated 

this cactus and some of its relatives into a new genus which 

he called Ebnerella, but he has not so far been followed in this. 

There has perhaps been enough confusion over the varieties of 

this cactus to make up for the unanimity concerning the species. 

Much has been written about M. lasiacantha which is confusing 

because different authors using this name may be referring to 

different forms. Britton and Rose, for instance, mean by this 

name the form which should more accurately be called variety 

lasiacantha of the species. On the other hand, some authors have 

clearly seen only the variety denudata and write of the species 

from knowledge of only this variety. Ranges given are particu- 

larly confused because of this sort of thing. 

The species is another one of that large variety of tiny cacti 

which we find growing in west Texas and southern New Mexico, 

in the most exposed and unlikely places for such small, delicate- 

appearing plants. It is these inconspicuous forms for which one 

has to search carefully which give this area such a surprising 

array of cactus species. 

Mammillaria lasiacantha var. lasiacantha (Eng.) 


stems: As the species, except to only about 1 inch in maximum 

diameter and height. 


spines: As the species, except that the average number is in 

the upper number range for the species, and that the surfaces 

of the spines are always roughened by at least some to very 

many almost microscopic cilia or trichomes. Many specimens 

have the spines wholly pubescent. 

flowers: As the species, except about 3/4 of an inch in length


and width, the main petals about 1/8 of an inch wide, and the 

stigmas more yellowish than greenish. 


Range. From near Fort Stockton, Texas, and the Davis Mountains 

north in the Guadalupe Mountains west of Carlsbad, New 

Mexico, to between Carlsbad and Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

Remarks. This form appears to have been the type for the species. 

Then later, when he described the two varieties within the 

species, Engelmann called this form M. lasiacantha var. minor. 

His name for the variety would be most appropriate, but the 

rules of taxonomy, if this is the type form, require it to be called 

instead variety lasiacantha. 

The spines of variety lasiacantha have on them a growth of 

almost microscopic “hairs” which give them a fuzzy appearance 

under a lens. Individual specimens vary in the amount of this 

hair, but it is always there to some extent, and in some plants it 

is so thick as to be a velvety covering on the spines. Specimens 

of the other variety, M. lasiacantha var. denudata, lack this hair 

entirely or have only a few scraggly cilia, and their spines are, 

therefore, smooth and shiny. 

If this matter of pubescent versus smooth spines were the only 

difference between these two forms, it would seem that the various 

students who have combined them would be justified, but 

there are also other differences. As indicated by Engelmann’s 

name for it, variety minor, the rough-spined form is smaller in 

maximum size. Its maximum observed size is about 1 inch, while 

specimens of the smooth-spined form 2 inches in diameter are 

rather easy to find. The smallness of the over-all size probably 

keeps us from evaluating this difference properly. It is a difference 

in maximum size of double—which would be very noticeable 

in two giant barrel cacti. At the same time, the flowers of 

this smaller form are larger, with wider petals, than those of the 

larger variety. 

Admittedly these differences may intergrade. There are very 

clearly a few cilia on some specimens of variety denudata. This 

would certainly preclude calling them separate species, as did 

Britton and Rose, but this is not an obstacle in varietal relationships. 

When I note that I have found no specimen of the small, 

truly pubescent, large-flowered variety lasiacantha from south 

of the Davis Mountains, and that in hundreds of specimens from 

the bins of Big Bend dealers collected in the lower Big Bend 

which I have examined with a magnifying glass, and even among 

those doubtful specimens from that area which I have grown 

and flowered not a one has been other than variety denudata, 

I feel that we have here two legitimate varieties which should 

be recognized. 

At present, however, dealers and collectors alike, knowing 

only that there are supposed to be two forms, seem to be separating 

their plants by some sort of magic into two supposed 

categories, and the lots I see under one name or the other usually 

have little meaning. Actually, I know of no way to separate the 

two varieties without using a magnifier, and even beyond that, 

in some borderline cases, growing the specimens to flowering to 

compare the flowers. 

The failure to do this makes for much confusion. In general, 

most people have seen the next variety and very few have actually 

had variety lasiacantha. Huge numbers of variety denudata 

have been and still are being sold out of the lower Big Bend, 

where they are abundant, while few dealers have worked out 

of the more northerly range of variety lasiacantha, where that 

variety is relatively rare anyway. The study of these two forms 

by Britton and Rose suffered from this same situation. Although 

they listed the plants as two separate species, they admitted that 

they had not themselves seen the more rare M. lasiacantha. 

Dr. Boke, in his very valuable anatomical and developmental 

study of M. lasiacantha, did not distinguish between the two 

varieties at all. His specimens were collected in several locations, 

all but one of which were in the lower Big Bend, where all he 

would presumably have collected were variety denudata, so the 

bulk of his work must have been done with this form. But some 

of his plants came from a ridge 9 miles east of Alpine, Texas, 

where he could conceivably have picked up a few specimens of 

variety lasiacantha. This possibility becomes interesting because 

he mentions that he found mucilaginous areas in all but 2 or 3 

of the many specimens which he examined. He could suggest no 

reason why 2 or 3 of his specimens lacked this mucilaginous 

system. Could it be that these 2 or 3 without it were his only 

specimens of variety lasiacantha, and that this is another difference 

between these varieties? Restudy would be necessary to 

determine whether this is true. 

Mammillaria lasiacantha var. denudata Eng. 


stems: As the species, except with the maximum size at least 

2 inches tall and wide. 


SPINES: As the species, except smooth and shiny, with usually 

no cilia or trichomes upon them, and at most on some specimens 

a few scattered “hairs” upon the spines. 

flowers: As the species, except to about 1/2 inch in diameter, 

petals almost linear and only about 1/16 of an inch wide, and 

stigma with more greenish than yellowish lobes. 


Range. From Mexico into the mountains of the Big Bend in 

Texas, along the Rio Grande from near Sanderson to Canutillo, 

Texas, just beyond El Paso. It also occurs north past Alpine and 

Marfa, Texas, into the southern part of the Davis Mountains. 

Remarks. This is the more common southern form of the species. 

It is very common in parts of the Big Bend region, and thousands 

of the plants come out of that area into the trade every


year. On the west it has been collected at Sierra Blanca and at 

Canutillo, Texas, but I find no record of it in New Mexico. On 

the east, Orcutt once reported it from Langtry, Texas, but it 

does not seem to have been found there since. 

Although these two varieties are very close, this is a larger 

plant when grown, and has smaller flowers. The two are cer- 

tainly not separate species, as some have maintained. 

Mammillaria multiceps SD 

“Hair-Covered Cactus,” “Grape Cactus” 


stems: Spherical to egg-shaped or sometimes short-columnar. 

Matured, blooming heads measure from 1/2 to almost 2 inches 

in diameter and 2 inches tall, producing off-sets extremely 

rapidly so that a typical plant consists of a dozen to more 

than a score of different-sized heads forming a large, low, 

matlike clump. The tubercles are conical or cylindrical, spreading, 

and up to 3/8 of an inch long. 

areoles: Dimorphic. The spinous portion on the end of the 

tubercle is round, with white wool at first, later naked. The 

floral or vegetative portion in the axil of the tubercle produces 

with the flower some wool and usually several long, 

twisted, white, hairlike bristles which persist. 

spines: Radial spines number 30 to more than 60, and are 

said to have sometimes reached 80. These are produced in 

several series. The outer ones are white, hairlike, very fine, 

entirely flexible, and usually curved and twisted. When 

straightened they are 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long. The inner 

series become progressively shorter and heavier until the 

innermost are straight, rigid bristles spreading in all directions, 

white or light yellow in color, and usually somewhat 

pubescent. In the center of the areole are 4 to 9 comparatively 

heavy central spines with bulbous bases. They are straight, 

rigid, 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch long, and spreading in all directions. 

In color they are white to yellow or brown at their bases, the 

upper parts and tips of them varying on different plants from 

whitish or light honey-yellow to dark red-brown or almost 

black. These are more or less pubescent under a lens. There is 

also an outer series of centrals which are lighter in color and 

more slender than the inner ones, and sometimes approach so 

closely to the heaviest inner radials that on some plants the 

point of transition from one to the other is not clear. Count- 

ing these, there may be up to 12 centrals. 

flowers: About 3/4 of an inch long and the same diameter, 

brownish-yellow or almost tan in color, with pinkish to 

mauve-rose streaks. The petals have cream or tan edges shading 

into pinkish or dull rose midlines. They are usually unfringed, 

but the outer ones may occasionally have a few cilia 

on their edges. The filaments are yellowish or white, the an- 

thers yellow. The style is cream-colored and short. There are 

3 to 8 cream-colored to yellow stigma lobes. 

fruits: About 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch long, scarlet, egg-shaped 

to club-shaped, the old flower parts persisting upon them. 

The seeds are black, pitted, approximately 1/16 of an inch 

(about 11/2 millimeters) long. 

Range. Entering Texas from Mexico all along the Rio Grande 

from its mouth to the mouth of the Pecos River, extending north 

along the Gulf Coast of Texas to near Rockport, but growing 

only in a narrow band of coastal plain extending not over a few 

miles from the beach. Up the river from Brownsville, Texas, it 

never grows north of the sandy hills overlooking the Rio Grande 

Valley anywhere below Eagle Pass, but near that city it leaves 

the vicinity of the river to grow on the summits of the limestone 

hills of the Edwards Escarpment past Brackettville and Uvalde, 

almost to Bandera and Rocksprings, Texas. 

Remarks. This little cactus can be recognized easily by the flex- 

ible, hairlike radial spines which cover its surface and from 

which it gets its name, the “hair-covered cactus.” No other 

small, unribbed cactus in the Southwest has such spines. 

The individual stems of this cactus are small, usually around 

an inch or only a little more in diameter and height, but they 

multiply very rapidly by branching. Often a head an inch in 

diameter will surround itself with as many as a dozen little offsets. 

The result is soon a low clump sometimes more than a foot 

across, made up of many heads. 

In Texas this cactus grows in two widely differing habitats. 

It grows in or near the Rio Grande Valley, usually in rich, deep, 

lowland soil where it seems to prefer the shelter of thickets, or 

else between the clumps of coastal grasses on the low, flat coastal 

plain almost within sight of the Gulf. It is a far cry from such 

places to its other habitat, where it grows on the crests of rocky 

hills, usually wedged into crevices of limestone ledges, often 

where there hardly seems soil enough to support it, and often 

even on the undersides of the ledges, where it is shaded by the 

rocks. It loves the highest brows of the Edwards Escarpment 

north of Uvalde and Brackettville, Texas, but it is handicapped 

here by its susceptibility to freezing. During the years when the 

winters in this area are mild its clumps proliferate and become 

large, but after one of the colder winters which occasionally visit 

this area, the plants are a sad sight, severely frozen back and 

often half dead. The plant seems to be able to survive almost as 

far north as Rocksprings, Texas, but no farther. 

Even though it sometimes produces clumps up to more than 

a foot across, M. multiceps is always an inconspicuous cactus. 

Even though produced in profusion, its flowers are small and 

not highly colored, Engelmann calling them “dirty yellow.” Its 

red fruits provide the only real color it has. However it is interesting 

for the large clusters it forms, and a clump of the little, 

hairy heads is attractive. Because of its habit of growing from 

shallow crevices of rock ledges, it makes fine, healthy growth in 

little pockets of soil in rock gardens and on the sides of irregular


rock patio walls, wherever the temperature does not get too cold 

for it. 

This particular little cactus of Texas and northern Mexico was 

first described by Prince Salm-Dyck in 1850, and he called it 

Mammillaria multiceps. It would have seemed that it could have 

had a history unconfused by name troubles, since no one has 

doubted that it is a Mammillaria of the best form, but such was 

not to be the case. 

Very much earlier, in the beginnings of cactus study, a similar 

cactus had been found and described in Cuba and some other 

West Indies islands. Miller first named this other cactus Cactus 

proliferus, way back in 1768. Lamarck renamed it Cactus glomeratus 

in 1783, and De Candolle in 1803 called it Cactus pusillus. 

In 1812 Haworth placed it more properly as Mammillaria prolifera. 

This already discovered West Indian cactus is very close to 

our form, and this fact was soon noticed. When Engelmann saw 

our Texas plant and wrote of it in 1856, he said that it “seems 

scarcely distinct” from the West Indian one, and so he called 

our Texas cactus Mammillaria pusilla var. texana. Since then 

the Texas form has been called in the literature almost every 

possible combination of variety texana or variety multiceps 

with each one of the various names already given for the West 

Indian cactus. At the same time there have always been others 

who have maintained that the two are separate, and so used 

simply Mammillaria multiceps for our cactus. 

It seems that the first thing necessary in trying to arrive at 

the correct name for this cactus is to establish once and for all 

how close to the West Indian cactus it is. Although this would 

seem to be simple, it is in reality not easy to do. It is almost 

impossible today to get specimens from Cuba and the islands in 

that area. I have not had the good fortune to observe living 

plants from the islands, and herbarium material from there is 

very scarce. This means I can only rely upon the statements of 

other students concerning the similarity or differences between 

these cacti. 

Looking back into the statements of these students, we find 

that the early students, who seemed to have observed the West 

Indian plants enough that Engelmann called it “well-known” 

all agree that it has only 12 to 20 radial spines. Coulter states 

that it differs from our mainland form “only in the very much 

fewer (12 to 20) radial spines, although numerous specimens, 

both dried and living, were examined for additional characters. 

This difference, however, is so constant and striking that, taken 

together with the wide geographical separation, it should stand 

as varietal.” He therefore agreed with Engelmann in making 

our form a variety of the other. 

Since that time it seems that students have not been able to 

decide whether this difference between 12 to 20 radials on one 

hand and 30 to 80 on the other hand is justification for two 

different varieties or two different species. There has, altogether, 

been a hundred years of discussion of this problem, and there 

still is no agreement. I am choosing to list our form as a separate 

species. However this decision, I wish to make clear, is not on 

the basis of any first-hand observation or any new data, but 

only on the strength of its being listed this way by Britton and 

Rose, Craig, and Backeberg. These are the most thorough stu- 

dents to have dealt with it recently. 

There remains still another problem concerning this cactus. 

There seem to be two rather distinct growth forms of it in Texas 

and northern Mexico. The two forms seem identical except that 

one of them has the outer parts of the centrals dark brown, red- 

brown, or black, while the other has the centrals all whitish or 

else translucent, honey-yellow. Plants of these two different 

colorings seen side by side are conspicuously different, and the 

difference has been noticed by several authors. 

Engelmann, Coulter, and Britton and Rose seem none of them 

to have seen both forms. The descriptions by the first two do not 

include characters of the yellow-spined form at all. Of course, 

Britton and Rose’s very broad description of the West Indian 

M. prolifera would include it, but they apparently knew nothing 

of that species being in either the United States or Mexico. 

Schulz and Runyon only listed M. multiceps, but stated, “There 

are two distinct varieties. The most common has brown spines. 

The other has gray or nearly white spines. The flowers and fruits 

of the two varieties are very much alike.” This was probably the 

first recognition of the existence of the two forms. 

Borg was probably the next to refer to the two forms. He 

described the yellow-spined one briefly but clearly, but he sadly 

confused things by calling this so far unnamed, yellow-spined 

form M. prolifera var. texana Eng., while he reserved for the 

dark-spined form the name M. prolifera var. multiceps SD. 

It seems that Borg makes an error here. It is unfortunate that 

he equates Engelmann’s variety texana with the yellow-spined 

form of this species, because Engelmann expressly stated the 

plants he meant by that name to have “Interior spines… in 

young or weakly specimens whitish with dark tips, in robust 

ones yellow at base, brown upwards, and almost black at tip.’ 

It seems clear that variety texana is the same plant as Salm- 

Dyck’s M. multiceps. 

Is there then a reason for describing the yellow-spined form as 

a separate variety at all? When I first discovered it I thought 

that there was. All of the specimens I have seen from the summits 

of the high hills in the Texas hill country are of this coloring, 

and as I had seen only the dark-spined form from the very 

different coastal and Valley habitat, I thought that this could 

be a separate form with its own northern range. But this idea 

proved to be wrong. I was very surprised to find the two forms 

growing together in Potrero Canyon in the Santa Rosa Mountains 

of Coahuila, Mexico. This showed that the dark-spined 

form could also grow in high, rocky situations, and I soon confirmed 

this in other Mexican locations. When I later saw the 

yellow-spined form, formerly seen only on high hills, growing 

in a habitat about as completely the opposite as could be found, 

on the coastal plain only a short distance from Copano Bay and 

the Gulf of Mexico, I realized that the ranges and habitats of


these two cannot be separated. They actually grow together on 

the same hillsides, in a few cases. They appear to be merely 

growth forms, perhaps simple phenotypes of the same variable 

population. They are much like the two color phases found in 

the same populations of Echinocereus caespitosus. 

Given the kind of care used on any but the most extreme desert 

forms of cacti, even in a small pot, this little cactus will grow 

and proliferate its small heads into an interesting cluster. It 

blooms freely for many weeks at a time, and for months after 

that its brilliant, scarlet fruits will be popping out to decorate it. 

Mammillaria microcarpa Eng. 

“Fishhook Cactus,” “Pincushion Cactus,” “Sunset Cactus” 


stems. Single until old, then clustering at the base or sometimes 

branching above the base to form small clumps of several 

stems. Each stems grows to at least 6 inches, but usually 

to only about 3 inches tall; each 1 to 31/2 inches in diameter 

and practically spherical, conical, or somewhat cylindrical in 

shape. The tubercles are cylindrical when young, then conical 

from more or less quadrangular bases which are sometimes 

flattened from side to side when old; the younger tubercles 

up to about 1/4 of an inch long and the same width at their 

bases, the old tubercles up to nearly 1/2 inch long. 

areoles: Dimorphic. The spinous portion, at the tip of the 

tubercle, is small, round or oval, with some white wool at 

first, but later bare. The floral or vegetative part, in the axil, 

is without wool, and so the axils are bare. 

spines: There are conspicuous, slender, white radial spines and 

dark-colored, hooked central spines. There are 20 to 30 radials 

radiating evenly from the areole, lying flat upon the surface 

of the plant, and interlocking with those of neighboring areoles. 

They are very slender, but stiff, often slightly hairy under 

a magnifying glass, and 1/8 to 1/2 inch long. The upper and 

lower spines of each areole are the shortest, usually about 1/4 

of an inch long, with an occasional one only 1/8 of an inch, 

while the lateral spines are the longer. Each areole has 1 to 3 

centrals. The lowermost one of these centrals stands out perpendicular 

to the plant surface, is 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch long, 

red-brown to almost black, with the base the lightest color and 

the dark point strongly hooked. The upper centrals stand upright 

just in front of the upper radials, forming a V if there 

are two of them, but there may be only one. These are never 

hooked, are usually whitish over the lower half, with the upper 

half red or yellow-brown. 

flowers: Rose-purple in color, 3/4 to 11/8 inches long and 

wide. Usually there are a number of these flowers forming a 

ring around the new growth of the plant. They open widely. 

The outer petals are short, oblong or conical, having brown- 

ish midlines and pink, fringed edges. The inner petals are 

longer, about 3/4 of an inch long, slender (being about 3/16 of 

an inch wide at their widest), with smooth edges and either 

bluntly pointed or sharply pointed tips. These petals may be 

solid pink in some specimens, or in others have deeper midlines 

fading to almost white edges. The filaments are pink, the 

anthers pale orange. The style is very long, easily 1/4 of an 

inch above the stamens, making the pistil about equal to the 

length of the longest petals. There are 6 to 10 slender, light 

green stigma lobes about 3/16 of an inch long. 

fruits: Scarlet when ripe, oval to club-shaped, 3/4 to 1 inch 

long, with the dried flower parts remaining upon them. These 

fruits develop rather slowly, there is a long blooming season, 

and those started late in the summer remain as small, green, 

oval structures under the spines of the plant until during the 

winter they dry up without ripening properly at all. For this 

reason the fruits have sometimes been called dimorphic. The 

seeds are black, pitted, almost round, and less than 1/16 of an 

inch (1 millimeter or less) in diameter. 

Range. Extreme western Texas from the very northwestern corner 

of Presidio County to the Franklin Mountains near El Paso, 

and across the extreme southern part of New Mexico into Ari- 

zona and Mexico. 

Remarks. This is the dainty little fishhook cactus we so often 

see in dimestore bins and dish gardens. It is rather common in 

the places where it grows, and its white, spine-covered surface 

with the slender, dark brown centrals standing out for all the 

world like fishhooks makes it a sure seller for the novelty it 

presents. Those who succeed in providing it the perfect drainage 

and hot sun it needs will have the added reward, quite without 

warning some day in the summer, of a whole ring of fine, rose- 

purple flowers circling the crown of the plant. 

Mammillaria microcarpa was first mentioned in Engelmann’s 

Emory Report of 1848. Engelmann at that time only had a 

drawing of a plant seen on the expedition in Arizona. Because 

this drawing showed extremely tiny fruits only about 1/8 of an 

inch long, Engelmann remarked that the species should be called 

M. microcarpa, as no other cactus has so small a fruit. This drawing, 

incidentally, shows no hooked central spines. 

In his later studies, Engelmann examined many specimens of 

our cactus, and in his writings described it completely. However, 

he apparently did not ever connect it with the cactus of 

Emory’s report, since he named it Mammillaria grahami and 

only referred to it under this name. 

The cactus was known by this name, M. grahami, by all writers 

up to Britton and Rose. In their large work on cacti, they 

went back to the earlier name, M. microcarpa, for this species. 

This was because, in 1922, at Dr. Rose’s request, a Mrs. Ross 

visited the locality in Arizona which was thought to be the same 

spot where the cactus figured in the drawing made on Emory’s 

expedition was said to have been abundant, and there she found 

our cactus growing. This was taken by Britton and Rose as con-

pellosperma -> 

phellosperma 


clusive evidence that the drawing was of this plant, and they 

resurrected the old name, M. microcarpa, to replace the one 

which had been used for the past 70 years. 

There were naturally many who objected. They pointed out 

that the 1848 drawing and description does not show or mention 

the most conspicuous feature of the plant, the hooked central 

spines—a remarkable omission—and that the 1/8-inch fruits 

of that description are surely not the 3/4- to 1-inch fruits of our 

cactus. These were undoubtedly the reasons why Engelmann felt 

it necessary to give this cactus the different name of M. grahami 

when he came across it. In reply to Britton and Rose’s argument 

that since our cactus grows at the location where Emory’s plant 

was collected, the two must be the same, it was argued that since 

Mrs. Ross’s determination of the exact spot 70 years later was at 

best a guess, and since in many cases moving only a few hundred 

yards from a location gives a different cactus, we have too little 

reason indeed to maintain from the supposed identity of location 

that our plant with the long, dark, hooked centrals and 

fruits nearly an inch long is M. microcarpa of the early report, 

which lacked dark, hooked spines and which had tiny fruits. 

But such was the veneration in which the work of Britton and 

Rose was held, that soon everyone was using the name M. microcarpa 

for this species; I have not found an author in the past 30 

years going back to the other name. It is, therefore, in spite of 

my own suspicion that the original M. microcarpa was some entirely 

different plant, but in deference to the unanimous use of 

this name by all other writers of recent years, that I list this 

cactus under that name. 

This cactus grows in abundance in the Franklin Mountains 

near El Paso, Texas. Occasionally it is found in the mountains 

northwest of Presidio, Texas, particularly near Candelaria, Texas. 

In New Mexico it is encountered in the mountains across the 

very southern part of the state, particularly in the Tortugas and 

Selden mountains near Las Cruces, and in the Peloncillo Mountains 

in the southwestern corner of the state. 

This cactus has very close relatives in M. phellosperma Eng., of 

Arizona, California, and Utah, and M. sheldonii B. & R., of Sonora, 

Mexico. M. milleri B. & R. is considered to be a synonym. 

Mammillaria wrightii Eng. 


stems: Solitary, the part above the ground 11/2 to 3 inches in 

diameter and varying in shape according to environmental 

conditions. When moist and growing it is hemispherical or 

even spherical, when desiccated and dormant it is very much 

flattened and even depressed on top. The stem is prolonged 

below the ground into a tapering, top-shaped base which is 

similar to a short taproot, but which has never been interpreted 

that way. The surface above the ground is covered by coni- 

cal or almost cylindrical tubercles 1/4 to 7/8 of an inch long, 

whose bases are round and whose axils are naked. 


tubercle is round, with short white wool. The floral part is in 

the axil. 

spines: There are 8 to 15 radial spines which lie flat upon the 

surface of the plant, or very nearly so. They are 3/16 to 5/8 of 

an inch long, and vary in color. They may be all white, or 

they may be white with brown tips. There is a tendency for 

the uppermost of them to be darker, and sometimes these are 

all brown. The bases are somewhat bulbous, and the spines 

have more or less of a fine, hairy pubescence upon them visible 

only with a lens. There are 1 to 4, but usually 2 or 3 central 

spines. These are red-brown or blackish, slender, 3/8 to 1/2 

inch long, usually all hooked, although it is said that sometimes 

the upper one may be straight. These spines also have 

some fine pubescence upon them. 

flowers: Bright purple in color. They are about 1 inch long 

and the same in diameter when open fully. There are about 13 

outer segments which are somewhat triangular in shape, about 

3/8 of an inch long by 3/16 of an inch wide, pointed, purplish- 

green, with light-colored, fringed edges. The inner petals are 

about 20 in number, almost linear, about 3/4 of an inch long 

by 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch wide, pointed, and purple. The filaments 

are greenish at their bases, pinkish above. The anthers 

are pale orange. The style is greenish, becoming pinkish above. 

There are 11 lemon-yellow stigma lobes. 

fruits: About 3/4 to 1 inch long, oval to broadly obovate, 

about 5/8 of an inch in widest diameter, dull purple in color. 

These fruits often occur well to the sides of the plant. The 

seeds are large, more than 1/16 of an inch (about 2 millimeters) 

long, almost round, and black, with pitted surfaces. 

Range. Reported from several points in a narrow strip of southcentral 

New Mexico, the northernmost of these points being 

near Anton Chico, New Mexico, another in the mountains east 

of Carrizozo, and others in the Organ Mountains near Las 

Cruces, New Mexico. 

Remarks. This cactus and the next are always surrounded by 

confusion. The reason for this is easy to understand when it is 

realized that they are very similar in all of their characteristics— 

so much so that it is extremely hard to know which of them one 

has if he sees only one of them by itself. Since they are so rare 

that few have seen them at all, and very few students have actually 

seen both species together for real comparison, the descriptions 

of them have sometimes been inconsistent and they 

have sometimes been mistaken for each other so that the limits 

of their ranges are blurred. We will discuss their relationship 

after they have both been described. 

It can be said that M. wrightii is a very rare little cactus of 

the lower mountain slopes in south-central New Mexico. It is so 

rare that mass, organized searches for it have, on several occa


sions, failed to turn up a single specimen, but at the same time, 

individuals looking casually over the hills in its territory have 

occasionally stumbled upon a specimen or two. Besides the fact 

of its rarity, another reason for this sort of thing happening is, 

no doubt, the fact that the cactus has a large base underground, 

and in the late summer, when it goes dormant, it protects itself 

by shrinking down almost to ground level, becoming very flat. 

It is very hard to see in this shrunken condition in which it stays 

throughout the winter. 

Hallenbeck, after a most concerted hunt in 1934, involving 

many people and covering a huge territory, finally found a 

stand of nearly fifty specimens of what may have been this cactus 

near Anton Chico, New Mexico. He promptly took them 

all, explaining his action by saying that he believed those were 

all that existed and he felt bound to take every one in order to 

preserve the species. I think no better criticism of this sort of 

wholesale gathering of rare plants need be made than to note 

that no one of his collected plants or any of their offspring can 

be traced today, but that there have been a few specimens collected 

in the wild in the years since then, proving that nature is 

the best preserver of her children after all. 

As a result of this sort of thing, M. wrightii is more than ever 

a very rare little cactus of the mountains and hills of south- 

central New Mexico. As far as I know, the species is not on the 

market, and fortunate is the cactophile who ever gets to see one. 

I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Ed Nadolney of Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, for letting me have several fine specimens 

of this cactus from his living collection, as I have not been 

fortunate enough to collect the species myself. 

Mammillaria wilcoxii Toumey 


stems: Solitary, rounded to nearly spherical without a large 

underground base, to 6 inches in diameter, but often much 

smaller. The tubercles are 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch long, conical 

from somewhat flattened bases about 1/4 of an inch wide. The 

axils are naked. 


tubercle is oval and very small, with some short wool. The 

floral portion is in the axil. 

spines: There are 14 to 22 radial spines which are 3/8 to 5/8 of 

an inch long, slender and straight, white with light brown tips 

or sometimes the whole spine light brown, these radiating 

from the areole or spreading outward slightly, interlocking 

with those of neighboring areoles to almost obscure the view 

of the tubercles. There may be 1 to 5 spreading centrals, at 

least one of which is hooked, but in most cases there are 2 or 

3 of them and they are all hooked. These are brown, slender, 

and 1/2 to 11/4 inches long. Under a lens all spines show a 

variable amount of downlike pubescence. 

flowers: Pink, pale rose, or very pale purple in color. They 

are 1 to 11/4 inches long, about 15/8 inches wide when open 

fully. There are about 20 outer perianth segments which are 

brownish-green, almost linear, 3/4 of an inch long by about 1/8 

of an inch wide, pointed, and fringed with white hairs. There 

are up to about 40 inner petals in two rows, which are long 

and narrow, usually to 11/4 inches long by 1/8 of an inch wide, 

and pointed, and have pink midlines and cream-colored edges. 

The filaments are white, the anthers light orange. The style is 

greenish and the stigma has 5 to 9 green lobes. 

fruits: Pink to greenish-purple, obovate, 5/8 to 1 inch long 

and to about 1/2 inch thick. The seeds are black, pitted, almost 

round, and to 1/16 of an inch (about 13/4 millimeters) long. 

Range. Southeastern Arizona and Sonora, into southwestern 

New Mexico. It is certain that this plant is found in the mountains 

along the extreme southwestern edge of New Mexico, but 

how far east it extends is uncertain due to the failure of authorities 

to agree on the identity of several specimens. It seems certain 

it has been collected as far east in New Mexico as Silver 

City and near Deming, and it has been said to have been seen as 

far as the Franklin Mountains, but this location is doubtful. 

Remarks. Mammillaria wilcoxii is a more western form than 

M. wrightii, Arizona being its main locale. It does grow in New 

Mexico, but it is so rare there as to be an oddity anywhere it is 

found. 

The rarity of these two forms has made it difficult to study 

them, and they have been often confused. It is hard to establish 

ranges upon the records of only a few collections, yet this is all 

that have been made of either of these two cacti in New Mexico. 

They are so rare that few people have been fortunate enough to 

see the two forms side by side. This makes for such confusion as 

must have occurred in Wooton’s study, since he lists only M. 

wrightii, and then says his specimens came “from the mountains 

of the western side of the state, but it is reported from the upper 

Pecos region east of Santa Fe.” We must assume that he did not 

distinguish the two forms, thought he was seeing only M. wrightii, 

and so stated that this species occurred along the western edge of 

New Mexico, where no one else has ever collected it. 

W. Taylor Marshall became convinced that the cacti collected 

by Hallenbeck near Anton Chico were M. wilcoxii, and so would 

extend the range of this species that far northeast, although all 

he had were Hallenbeck’s photographs, and Hallenbeck’s own 

descriptions of his plants seem to contradict the theory. Marshall 

also maintained that some specimens collected in the Organ 

Mountains were M. wilcoxii, although their collector, Dr. H. V. 

Halladay, as well as Ladislaus Cutak, who studied them, were 

equally certain they were M. wrightii. In this way the ranges of 

the two have both been overextended and confused. Since there 

is no real evidence to the contrary, it seems most logical that M. 

wilcoxii is restricted to the southwestern corner of New Mexico,


while M. wrightii is found only in the south-central mountains 

of the state. 

The difference between the two cacti can be summarized as 

follows: M. wrightii has an enlarged underground base, 8 to 15 

radials, and short centrals, while its flowers are about 1 inch 

across, have 13 triangular sepals, about 20 inner petals, and 11 

yellow stigma lobes. M. wilcoxii has no such enlarged base, has 

14 or more radials, and longer centrals, while its flowers are at 

least 1 inch and usually more in diameter, with about 20 linear 

sepals, up to 40 inner petals, and 5 to 9 green stigma lobes. The 

general appearance of the two has not been better shown and 

contrasted than by a fine photograph of the two forms sitting 

side by side which is on page 183 of Marshall and Bock’s book, 

Cactaceae. 

It may be, as some have suggested, that these two forms are 

mere varieties of the same species. If that is so, there may be 

intermediate forms, but his has not been demonstrated so far. 

Mammillaria heyderi Muehlenpf. 

“Nipple Cactus,” “Biznaga de Chilitos,” “Little Chilis” 


stems: Each plant consists of a single stem which is a flattened 

hemisphere up to 5 inches in diameter and up to about 2 

inches tall. It grows from a heavy base under the ground 

which is not prolonged into a taproot, but which abruptly 

issues in fibrous roots. The stem is covered by firm tubercles 

neatly arranged in spiral rows, the axils between them being 

very woolly when young. This wool disappears on most plants 

on the older sides of the stem, but on an occasional specimen 

it persists and Sometimes seems to become even thicker between 

the old tubercles. The mature tubercles are up to about 

1/2 inch long, the tips round and conical from pyramidal, 

quadrangular bases about 1/4 of an inch wide. The ventral side 

of this base is definitely keeled. The sap of this plant is milky. 


tubercle is round, small, with a little white wool at first, then 

naked. The floral portion is in the axil, with much white wool 

at first. 

spines: There are 9 to at least 26 radial spines radiating evenly 

like the spokes of a wheel from each areole. They are 3/16 to 

1/2 inch long, the lower being longer and stouter than the 

upper ones, although all of them are slender and weak. The 

small upper ones are whitish with red-brown tips, while the 

larger lower ones are all red-brown on most specimens. There 

is usually only one central spine which stands straight out 

from the center of the areole and is short—only 1/8 to 3/8 of 

an inch long. It is all dark reddish-brown, or reddish-brown 

at base and tip with a zone of lighter brown in the center. On 

rare Specimens there are found two identical central spines, 

one turned upward and the other deflexed. 

flowers: Often occurring a number at a time arranged in a 

circle around the newer growth at the center of the plant. 

Each is 3/4 to 11/2 inches tall and wide, brownish, pinkish, or 

very pale purple shading to white. The outer petals have a 

greenish or brownish midline which shades into whitish, 

smooth, unfringed edges and a pointed tip. The inner petals 

have brownish-pink to pale rose midlines with whitish or 

pink edges which are entire to slightly ragged toward the 

pointed tips. The filaments are whitish to deep pink. The anthers 

are yellow. The stigma has 5 to 10 light green, cream- 

colored, or tan lobes. 

fruits: Bright carmine red in color, club-shaped, and 1/2 to 

11/2 inches long. They usually ripen about a year after their 

inception, so there is often a ring of them on the plant at the 

same time as the flowers. The seeds are less than 1/16 of an 

inch (about 1 millimeter) long, reddish-brown, and pitted. 

Range. As a species ranging north out of Mexico over a huge 

area. The northern definitely known limit runs from near Corpus 

Christi on the Texas Gulf Coast to near San Antonio, then 

almost straight north to Jackson and Greer counties in the extreme 

southwestern corner of Oklahoma. From there it seems to 

turn back southwest, running somewhere near Carlsbad, New 

Mexico, and from there west through southern New Mexico into 

Arizona. There are old reports of the cactus from the Oklahoma 

Panhandle and from southeastern Colorado, but I could not 

verify these reports. 

Remarks. The cactus described as Mammillaria heyderi by Mueh- 

lenpfordt was the nipple cactus. He originally described it as 

having 20 to 22 radial spines, but it soon became apparent that 

the number of these radials is much more variable than that. 

Because of this there has been confusion. Engelmann handled 

the specimens having radial numbers outside these limits at two 

different times in two different ways, once as separate species 

and once as varieties of one larger species. Authorities have differed 

on this point until this day. 

It seems to be rather clear now, however, that we have here 

one large, wide-ranging species within which are several very 

close forms which can hardly be considered more than varieties, 

and that is the way I am handling them here. 

This cactus grows as a more or less flattened hemisphere of 

very regular tubercles always arranged tidily in spirals. It never 

grows as large in diameter as M. meiacantha, its nearest relative 

in our area, but it is often less flattened and, therefore, taller. 

It is usually found under the partial shade of trees, shrubs, or 

tail grass, and cannot do well in the full, unbroken sunshine. It 

can tolerate more water than many cacti, and so is more easily 

grown out of its normal environment than many species. When 

it blooms, with its pinkish or brownish-white flowers—on healthy,


big plants, often a dozen or more of these form a flowery diadem 

around the top of the plant—it is a beautiful sight. If another 

ring of the carmine red fruits from last year’s flowering is 

also present outside the ring of flowers, as is often the case, then 

the sight is truly spectacular. 

The Spanish common name for the plant, biznaga de chilitos, 

and its English equivalent, little chilis, refer to the fruits, which 

are edible and flavorful and greatly relished by the knowing 

natives of its locality, as well as by the birds, which will even 

enter my greenhouse to get at them. 

There is quite a bit of variation in the color of the flowers in 

this species. Often there seem to be two main flower colors, one 

a pinkish midline of the petals fading to white edges, and the 

other a brownish or even greenish-brown midline with white 

edges to the petals. There have been attempts to separate the 

varieties on this basis, but this cannot be done, since one often 

finds identical plants in a single population blooming side by 

side with the two flower colors. 

I must mention here a few specimens collected in central and 

northern Texas which present a peculiarity of armament for this 

species. These were fairly large plants and typical M. heyderi in 

every characteristic of stem and tubercles. They were remarkable 

for having all radials pure white instead of more or less colored 

and tipped with brown. Also, the number of the radials varied 

from 20 to 26 per areole, with many areoles having 23 or 24. 

Even more remarkable on these plants was the fact that about 

one out of five of the areoles had two centrals instead of one. 

These two centrals were the same as the ordinary single central 

spine found standing perpendicular to the stem on the other 

areoles, but where there were two, one was turned sharply upward 

and the other as sharply downward. Neither of these was 

a misplaced radial, since the ring of radials was unbroken around 

them. Both the number of radials and the possession of two centrals 

in some areoles put these specimens beyond the limits so far 

given for M. heyderi. 

It is impossible to be sure from these few specimens whether 

this represents an extreme form of M. heyderi and the species 

should be expanded to include these characters, or whether they 

represent a new form. But since I have other specimens of M. 

heyderi var. heyderi on which occasional areoles have 23 or 24 

radials, indicating that the maximum in the usual descriptions 

is too low, and I also have a single specimen of M. heyderi var. 

applanata on which a few areoles possess the two centrals, indicating 

that this may be a seldom expressed character carried in 

all of these forms, I am inclined to assume the former. So I have 

expanded the description of the species to include these characters. 

These specimens cannot be equated with the Mexican M. 

heyderi var. waltheri (Bödecker) Craig, although they do in 

some ways link that form more closely with the other varieties 

of the species. 

Expansion of the limits of this species there has had to be, and 

it is hard to know where this should stop. It must not go on un- 

til the concept of the species is meaningless. L. Benson lists M. 

heyderi as occurring in very small areas of extreme southeast 

Arizona. His description, however, does not agree with any previous 

description of the cactus. He describes it as having conical 

tubercles, 2 to 15 radial spines, and 2 or 3 central spines. This 

combination of characters is not given for any previously de- 

scribed U. S. species in the literature. 

Mammillaria heyderi var. heyderi (Muehlenpf.) 




spines: As the species, except radials 20 to 26 in number. 

flowers: As the species, except only 3/4 to about 1 inch long 

and broad, and the stigma lobes 6 to 8 in number. 

fruits: As the species, except 3/4 to 11/2 inches long. 

Range. From near Brownsville, Texas, south and west into 

Mexico and north to the west of a line running past San Antonio 

to near Fredericksburg, Texas, occurring from this northeastern 

limit west through Texas to near Carlsbad, New Mexico, 

on the north, and past El Paso over all of southern New Mexico 

and into Chihuahua on the south. 

Remarks. This was the first one of this exceedingly close group 

to be described. It was the form actually described as M. heyderi 

by Muehlenpfordt, and so is the typical variety of the species. 

It also seems to have the widest range of the three U. S. varieties 

in the species. 

There should be little difficulty in recognizing this variety. It 

is the only cactus occurring in the southwest U. S. with milky 

sap and more than 20 radial spines. 

Mammillaria heyderi var. applanata Eng. 




spines: As the species, except the radial spines 14 to 20 in 

number. 

flowers: As the species, except to only about 1 inch in size, 

and having stigma lobes 5 to 10 in number. 


Range. From near Austin and Fredericksburg, Texas, south over 

most of south Texas and west into the Big Bend. Also collected


in numbers in extreme southwestern Oklahoma in Harmon, 

Jackson, and Greer counties. It is the form which has been reported 

from Cimarron County in the Oklahoma Panhandle and 

from southeastern Colorado, but I cannot verify these reports. 

Remarks. This cactus was considered a separate species and then 

again called a variety of M. heyderi by Engelmann, who first 

described it. Then Coulter, Wooton, and others considered the 

two synonymous. Since that time most students have listed it as 

a separate species, following Britton and Rose, although most 

have followed them also in appending a note that the two may 

represent only races or varieties. This seems much more likely. 

The cactus has also been known in the past under the name M. 

texensis Lab. 

Everything mentioned concerning the manner of growth of 

M. heyderi applies as well to this cactus. It cannot be separated 

from the typical variety except by counting spines. In part of 

their range they may grow together. However, the extents of 

their ranges are different. Variety applanata grows farther east 

in south Texas, since variety heyderi has not been found on the 

Texas coast and variety applanata has. One of the peculiarities 

of variety applanata is the apparently isolated population of it 

found in at least three counties of southwestern Oklahoma. There 

is no record of the cactus having been found anywhere in the 

approximately 300 miles separating this Oklahoma population 

from the regular range of the cactus in central Texas. 

Near Roma, Texas, a large number of large variety applanata 

and variety applanata were found growing together. Among 

these plants was one specimen of variety applanata with 18 and 

19 radial spines in all areoles and usually with one typical central, 

but on 6 areoles of the plant there were 2 equal centrals 3/8 

of an inch long, one pointed upward and one exactly opposing 

it in a downward direction. It is impossible to collect more 

specimens in this interesting area, as irrigation wells were already 

completed at the time, and a square mile of territory upon 

which these and almost the whole list of other cacti native to 

that area were growing was being cleared when the collection 

was made. 

Drs. Claude W. Gatewood and Bruce Blauch of Oklahoma 

State University have written me of a specimen collected by 

them at Mangum, Oklahoma, which has 14 to 16 radials and on 

a few areoles the same arrangement of 2 centrals. The possession 

of 2 centrals on at least a few areoles is obviously a character 

which can crop up at any place in this species, but which has 

not been mentioned in connection with it. 

Mammillaria heyderi var. hemisphaerica Eng. 




spines: As the species, except radials only 9 to 13 in number. 

flowers: As the species, except almost always pinkish white 

instead of purplish or greenish white and somewhat larger 

than in the other forms, being 1 to 11/2 inches tall and wide. 

Stigma lobes 5 to 8. 

fruits: As the species, except averaging smaller than those of 

the other forms. 

Range. From eastern Mexico along the Texas Gulf Coast from 

Brownsville to the vicinity of Corpus Christi. Extending inland 

in south Texas not over 30 to 50 miles, but extending northwest 

from the upper end of its coastal limit as far as Atascosa County, 

Texas. Also collected in numbers in Jackson and Greer counties 

of southwestern Oklahoma, and reported from the Organ 

Mountains of New Mexico, although this latter record is not 

certain. 

Remarks. M. heyderi var. hemisphaerica is in certain respects 

different from its relatives within the species, but the similarities 

are much more obvious. It has, however, never been considered 

synonymous with them. Even when Coulter was calling variety 

applanata the same as M. heyderi, he found it necessary to list 

hemisphaerica as a separate cactus. 

Variety hemisphaerica has the smallest number of radials of 

the M. heyderi group. This provides the main clue for recognizing 

it, as any cactus with milky sap, the single short central, and 

only 9 to 13 radials found in our 5-state area is likely to be this 

variety, although there are two other cacti which at least come 

close to this area and show the same features. 

Among the things which separate this plant from variety applanata 

and variety heyderi are the facts that the flower is noticeably 

larger and the fruits usually smaller than those of its 

relatives. This conflicts with Backeberg’s statement that the 

flowers of hemisphaerica are smaller than those of its relatives, 

but among many specimens from United States and also from 

the type locality in Mexico which I have examined I have always 

found the flowers larger. Engelmann also states that the 

seeds are smaller, but Craig gives their dimensions as the same, 

and I have not been able to notice any difference in the seeds of 

the three varieties. Neither is it true that the stem of this variety 

is more rounded and hemispherical than those of variety heyderi 

and variety applanata, as its name would imply. The shape of 

the stem in this variety, as in the others, depends entirely upon 

whether the environment is favorable or unfavorable. The tallest, 

most rounded specimen of this species I have seen is a luxuriant, 

large specimen of variety applanata, while the flattest specimen 

I have seen was a desiccated plant of variety hemisphaerica 

found on the dry bluff just back of the beach near Corpus 

Christi. 

The main locality for variety hemisphaerica is the Gulf Coast 

from its type locality within Mexico north to Corpus Christi.


Here it grows to the very edges of the sand dunes along the 

beach, as close to the water as the bushes grow which it must 

have over it to protect it from the full sun it can hardly tolerate. 

As you go west from the Gulf into the south Texas brush 

country you soon lose this species, except in a narrow strip extending 

along the Nueces River and into Atascosa County. 

It is a real surprise, therefore, to collect this same cactus growing 

rather commonly, along with variety applanata, in Jackson 

and Greer counties of extreme southwestern Oklahoma, but there 

it is, having skipped over all of Texas between these widely discontinuous 

ranges. 

There have been supposed collections of variety hemisphaerica 

in the Organ Mountains of New Mexico. This is indeed a greatly 

different environment from the south Texas coast, and if this is 

our cactus, makes for one of the most curious distributions of 

all cacti. I cannot either confirm or deny this occurrence of the 

variety in New Mexico, since all I have seen are the herbarium 

specimens from New Mexico, and these lack the flowers. It 

should be remembered, however, that there grow in Arizona 

and nearby Mexico two species of Mammillarias very similar in 

most respects, with the same number of radial spines as variety 

hemisphaerica. Merely counting spines would not separate this 

variety and those two: Mammillaria macdougalii and M. gummifera. 

The best means of distinguishing these from our cactus is 

by the fact that M. macdougalii and M. gummifera have the 

outer perianth segments of their flowers fringed with cilia, while 

variety hemisphaerica has smooth edges on these segments. The 

fruits of M. macdougalii also fail to become bright red, remaining 

greenish with only the upper parts turning rose. Without 

having seen the flowers and fruits of these Organ Mountain 

specimens, I feel that it is at least as likely that they are one of 

these more southwestern forms as that they are variety hemisphaerica, 

since finding one of those in the Organ Mountains 

would prove far less an extension of their known ranges and 

environments than to find the Gulf Coast cactus there. Perhaps 

the reader may be fortunate enough to secure this New Mexico 

form and, seeing its flowers, be able to settle the question, which 

I feel must stand unanswered at present. 

Mammillaria meiacantha Eng. 

“Biznaga de Chilitos,” “Little Chilis” 


stems: Each plant consists of a single circular stem up to as 

much as 12 inches across, but greatly depressed so that it rises 

to a maximum of 1 or 2 inches above the ground. This is the 

top of a large underground base which might be interpreted 

as an extremely short taproot. The almost flat surface of the 

stem above the ground is covered by firm, dark green or blue- 

green tubercles arranged in spiral rows. These tubercles are 

pyramidal from quadrangular bases having their ventral 

angle exaggerated into a keel. They vary from about 1/2 inch 

long and 3/8 of an inch wide at the base on small specimens to 

a maximum of about 7/8 of an inch long and 5/8 of an inch 

wide on large plants. A milky sap is exuded at any wound. 


tubercle is nearly round and about 1/8 of an inch across, with 

white wool at first, but later bare. The floral portion is in the 

axil of the tubercle, with white wool at first, which is later 

lost. 

spines: There are 5 to 9 stout radial spines which instead of 

lying flat upon the surface of the plant stand more or less 

spreading. They are 1/4 to 1/2 inch long. The lower ones on 

each areole are the longest and heaviest. They are pinkish at 

first, fading to gray or yellowish, and always having black 

or dark brown tips. There is one central spine which is similar 

to the radials except often a little darker and only about 1/4 

to 3/8 of an inch long. It stands out almost perpendicular to 

the surface of the plant, or quite often is turned upward almost 

with the upper radials. 

flowers: Opening widely, 1 to 13/4 inches long and wide, 

often a number of them forming a ring of blooms just outside 

the newer center of the plant. The 12 to 14 outer segments of 

the perianth have reddish-brown midlines with pinkish, entire 

edges. The 14 to 16 inner petals have purplish midlines and 

pink or white edges. These are to 1/4 of an inch wide, with 

pointed tips and edges often very lightly notched toward the 

tip. The filaments are white or pink, while the anthers are 

cream or yellowish. The style is longer than the stamens. There 

are 6 to 9 light green stigma lobes. 

fruits: Elongated and club-shaped, deep rose or scarlet in 

color. They are about 7/8 to 11/4 inches long. The seeds are reddish-brown, 

less than 1/16 of an inch (less than 1 millimeter) 

long, and pitted. 

Range. From northern Mexico throughout southwestern Texas 

west of a line running from near Sanderson, Texas, along the 

eastern edges of the Davis and Guadalupe mountains to near 

Carlsbad, New Mexico, and throughout about the lower one- 

fourth of New Mexico into Arizona. 

Remarks. This is the largest Mammillaria found in the U. S., but 

certainly not the most conspicuous. Although most specimens 

are about 5 to 8 inches in diameter, it is still possible to find old 

plants up to 12 inches across—that is, if one has eyes sharp 

enough to find this cactus at all. Although growing easily to 

pie-plate size, M. meiacantha is usually so flat as to be near the 

shape of an inverted pie-plate, and in very dry seasons its large 

fleshy base shrinks and literally pulls the plant into the ground 

so that it is common for its tubercles to be level with the soil or


only slightly above it. The surrounding grass and weeds then 

make its discovery a real accomplishment. 

This species has numerous close relatives from which it is not 

easily distinguished. Various characters have been tried as distinguishing 

ones, but most of them can be matched by the extreme 

forms of its relatives. M. meiacantha has sharply quadrangular 

and keeled tubercles, but the bases of the tubercles of 

M. heyderi and M. melanocentra are also somewhat quadrangular. 

It has milky sap, but so do those other species, although 

on them one must often pierce the base of the stem itself to get 

a flow of this white sap, while in M. meiacantha it flows from 

any pin-prick on any tubercle. The flowers and fruits are quite 

similar to those of the other species, except a little larger than 

those of the western varieties of M. heyderi. 

For distinguishing M. meiacantha, then, it seems we must come 

back to its spines. It has only 5 to 9 stout radials, which number 

distinguishes it from all the M. heyderi group, as well as from 

M. macdougalii and M. gummifera, all of these having from 9 

to more than 20 slender, almost bristle-like radials. Only M. 

melanocentra, a Mexican species, has spines similar in number 

and thickness, but here the length of spines distinguishes, as 

M. meiacantha has radials only 1/4 to 1/4 inch long and centrals 

only 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch long, while M. melanocentra has radials 

3/4 to 11/2 inches long and the central 3/4 to 11/4 inches long, 

making separation easy. 

With only such details of spines to separate these closely 

related forms, it is natural that there has been a history of uncertainty 

about how they should be classified and how closely 

they should be linked in the taxonomy. Engelmann, who first described 

a number of them, remarked that M. meiacantha might be 

only a variety of M. heyderi, but this idea did not appear likely 

enough to any of those who studied these plants after him to be 

followed by any of them. All left it as a separate species until 

1945, when Craig, in his Mammillaria Handbook, combined M. 

meiacantha with the long-spined Mexican species, M. melanocentra, 

as M. melanocentra var. meiacantha. This seems a more 

likely relationship, and he was followed in this by Marsden. 

Backeberg, however, more recently leaves the cactus as a separate 

species. What future taxonomists will do, and whether the 

cactus will be called a variety, or remain a species does not yet 

seem possible to predict. 

At any rate, M. meiacantha is a definite resident of west Texas 

and southern New Mexico which anyone will want to recognize. 

It is more specifically a desert plant than is M. heyderi, with 

which most are more familiar. It can stand the full sun better, 

and often grows totally unshaded except for the sparse grasses 

of the Big Bend hillsides, while M. heyderi grows only under 

bushes and shrubs and suffers in full sun. But being more of a 

desert cactus, it also rots more quickly than the others if watered 

too much. This must be kept in mind when it is cultivated. 

There seems some confusion about the range of M. meiacantha, 

or else it is not now growing over large parts of its former ter- 

ritory. Engelmann said it was found throughout New Mexico, 

and Coulter, another student of the past century, stated that it 

grew then from the Guadalupe River of Texas on west. I can 

find no evidence of its having been seen east of the Big Bend 

and the Davis Mountains in Texas, or north of approximately 

the southern one-fourth of New Mexico since their times. 

Mammillaria sphaerica Dietrich 

[Dolichothele sphaerica (Dietrich) B. & R.] 


roots: A thick, soft, fleshy taproot sometimes up to 1 inch 

thick. 

stems: Light green in color, spherical, often depressed at the 

top. These heads usually produce new ones on all sides rapidly, 

so that a mature plant usually consists of a low mass up 

to nearly a foot in diameter composed of irregularly clustering 

stems. The tubercles making up the stem of a vigorous 

plant are very soft, spreading loosely, and ranging from 1/2 

to 11/4 inches long. They are cylindrical, usually tapering toward 

the end, and are not grooved and not broadened at the 

base. When a plant suffers from insufficient water or too 

much sun, however, these same tubercles will shrink to as 

little as 1/4 of an inch long and become firm, regular in size, 

and closely packed, giving the plant a very different ap- 

pearance. 


tubercle is small and circular, with some short wool at first, 

becoming bare. The floral portion in the axil of the tubercle 

has some hairs which may or may not persist after the flower. 

spines: There are 12 to 15 radial spines which are slender and 

weak. They radiate evenly around the areole, but on the 

same areole they will usually vary in length from the three 

lower ones which are as short as 3/16 of an inch to the thicker 

lateral and upper ones which are 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch long. 

They have brownish, enlarged bases, and the upper parts are 

smooth, hornlike, and yellow in color, becoming gray with 

age. There is one central standing out perpendicularly to the 

plant, it being similar to the radials except slightly thicker 

and 3/8 to 1/2 inch long. 

flowers: Clear lemon-yellow in color, about 2 to 21/2 inches 

in diameter and height. The ovary is cylindrical, light green, 

and naked. There are a total of about 25 petals. The outer 

ones are short, narrow, linear, and pointed. The next ones are 

long—the longest on the flower, broadening toward the point 

to about 3/8 of an inch wide, with brownish midlines and yellow, 

smooth edges. The innermost petals broaden from very 

narrow bases to about the same width, but are shorter. They


are lemon-yellow. The filaments are pale orange and swirled 

in position, the anthers of the same color being tucked in 

around the style. There are 8 long, rough stigma lobes which 

are yellowish. The flower is fragrant. 

fruits: Seldom seen, as the plants do not seem to set many 

fruits even in the native habitats. When produced they are 

egg-shaped, about 1/2 inch long, persisting on the plant as 

green structures between the tubercles until at least the following 

winter, when they turn maroon, although they have 

usually been eaten by animals and disappeared before this. The 

seeds are black, with pitted surfaces. 

Range. South Texas below a line from near Laredo to approximately 

Corpus Christi, and on into Mexico. 

Remarks. This cactus grows under the bushes in the thickets of 

the south Texas brush country. Its low clusters are rather common, 

wherever the brush has never been cleared, below the longitude 

of Laredo on the west and Corpus Christi on the east, 

but it is much more often found, at least today, in the western 

part of its range than nearer the coast. Where the brush has at 

any time been cleared and then has grown back again, as in vast 

areas of this territory, the vegetation may look the same, but 

there is little use searching for our cactus, as it cannot survive 

the sun without its protecting shrubs, and it does not seem to be 

able to reestablish itself under the new growth. 

Mammillaria sphaerica can most quickly be distinguished 

from the other Mammillarias of Texas, which it superficially 

resembles, by its color. Its surface is a very light, almost sickly 

yellow-green, even when most healthy, while all of the other 

Mammillarias we have are dark green or even bluish-green. 

When growing in its habitat or with perfect conditions, M. 

sphaerica has large, soft, loose, spreading tubercles. The looseness 

of these and the variation in their sixes on the several heads of 

a robust clump make it hard to distinguish the individual heads 

of such a clump. It often looks like one disorganized stem. But 

if water or shade is withdrawn from such a plant, or if it is 

transplanted, the tubercles will shrink to less than one-half their 

former size and be pulled together until the plant appears entirely 

different, being now a cluster of small, spherical, compact 

heads of short, firm tubercles. This latter appearance seems 

to be the condition from which all of the early descriptions were 

made. 

The flowers of this species are large, a beautiful, clear yellow 

in color, and produced in large numbers, on a healthy specimen. 

It is not uncommon for a good specimen to have a dozen blooms 

at a time, covering it entirely. I had trouble photographing this 

species, trying to get a good specimen in bloom with few enough 

flowers so that the plant body would still be visible. 

Because of its beautiful flowers plus the liking of this species 

for shade and its rather good tolerance of coolness and moisture, 

this should be a much better cactus for growing in northern and 

eastern climates than the strictly desert species. One must remember, 

however, that it cannot stand freezing, and so would 

have to be well-protected when grown in the north. 

M. sphaerica has a very close relative in northern Mexico, 

called M. longimamma. The two are very similar, and might 

even be considered varieties of the same species. The latter, however, 

is larger in most respects than our Texas form, its tubercles 

to 2 inches long, its spines to 1 inch long, and its flowers 

about the same size. The two may easily be confused, and two 

characters only are usually given by which to distinguish them. 

M. sphaerica has smooth spines and the filaments of its flowers 

are swirled, while M. longimamma has rough or hairy spines 

and straight filaments. 

These cacti have, since Britton and Rose’s fragmentation of 

the genera, often been considered to make up a separate genus 

called Dolichothele. The validity of this separation is still the 

subject of much discussion. 

Through the years of discussion of this problem, the reasons 

given for the separation of these plants from Mammillaria have 

boiled down to only one real one. It is undeniable that the flowers 

of these plants have a longer and more constricted flower 

tube than the typical Mammillarias, and this is the whole reason 

upon which Buxbaum, for instance, insists the genus Dolichothele 

should be kept separate. He insists that in these plants the 

tube is a solid, closed column, and that this is essentially dif- 

ferent from the more hollow tubes of other cacti. 

The evaluation of this character is a very technical job for 

a botanist. Suffice it to say here that while Buxbaum considers 

this “column-building” of the tube an essentially distinct character 

isolating these plants from all other cacti, others have 

noted that there are degrees of lengthening and closing of the 

tube among cacti, and that these cacti are not the only ones 

showing this feature to at least some degree. 

Backeberg states flatly that Buxbaum erred in saying that this 

character fully isolated the Dolichotheles from all others. He 

devotes several pages of very technical discussion in Die Cactaceae 

to this problem, and there is no reason to repeat his 

points here, but he concludes with statements that, strictly speaking, 

all arguments for the separation of these cacti are removed, 

and that after the inclusion of the genus Phellosperma and 

Krainzia into Mammillaria again by Buxbaum, there exists no 

ground for separating Dolichothele from Mammillaria either. 

His argument is so effective, in my opinion, that I fail to see 

why, after making it, he has gone ahead and listed the genus 

Dolichothele anyway in his own account. I only differ from 

him by acting upon his arguments and placing these cacti back 

into Mammillaria. The whole point of his discussion seems to be 

that opinions can at this stage differ, and that the final solution 

of “the Doiichothele problem” cannot even yet be presented. 

With this I heartily agree. I only differ in feeling that much 

confusion would have been avoided if separations had not been 

made until the evidence for them had been definite in the first


place, and that, since the evidence for this particular separation 

is not clear even yet, the best thing for the service of clarity 

would be to drop the separation which has always stood, at 

best, on doubtful grounds. If cactus genera are to be meaningful 

it seems they should be based on something more tangible than 

this, or taxonomy will always remain the bugaboo it is now 

for the cactophile, and we will continue to be the target of jokes 

about “cactusization,” defined by C. V. Morton as “the process 

of fragmenting or even pulverizing large genera of plants 

a popular sport among numerous fanciers of the Cactaceae.”

Genus Opuntia Miller 

Placed last in this account is the large genus, Opuntia. Those 

who deal in matters of primitive versus advanced and theories 

of development tell us it should really be the first United States 

genus considered. The Opuntias are generally regarded as more 

primitive than the cacti we have already enumerated, and they 

also certainly deserve first place for their success. In over half 

of our states Opuntias are the only cacti found, and it is these 

cacti which enable us to say that cacti grow over almost the 

whole of the U. S. It is also the Opuntias which have escaped 

and flourished when introduced in such faraway parts of the 

world as the Mediterranean and north African countries, where 

they have become in many places a common part of the scenery, 

and Australia, where they have become the classic examples of 

plant invaders. 

But in spite of all this I am putting the genus Opuntia at the 

back of the book. This is in deference to the fact that most 

people find them the least interesting of the cacti, and many 

people associate them too strongly with unpleasantness to be 

able to appreciate them at all. Even many cactophiles lack interest 

in them. It is not at all uncommon to find a fancier with 

a large collection of almost all other types of cacti, which includes 

not a single Opuntia, or only a few of the more exotic 

forms of the genus. Some collectors will travel hundreds of miles 

to get a new barrel cactus and on the way pass by twenty species 

of Opuntias all in sight from the highway without even 

stopping to study them. 

There are very real reasons for this lack of interest in or actual 

avoidance of the Opuntias. I do not deny that. These cacti 

bring it upon themselves. The Opuntias make no attempt to 

please, and actually seem to be the experts in every means of 

antagonizing other organisms. They have several built-in fea- 

tures not shared by other cacti, which lose them friends. 

No doubt their most effective feature in provoking our dislike 

is one of their most obvious distinguishing characteristics— 

their possession of glochids. Glochids are special spines produced 

by this genus, usually in great numbers. They are distinct from 

the ordinary spines, which these cacti usually have in profusion 

as well, although there may be intermediates. 

The ordinary, larger spines of a cactus are dangerous enough, 

may inflict real injuries, and in cases where they are hooked or 

positioned at opposing angles on the plant, may hold one all 

too firmly, but they are not ordinarily barbed, and so they can 

usually be extracted from clothing or flesh rather easily if one 

is careful to remove them at the same angle they went in. But 

not so the glochids. These are comparatively very slender, often 

almost invisible they are so thin, and during development the 

cells covering the surface of each glochid loosen on their posterior 

edges so that on the completed glochid they stand as hundreds 

of firm, scalelike structures, each aimed obliquely to the 

rear—literally forming hundreds of tiny barbs to hold this tiny 

spear in whatever soft tissue it may pierce with its sharp point, 

and to rend and tear if there is an attempt to remove it. Add to 

this the fact that glochids, instead of being solidly attached to 

the plant like the other spines, become when mature so loosely 

held that they come off the areole at the slightest touch, and 

you have here instruments of torture parallel to and equally as 

diabolical as the spines of the porcupine. Man or beast usually 

comes away from a brush with an Opuntia bearing in his flesh 

whole clusters of these tiny, almost invisible glochids, which 

may not have been felt at all when they pierced the flesh, but 

which are firmly imbedded there—not deep, not even through 

the skin—but each one well set and with its shaft projecting so 

that any slightest touch to it or pressure on it makes the tiny 

barbs tear, and produces a pain like a needle prick. They are 

especially maddening because they are often so tiny that you can 

hardly see what is causing all the pain, and so delicate that if 

you do find them and take hold of them to remove them, their 

ends usually break off, leaving the tips imbedded, with only

is -> his 


the stumps to be bumped and cause continual pain. If one cannot 

get the maddening things out at once before they work in 

and set their barbs, the only really effective thing to do for a 

mass of tiny glochids in the flesh is to shave them off with a 

close-shaving razor. Once the projecting ends are removed this 

way, the tips in the skin will not be felt again and will soon 

work out. 

Some Opuntias make use of barbs on their larger spines as 

well, and on some of them a whole branch comes off and remains 

stuck to animal or human which has touched it, hitching 

a ride to a new location this way. It is an extremely unpleasant 

task to pull one of these branches off when its spines are well 

imbedded. 

So who can blame the person who wouldn’t touch an Opuntia 

with a ten-foot pole, let alone have it in his greenhouse, 

especially when many of them have a habit of spreading out 

into good-sized bushes and so taking up much room? Add to 

this the fact that they are the most difficult of all cacti to classify, 

the most variable and, therefore, difficult to recognize, 

and you have reasons enough for avoiding them. 

Yet there is much to be said for the Opuntias as well. They 

have many quite interesting features, may be very beautiful, and 

are also the most widely used for food of any cacti. And then 

they are undoubtedly the most challenging of the cacti. So 

there are those most dedicated of cactophiles who wade right 

into the thickets of the Opuntias, so to speak, and study them 

out. When to these people who are dedicated to understanding 

all cacti are added all of the people who are more likely to see 

an Opuntia in the back pasture or by the roadside than any 

other cactus, and who would like to know something about it, 

there must be a large number who will find interest in the admittedly 

difficult account of this complex, creeping, sprawling 

group, whose relationships are sometimes almost as hard to understand 

as its thickets are to penetrate. We offer them here, at 

the end of our account, as the final challenge in cactus study. 

Usually mentioned characteristics of the Opuntias are the 

possession of jointed stems; cylindrical or conic leaves on young 

stems; the presence of glochids; the production of spreading, 

rotate flowers with more or less sensitive stamens and with 

areoles, which often produce glochids and spines, on the ovaries; 

fruits with thick rinds; and seeds comparatively large, rounded 

in one plane and flattened in the other, while covered by hard, 

bony, light-colored arils. 

There is usually little difficulty in recognizing an Opuntia 

and telling it from the cacti of the other genera. One or another 

of the features just listed is almost always so obvious that one 

could hardly miss it. So we do not need to dwell here on the 

characteristics of the genus. 

But once a person knows he has an Opuntia, his problems have 

only begun, if he wishes to classify it further. This is because 

the process of sorting out the Opuntias within the group is one 

of the most difficult in all taxonomy. Several things contribute 

to this difficulty. 

One of these is the fact that the Opuntias seem to react to 

differences in their environments more quickly and with more 

drastic growth-form changes than do other cacti. In the Echinocacti 

or Echinocerei the plant usually grows much the same as 

any other of its own species as long as the environment is tolerable 

at all, and then ordinarily, if the environment becomes so 

changed that it cannot put out typical growth, it just fails to 

grow at all. On the other hand, the Opuntia in a bad situation 

will grow on, but grow in a form often so radically different 

from the typical that one would hardly suspect the environmentally 

modified specimen to be of the same species as a typi- 

cal one. 

As a result of this fact, where, for instance, in the former genera 

one can list maximum and minimum spine numbers, spine 

lengths, and spine characters within definite, rather narrow, and 

unvarying limits, and often use these to recognize species, one 

has to list the spines of Opuntias within widely varying limits 

and one must be very careful in any attempt to delineate species 

of Opuntias by their spine characters. A simple experiment, if 

only once carried out, would keep a person from ever again 

depending on Opuntia spines remaining the same. It is easy to 

take half a dozen different, typically spiny Opuntias and by 

growing them a few years in a very shady, moist situation, end 

up with half a dozen very nearly indistinguishable, spineless or 

only weakly spined specimens. All too often such an atypical 

plant has been given a separate name or has been mistaken for a 

normally weak-spined species. The literature is, therefore, a mo- 

rass of conflicting reports. 

Other characters of the Opuntias, such as stem size or even 

stem shape, flower and fruit size, and so on, are also capable of 

being influenced by the environment. Where an Echinocactus or 

a Mammillaria either puts out a standard-sized flower and fruit 

or else just waits to make the effort until the environment is 

more favorable, an Opuntia in a poor situation usually does not 

mind at all putting out a flower half as big as typical, and may 

go ahead to ripen a fruit also half as big as it should have been. 

Great care must be taken to allow for this variability. 

Perhaps the only effort to approach this problem properly 

was made by Dr. David Griffiths, who, with U. S. experiment 

stations at his disposal, once started an ambitious program of 

growing all the Opuntias of the Southwest in identical situations 

and of raising seedlings of them all in uniform and differing environments 

in order to discover what really are the constant 

characters of these cacti. But this sort of a program would take 

many years to yield really definite answers, and although Dr. 

Griffiths was able to gain some hints in the years he carried it 

on, no one continued his fields of Opuntias, and no such attempt 

has been made again. We are therefore left to work out indirectly 

what the solid characters of these species are, and it is no easy 

task. 

To the foregoing must be added the fact that some of the 

Opuntia species cover huge ranges of territory and within these 

huge territories show various different forms not directly due to

Cornyopuntia -> 

Corynopuntia 

genus Opuntia 161 

environment. It seems clear, for instance, that the large prickly 

pears of the U.S. can only be understood if a few very broad 

species are recognized. One of these, Opuntia engelmannii, with 

its range running from at least Louisiana—and some would say 

even from Florida—to California, would be one of the widest 

ranging of any U.S. cactus. And within this huge entity are a 

number of varieties which have caused great confusion, as some 

have described them as separate species, and others have ignored 

them entirely, assuming them to be the mere results of local environments. 

It is hard to find agreement as to how to interpret 

such a situation, and experimental evidence is so far almost to- 

tally lacking. 

In this study, when faced with this sort of situation, I have 

taken the attitude that no described form can be ignored and 

relegated to the synonymy without investigation. So we have 

made great efforts to locate and study each one described for 

this area, no matter how obscure. And wherever we have found 

a form which exists as a population with a definable range, 

which does not seem to be due to a local environmental factor, 

but which does not seem distinct enough to be clearly a separate 

species, I have listed it as a variety. Only by keeping these forms 

thus in sight can we keep them available for the biosystematic 

studies which are long overdue and which will someday give us 

a clearer understanding of the Opuntias. 

The genus Opuntia is an old one, and it has been subdivided. 

The system for the U. S. members has usually taken the form of 

a division into 2 or 3 groups based mostly on the forms of the 

stems and partly on spine characters. These groupings were some 

of them made very early and the divisions called subgenera or 

sections of the genus. The earliest divisions were into subgenus 

Cylindropuntia Eng., with stems tending to be cylindrical and 

more or less tuberculate, and subgenus Platyopuntia Weber, 

having the stems to some degree flattened. Cylindropuntia was 

then divided and those members of it which had cylindrical 

stems were left under that name, while those which had 

more or less club-shaped stems were placed in a subgenus called 

variously Clavatopuntia by Fric, Clavatae by Berger, and most 

recently Corynopuntia by Knuth. This arrangement would give 3 

groups of Opuntias in the United States, and there are several 

others in Central and South America. 

Little fault can be found with these groupings. They seem 

natural groups within the genus. But granting that, we are soon 

faced with the old genus problem, since some authors have recently 

elevated these groupings, originally sections or subgenera 

of the genus Opuntia to the level of genera themselves, thus 

doing away with the old genus entirely, or like Earle, limiting 

the genus Opuntia to the forms which made up the former subgenus 

Platyopuntia. 

What are we to do about the newer system which divides this 

genus into several genera? Here once more it seems I must make 

a decision based almost totally upon my own philosophy and 

my concept of a genus. It seems rather clear that there is a natural 

grouping into cylindrical and flat-jointed Opuntias, although 

a few species are close to intermediates even here. The division 

between cylindrical and club-shaped is not as clear. There are 

some forms which show an ability to adopt somewhat of either 

stem form, and are difficult to place definitely in either. Other 

differences which have been searched out between these two 

groups—such as spines sheathed or not sheathed—have not 

proved too reliable either. 

After much study of this problem it seems to me that while 

these groupings represent something natural, and have some 

significance, they hardly represent essential enough differences 

to be the bases for different genera. To use the worn, but it seems 

important, analogy from the genus Euphorbia once again, the 

stems of Euphorbia obesa, Euphorbia grandicornis, and Euphorbia 

prostrata seem every bit as essentially different as do those 

of our three Opuntia groups. We have also, in our laboratory, 

run a series of chromatographic studies on Opuntias and found 

no evidence of chemical groupings to parallel these divisions, as 

one would expect if the differences were generic. So we have 

concluded that while these groupings may be useful, and may 

form the basis for subdividing the old genus Opuntia, they 

should probably not supplant it. 

I am not concerning myself here with the long lists of series 

or sections into which this genus has been divided by various 

authors. Each series published so far contradicts the others, and 

I have found enough faults in those of Britton and Rose and 

also in those of Backeberg, for instance, that I feel such detailed 

classification of the group is still premature. We just don’t understand 

the genetics of these plants, the way they vary, and the 

significance of their various characters well enough yet. Perhaps, 

if their many forms are not lost sight of, after experimentation 

is carried on it will then be possible to set up meaningful 

series of the Opuntias. 

Those hardy enough, and possessing enough of the true botanist’s 

curiosity which will let him pass up no plant, however 

thorny, will find a huge opportunity in the study of the Opuntias. 

In sheer numbers of their populations and extents of their 

ranges they excel. Nor does one have the disappointing experience 

with these, that he all too often has with the other cacti, of 

traveling to a spot where a species is supposed to grow profusely 

only to find that some collector or dealer has stripped the area 

bare of every specimen which once was there. So few bother to 

bring home Opuntias that one can travel through country most 

ruthlessly sacked of cacti and still find the Opuntias untouched. 

Even the inroads of agriculture have not adversely affected the 

majority of them. Root-plowing, chaining, and most of the 

other practices used to clear the range of the chaparral have usually, 

while exterminating the other cacti, merely torn the Opuntias 

apart and distributed their stems widely, each one of which 

then rooted, and the Opuntia population has, therefore, multiplied. 

So the opportunity for studying them is perhaps greater 

today in our area than ever before. Only a few obscure species 

limited to very small ranges have been reduced by clearing of 

fields and agricultural practices, although in the future the pic-


ture will probably be very different. All the big guns of the 

chemical industry are being aimed at the chaparral, and the 

mass spraying of the range with some of the newer herbicides, 

barely started now, clearly could reduce these plants to a vanishing 

point. But the student of the Opuntias can take heart in 

knowing that, tough as these plants are, they will be among the 

last wild plants to go, and he will be one of the last students of 

wild plants to survive. 

The flat-stemmed Opuntias are known almost universally as 

prickly pears. Tough and thorny as they are, these are the main 

food-producing cacti. Tons of their stems are fed to cattle, particularly 

in Texas and Mexico, where sophisticated methods are 

used to burn the spines off so that the flesh is available to the 

animals. And these plants are used extensively for human consumption 

as well. The young pads, before their tissues have 

hardened or their spines been produced are relished. Called nopalitos, 

these are eaten widely in Mexico, where they are usually 

breaded with cornmeal and fried, and in Texas, where they 

are more often boiled and added to a sort of omelet. In the 

spring they are often on sale at markets in San Antonio and the 

rest of south Texas, and in San Antonio they are served in some 

Mexican restaurants, as well as being sold canned in some supermarkets. 

But the most widely used part of the Opuntia is probably 

the fruit, called tuna. Certain species producing large, 

sweet fruits are cultivated as crops in Mexico, and this was one 

of the reasons for these plants being introduced into some other 

parts of the world where they have become such pests. 

The large, upright, cylindrical-stemmed Opuntias are known 

collectively as chollas. I do not know of any use of these chollas 

for food. They are far too woody and tough, and their fruits 

are not edible. But certain species of them make very large and 

beautiful bushes, and are widely grown as ornamentals. Almost 

any inhabited area of the Southwest will have some specimens 

of these species planted just for their beauty. They may be prized 

highly in places where almost no other shrubs or trees will grow. 

And anyone who has looked over the typical curio store knows 

well the lamp bases and other trinkets made of the curious, reticulated 

wood of these chollas. 

So, whether regarded as friends or enemies, the Opuntias are 

easily some of the most strange, fascinating, and challenging of 

plants. 

KEY TO THE OPUNTIAS 

1a. Joints flattened; spines not covered with papery sheaths (Platyopuntias)—2. 

2a. Plants upright and bushy, 2 to 7 feet tall, sometimes spreading 

and forming thickets, but with no branches prostrate, and with 

upright branches attaining a length of three pads or more—3. 

3a. Areoles 3/4 to 21/2 inches apart, with the majority on any pad 

one inch or more apart—4. 

4. Possessing spines—5. 

5a. Spines all round —O. Stricta (in part). 

5b. At least one spine of each areole flattened—6. 

6a. Pads conspicuously tuberculate by raised areoles; fruits 

spiny, with I to 5 rigid spines up to 1 inch long on at 

least each upper areole, and these fruits becoming dry 

when ripe —O. spinosibacca. 

6b, Pads not markedly tuberculate; fruits naked or nearly 

so—7. 

7a. Spines when mature whitish, yellow, red-brown, or 

mottled, but with no part of any spine black—8. 

8a. Pads circular or variously shaped, but not over 

twice as long as broad—9. 

9a. Seeds 1/16 to 3/16 of an inch (11/2–41/2 millimeters) 

in diameter—10. 

10a. Spines on old areoles on old pads not increasing 

in number beyond the normal 10 or so of 

mature pads—11. 

11a. Areoles and glochids normal in appearance 

and not exaggerated in development when 

old—12. 

12a. Fruits spherical, oval, or broadly pear- 

shaped, with little or no constriction below, 

with the umbilicus not constricted 

but flat or nearly so and as broad or 

nearly as broad as the widest part of the 

fruit; flowers yellow to red, but never 

yellow with red centers—13. 

13a. Fruits 2 to 31/2 inches long, deep burgundy 

in color when ripe; seeds 1/8 of 

an inch or a little more (3–4 millimeters) 

in diameter; stigmas green— 

14. 

l4a. Spines deep brown at their bases, 

becoming white or whitish toward 

the tips; leaves 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch 

long; fruits edible 

—O. engelmannii var. engelmannii. 

14b. Spines and glochids all bright yellow 

or yellow with the bases to 

sometimes all but the tips red- 

brown; leaves 1/2 to 1/2 inch long; 

fruits not pleasant to the taste 

—O. engelmannii var. texana. 

13b. Fruits 1 to 2 inches long, bright red to 

purplish-red when ripe; seeds 1/16 to 

3/16 of an inch (11/2–41/2 millimeters) 

in diameter; stigmas white to greenish 

—15. 

15a. Spines heavy and rigid, the longest 

spine usually about 11/2 inches long 

and only rarely reaching 21/2 

inches; fruits purplish-red—16. 

16a. Fruits spherical or nearly so 

with no constriction below and 

always spineless; seeds about 3/16


of an inch (4–41/2 millimeters) 

in diameter; spines red-brown 

or with at least the bases red- 

brown; flowers small with dark 

green stigmas —O. engelmannii 

var. cyclodes. 

16b. Fruits not spherical, but broadly 

egg-shaped with some slight 

constriction below and having 

numerous glochids and often a 

few spines 1/2 to 5/8 of an inch 

long on them; seeds extremely 

small, being 1/16 of an inch or 

slightly more (11/2–21/2 millimeters) 

in diameter; spines entirely 

yellow; flowers large with 

stigmas light greenish-white 

—O. engelmannii var. alta. 

15b. Spines slender and long, as well as 

somewhat flexible, the main spines 

being 2 to 3 inches long; fruits not 

so purplish, but more bright red; 

stigmas either dark green or white 

—17. 

17a. Pads thick and light or yellowish-green; 

main central spines 

all sharply deflexed and very 

flexible and 1/2 to 3 inches long; 

fruit broad egg-shaped to club- 

shaped, with some constriction 

below; seeds about 1/8 of an inch 

(3–31/2 millimeters) in diameter; 

stigmas dark green 

—O. engelmannii 

var. flexispina. 

17b. Pads thin and blue-green in 

color; main spines porrect, 2 to 

3 inches long and conspicuously 

longer than the other spines; 

fruits spherical to oval with no 

constriction below; seeds between 

1/16 and 1/8 of an inch 

(2–3 millimeters) in diameter; 

stigmas white —O. engelmannii 

var. cacanapa. 

12b. Fruits elongated and club-shaped, with 

the base definitely constricted and the 

umbilicus also constricted, much narrower 

than the widest part of the fruit 

and deeply to very deeply pitted; stig- 

mas yellowish—18. 

18a. Spines bright yellow or yellow with 

light brown bases; flowers all yellow; 

fruits purplish or plum in color; 

seeds 3/16 of an inch or less (31/2–41/2 

millimeters) in diameter 

—O. tardospina. 

18b. Spines brown below with whitish 

above, never bright yellow; flowers 

orange-yellow with red centers; 

fruits bright scarlet-red in color; 

seeds n/is of an inch or more (4–5 

millimeters) in diameter 

—O. phaeacantha var. major 

(in part). 

11b. Areoles and glochids exaggerated in development 

when old—19. 

19a. Areoles enlarging to 1/2 inch in diameter 

on old stems and bulging outward 

to form a sort of cylindrical projection 

to 1/2 inch high, with a compact tuft of 

short glochids on the summit of it; pads 

large, mostly round, and blue-green in 

color —O. engelmannii var. dulcis. 

19b. Areoles large and bulging outward 

noticeably, with glochids very long 

and scattered loosely throughout the 

areole, forming starlike clusters almost 

covering the surfaces of the mature 

pads; pads smaller and more obovate 

and with the color more dull dark 

green than is typical for the species 

—O. engelmannii var. aciculata 

(in part). 

10b. Spines on old areoles on old trunks increasing 

greatly to 20 or 30 per areole, covering 

the older parts of the plants with a com- 

plete covering of spines —O. chlorotica. 

9b. Seeds more than 3/16 of an inch (41/2 milli- 

meters or more) in greatest diameter 

—O. phaeacantha var. camanchica 

(when unusually large and ascending). 

8b. Pads greatly elongated so that at least some of 

them on a normal plant are at least twice as long 

as they are broad —O. engelmannii 

var. linguiformis. 

7b. Spines when growing black or bright orange, when 

mature black or dark blackish-brown, at least at 

the base—20. 

20a. Fruits 3/4 to 11/2 inches long, oval or ovate, with 

no noticeable constriction below and the umbilicus 

rather deeply pitted, yellowish to scarlet 

when ripe; seeds 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch (3–41/2 

millimeters) in diameter; spines heavy, rigid, 

very angular, and 1 to 6 per areole, found on 

most areoles, but to only 2 inches or less in 

length; glochids becoming long and average in 

number on edge areoles; pads thin and blue- 

green to yellow-green in color, not becoming 

reddish —O. phaeacantha var. nigricans. 

20b. Fruits 11/4 to 2 inches long, elongated oval or 

egg-shaped, with some slight constriction below 

and a shallowly pitted umbilicus; seeds more 

than 3/16 of an inch (about 5 millimeters) in 

diameter; spines heavy, rigid, almost round to


somewhat flattened, 2 to 4 per areole in only 

the upper areoles, but to 3 inches long; glochids 

few at first, becoming very many and very long 

in the edge areoles; pads thick and pale green, 

often reddish in color or spotted with reddish 

around the areoles —O. phaeacantha 

var. brunnea. 

4b. Spineless—21. 

21a. Pads elongated obovate to elliptic or even spindle- 

shaped; surface of pads smooth and shining, not glau- 

cous; leaves only 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch long; ovaries 

narrow and elongated; fruits elongated, pear-shaped, 

constricted at the base and with deeply pitted um- 

bilicus —O. Stricta (in part). 

21b. Pads round or oval or even broader than long, surface 

dull and glaucous; leaves 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch long; 

ovaries short and stout; fruits spherical to broadly 

pear-shaped, with little or no basal Constriction and 

umbilicus flat or only slightly concave—22. 

22a. Surface blue-green; areoles small; glochids very few 

and short —O. engelmannii var. subarmata. 

22b. Surface bright green or dark green, but not blue- 

green; areoles enlarged and bulging; glochids very 

long in loose, spreading clusters —O. engelmannii 

var. aciculata (when spineless). 

3b. Areoles 1/4 to 11/4 inches apart, with the majority on any pad 

less than 1 inch apart—23. 

23a. Spineless—24. 

24a. Pads pubescent; glochids very many but very short and 

minute, hardly exceeding the wool in the bulging areoles; 

fruits remaining greenish and rather dry when 

ripe —O. rufida. 

24b. Pads not pubescent; glochids few but larger; fruits 

bright red or orange-red and fleshy when ripe 

—O. macrocentra (in part). 

23b. Spines present—25. 

25a. Spines black or brown, sometimes with gray but never 

with yellow coloring, to 4 per areole in a few of the 

upper areoles only, 2 to 5 inches long, somewhat flexible, 

and at least one spine flattened; pads usually purplish 

in color; seeds 3/16 to more than 1/4 of an inch 

(41/2–7 millimeters) in diameter —O. macrocentra 

(in part). 

25b. Spines yellow in their outer zones, with black or brown 

bases, not flexible, from 3/4 to 4 inches, but usually less 

than 2 inches long; pads sometimes reddish, but not 

distinctly purplish in color; seeds around 1/8 of an inch 

(21/2–4 millimeters) in diameter—26. 

26a. Spines 1 to 3 on a few upper areoles only, 1/2 to 2 

inches, but said to have attained 4 inches long; bases 

of spines brown; spines round; pads usually with 

reddish coloring; glochids many but very short 

—O. gosseliniana var. santa-rita. 

26b. Spines 3 to 16 on many or all areoles; never over 

13/4 inches long; bases black or dark red-brown, at 

least when young; pads yellow-green without purple 

or reddish coloring; glochids many and long—27. 

27a. Spines 6 to as many as 15, consisting of 1 to 5 rigid 

main spines which are either round or flattened 

and 3/16 to 3/4 of an inch long, plus up to 10 lower, 

bristle-like spines 3/16 to 3/4 of an inch long 

—O. strigil. 

27b. Spines 3 to 6, consisting of about 2 rigid, round 

main ones 1/2 to 11/4 inches long and 2 or 3 lower, 

bristle-like spines 3/16 to 5/8 of an inch long 

—O. atrispina. 

2b. Plants growing prostrate or sprawling, or if ascending, never 

standing upright over 2 or 3 pads or 12 to 20 inches tall—28. 

28a. Pads 6 to 10 inches long in maximum size—29. 

29a. Areoles 3/8 to 7/8 of an inch apart; fruits more or less 

spiny and becoming dry when ripe—30. 

30a. Spines 1 to 10 per areole; fruits 11/2 to 2 inches long 

and broadly club-shaped, spiny above or spineless—31. 

31a. Spines 1 to 4 in only the upper areoles of the pads 

—O. rhodantha var. rhodantha (in part). 

31b. Spines 4 to 10 in all or nearly all areoles of the pads 

—O. rhodantha var. spinosior. 

30b. Spines 10 to 15 in all or nearly all areoles; fruits 7/8 to 

11/4 inches long and obovate to broadly club-shaped, 

spiny —O. hystricina (in part). 

29b. Areoles 3/4 to 2 inches apart; fruits remaining fleshy and 

spineless—32. 

32a. At least some areoles with more than one spine; pads 

almost circular to broad egg-shaped; seeds thin or 

average in thickness—33. 

33a. Spines 1 to 5, slender to medium thickness, round or 

nearly so with no lower bristle-like spines present 

—34. 

34a. Fruits 11/2 to 31/2 inches long, club-shaped, with 

pronounced constriction at the base and with the 

top narrow and deeply pitted; seeds about 1/8 of 

an inch (21/8–4 millimeters) in diameter, with nar- 

row rims and the body of the seed rather thick 

—O. leptocarpa. 

34b. Fruits 11/4 to 23/8 inches long, broadly club-shaped, 

with the base constricted and the umbilicus somewhat 

pitted; seeds about 3/16 of an inch (4–5 millimeters) 

in diameter —O. phaeacantha var. major 

(in part, when stunted). 

33b. Spines 1 to 8, main spines heavy to very heavy and 

flattened, often with lower bristle-like spines present; 

fruits 1 to 2 inches long, oval to very broadly egg- 

shaped, with little or no constriction at the base and 

with broad, flat, or shallowly pitted umbilicus; seeds 

3/16 to 1/4 of an inch (41/2–6 millimeters) in diameter, 

with wide rims —O. phaeacantha var. camanchica 

(in part). 

32b. Spineless or with only one spine in a few areoles; pads 

elongated egg-shaped to spindle-shaped; seeds very 

thick —O. compressa var. allairei. 

28b. Pads 2 to 6 inches long—35. 

35a. At least some areoles of the pad more than 11/4 inches 

apart—this is a stunted, abnormally small specimen of 

some larger species, and it will probably be impossible to 

identify it with this key. 

35b. Areoles 3/16 to 11/4 inches apart—36.

erinaceae -> 

erinacea 


36a. Pads solidly attached to each other and not detaching 

to come away from the plant at a touch—37. 

37a. Spines to 5 or more per areole and found on 1/2 or 

more areoles of mature pads; stigmas bright green 

—38. 

38a. Fruits remaining fleshy when ripe and oval or oblong 

in shape; seeds not thick for their diameters 

—39. 

39a. Pads thin with definitely constricted or even 

attenuated bases; spines round or nearly so, 

slender and flexible and mostly deflexed; glochids 

red-brown and short; seeds slightly over 

1/8 to 1/4 inch (31/2–6 millimeters) in diameter, 

with narrow to medium rims —O. phaeacantha 

var. tenuispina. 

39b. Pads thickish, round or nearly so with no definite 

constrictions at their bases; spines at least 

somewhat flattened, medium to thick and always 

rigid, glochids long and yellow or light 

brown; seeds 3/16 to just over 1/4 inch (41/2–61/2 

millimeters) in diameter, with wide rims 

—O. cymochila. 

38b. Fruits dry when ripe, various in shape—40. 

40a. Pads elongated oval to clavate, less than half as 

broad as they are long, and very thick; roots 

stolon-like; seeds about 1/4 of an inch (6–7 millimeters) 

in diameter —O. arenaria. 

40b. Pads round or oval to broadly egg-shaped or 

oblong, always more than half as broad as they 

are long and not unusually thick; roots normally 

fibrous—41. 

41a. Pads more or less prostrate, sometimes with 

young pads ascending, but with older ones 

reclining; at least main spines rigid and stout 

—42. 

42a. Surface of pads noticeably tuberculate and 

often wrinkled; glochids few to average 

and short; main spines 0 to 5 per areole and 

porrect to deflexed, 2 inches or less long, 

all rigid or often becoming greatly elongated, 

soft, flexible, and hairlike, particu- 

larly toward the bases of the pads 

—O. polyacantha (in part). 

42b. Surface of pads not noticeably tuberculate 

or wrinkled; glochids many and often long; 

main spines 1 to 8 per areole, spreading, 

heavy, but moderately flexible, and to 4 

inches long —O. hystricina (in part). 

41b. Pads all erect or ascending, with not even old 

pads reclining; spines slender, to 4 inches long, 

and moderately flexible —O. erinacea. 

37b. Spines 0 to 4 or rarely 5 per areole on only the upper 

edge areoles or at most on those of the upper one- 

half of the pad—43. 

43a. Fruit remaining fleshy; stigmas yellow or whitish 

—44. 

44a. Fruits egg-shaped to club-shaped with the bases 

noticeably constricted—45. 

45a. Pads ascending from a central trunklet, blue- 

green or gray-green in color, usually with 

some purplish blotching around the areoles; 

root a large central taproot 1/2 to 11/2 inches in 

diameter and 12 inches or longer, not tuber- 

like enlargements on otherwise fibrous roots; 

flowers deep red to purple—46. 

46a. Plants standing 6 to 12 inches tall; pads 

medium thickness and to 4 or 5 inches long, 

glabrous, blue-green in color, the surface 

flat without raised areoles; glochids numerous 

and yellow in color; fruits 11/2 inches 

or more long; seeds just over 3/16 to 1/4 of 

an inch (5–6 millimeters) in diameter 

—O. pottsii. 

46b. Plants standing less than 6 inches tall; pads 

thin and to only 21/2 inches long, glaucous 

gray-green in color, the surface tuberculate 

by raised areoles; glochids numerous and 

bright red-brown in color; fruits 5/8 to 1 

inch long. Seeds 1/8 of an inch or a little 

more (3–4 millimeters) in diameter 

—O. plumbea. 

45b. Pads prostrate or sprawling, not ascending 

from a central trunklet, thick, yellow-gray of 

deep green, but not blue-green in color; roots 

fibrous or fibrous with tubers on them, but 

with no central taproot—47. 

47a. Pads gray-green or yellow-green and glaucous—48. 

48a. Pads to 51/2 inches long; spines to 21/4 

inches long and slender to medium in 

thickness; glochids greenish-yellow to 

straw or light brown, average in number, 

and to 1/4 of an inch or less long; flowers 

large and yellow in color; fruits 11/2 to 

21/2 inches long; seeds 3/16 to 1/4 of an 

inch (5 millimeters plus) in diameter 

—O. compressa var. stenochila. 

48b. Pads to 4 inches long; spines to 23/4 

inches long and thick to very thick; glochids 

bright yellow, very numerous and 

conspicuous, and to 1/2 inch long on old 

pads; flowers small and reddish in color; 

fruits 3/4 to 1 inch long and very slender; 

seeds 1/8 of an inch or a little more (about 

31/2 millimeters) in diameter —O. ballii. 

47b. Pads deep green, surface shining—49. 

49a. Plant entirely prostrate, with all pads reclining 

by the end of their first season; 

pads very thick, very wrinkled when dehydrated, 

but not tuberculate by elevations 

at the areoles; spines 0 to 3 per 

areole on the upper areoles and 1 inch or 

less long, heavy, straight, and round; 

inner petals 10 to 14 in number 

—O. compressa var. humifusa. 

49b. Plants sprawling, with very old pads

sparcely -> sparsely 


sometimes reclining, but most pads ascending, 

pads not so thick as the last, 

somewhat to extremely tuberculate by 

raised areoles; spines 0 to 5, often some 

of them over 1 inch long and often the 

main spine somewhat flattened; inner 

petals 5 to 9 in number—50. 

50a. Spineless; flowers very large (4 to 5 

inches in diameter); fruits 2 inches or 

more long; pads very tuberculate 

—O. compressa var. grandiflora. 

50b. Spines 1 to 5; flowers average size (2 

to 3 inches in diameter); fruits 1 to 2 

inches long—51. 

51a. Seeds about 3/16 of an inch (4–5 

millimeters) in diameter—52. 

52a. Glochids brown or yellowish; surface 

only somewhat tuberculate; 

spines 1 to 5; inner petals 7 to 9 

in number —O. compressa 

var. macrorhiza. 

52b. Glochids bright red-brown; surface 

very tuberculate; spines 1 to 

3; inner petals 5 to 7 

—O. compressa var. fusco-atra. 

51b. Seeds only around 1/16 of an inch 

(11/2–2 millimeters) in diameter 

—O. compressa var. microsperma. 

44b. Fruits oval with no constriction below 

—O. phaeacantha var. camanchica 

(when stunted). 

43b. Fruits becoming dry when ripe; flowers yellow, 

pink, or rose; stigmas bright green—53. 

53a. Stigma lobes 4 to 6; fruits 3/4 to 13/8 inches long, 

spineless, and without constriction below—54. 

54a. Fruits spherical to oval; seeds slightly over 

3/16 of an inch (5 millimeters) in diameter, 

thickish, with narrow, acute rims 

—O. sphaerocarpa. 

54b. Fruits oblong; seeds from 1/4 to just over 1/16 

of an inch (6–8 millimeters) in diameter, flat 

and not thick for the size, with wide rims 

—O. polyacantha 

(in part, when sparcely-spined). 

53b. Stigma lobes 8 to 12; fruits 11/2 to 1/4 inches 

long, broad club-shaped with some tapering 

constriction below; upper areoles spiny or else 

entirely spineless —O. rhodantha 

var. rhodantha (in part). 

36b. Pads loosely attached so that they separate at a touch; 

pads small, thick, and almost cylindrical when young 

—55. 

55a. Fruits fleshy, elongated, and club-shaped, 11/4 inches 

or more long; seeds just under 3/16 of an inch (4 

millimeters) in diameter; pads to 41/2 inches long, 

stigmas yellowish —O. drummondii. 

55b. Fruits dry, oval or broadly egg-shaped, 1/2 to 1 inch 

long; seeds just over 5/16 of an inch (5 millimeters) 

in diameter; stigma lobes bright green —O. fragilis. 

1b. Joints not flattened but cylindrical or club-shaped; spines with 

either conspicuous or rudimentary papery sheaths—56. 

56a. Joints club-shaped or egg-shaped and very tuberculate; plants 

prostrate or ascending but 12 inches or less in height; spine 

sheaths rudimentary on tips of immature spines only and 

usually not present on adult spines (Corynopuntias)—57. 

Cornyopuntias -> 

Corynopuntias 

57a. Joints elongated club-shaped, prostrate to ascending, usually 

curved; spines to more than 11/4 inches long—58. 

58a. Main central spine very heavy, flat, wide, and roughly 

cross-striated—59. 

59a. Joints 31/2 to 6 inches long; tubercles 1 to 13/4 inches 

long —O. stanlyi. 

59b. Joints 1 to 3 inches long; tubercles 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch 

long —O. schottii. 

58b. Main spines round or nearly so, slender to medium thickness, 

not striated —O. grahamii. 

57b. Joints short club-shaped or egg-shaped; main spines to only 

11/4 inch long —O. clavata. 

56b. Joints cylindrical; plants upright or ascending, never prostrate, 

bushy, and 1 to 12 feet tall; spine sheaths conspicuous, 

at least on newly matured main spines (Cylindropuntias)—60. 

60a. Width of current year’s joints 3/4 to 2 inches—61. 

61a. Tubercles 3/4 to 11/2 inches long; color deep green at all 

times—62. 

62a. Fruits globose and about 1 inch in diameter, always 

tuberculate—63. 

63a. Main spines 3/4 to 11/4 inches long; spine sheaths 

whitish or straw-colored; fruits spineless when mature—64. 

64a. Flowers purple or reddish (reported as rarely yellowish 

or white); growth treelike and 3 to 8 feet 

tall —O. imbricata var. arborescens. 

64b. Flowers pale greenish with lavender shading; a 

small bush 1 to 3 feet tall —O. imbricata 

var. viridiflora (in part). 

63b. Main spines 2 to 21/2 inches long, with glistening 

silvery sheaths; flowers greenish yellow; growth low, 

1 to 2 feet tall; fruits with sheathed spines to 1 inch 

long —O. tunicata. 

62b. Fruits obovate to globose, 1 to 2 inches in diameter, 

becoming nearly or entirely smooth when ripe; main 

spines to no more than 5/8 of an inch long 

—O. imbricata var. vexans. 

61a. Tubercles 3/8 to 3/4 inch long—65. 

65a. A large bush 3 to 12 feet tall; spines 6 to 25 in number, 

mostly 3/8 of an inch or less long and only rarely to 5/8 

of an inch, spine sheaths inconspicuous and soon falling 

off; color of plant surface often purplish in severe conditions 

—O. spinosior. 

65b. Low spreading or mat-forming bushes 1 to 2 feet tall; 

spines 3 to 12 in number, maximum spine length 3/4 to 

11/4 inches, spine sheaths loose, persistent, and conspicuous; 

color of plant surface light green —O. whipplei 

(in part). 

60b. Width of current year’s joints 3/4 of an inch or less—66. 

66a. Plants low-growing, 1 to 3 feet tall; width of current


year’s joints 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch, with distinct tubercles 

—67. 

67a. Largest spines 11/4 inches or less long (usually less than 

1 inch)—68. 

68a. Erect, more or less trunked plants; joints strictly 

cylindrical; spine sheaths not conspicuous and shining; 

flower greenish-purple or lavender with reddish 

stigma lobes —O. imbricata var. viridiflora (in part). 

68b. Ascending or spreading, but without real trunks, 

often mat-forming plants; joints slightly clavate by 

being constricted at the bases. Spine sheaths conspicuous 

and shining; flowers pale yellow; stigmas green- 

ish —O. whipplei (in part). 

67b. Largest spines 11/2 to 2 inches long; tubercles 5/8 to 1 

inch long —O. davisii. 

66b. Plants bushy and growing 3 to 6 feet or more tall; width 

of current year’s joints 1/8 to 1/2 inch; tubercles indistinct 

or sometimes actually absent—69. 

69a. Joints 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick, with tubercles indistinct to 

distinct, but always present—70. 

70a. Joints 3/16 to 1/2 inch in diameter; flowers greenish- 

purple and 1 to 11/4 inches in diameter; fruit red and 

with indistinct tubercles or else smooth when ripe, 

3/4 to 1 inch long; spines to 1 inch long —O. kleiniae. 

70b. Joints 3/16 to 3/8 of an inch in diameter; flowers unknown; 

fruits yellowish and distinctly tuberculate 

when ripe, 9/16 to 3/4 of an inch long; spines 1 to 21/2 

inches long —O. vaginata. 

69b. Joints 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch thick, with tubercles at best 

indistinct and often absent; flowers yellow or greenish- 

yellow and 1/2 to 7/8 of an inch in diameter; fruits red 

or orange-red and smooth when ripe —O. leptocaulis. 

Opuntia stricta Haw. 

“Pest Pear” 


stems: An erect plant, but much branched and diffuse instead 

of treelike. Usually 2 to 3 feet tall, having elongated, ovate to 

elliptical or even spindle-shaped pads usually 6 to 9 inches 

long, but sometimes to 14 inches in length. These pads are of 

medium thickness, bluish-green and glabrous when young, but 

becoming light green and somewhat glaucous when old. Its 

leaves are 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch long. 

areoles: Very elongated in young pads, becoming oval when 

older. They are 1/4 of an inch or a little more in length, and 

situated 11/4 to 21/2 inches apart. 

spines: Variable. These plants are often entirely spineless, but 

some specimens have 1 to 3 spines per areole. When present 

the spines are porrect or spreading, 3/8 to 13/4 inches long, 

straight, stiff, and of medium thickness. They are round in 

cross-section, yellow in color, sometimes becoming slightly 

mottled with brown, but not having brown bases. 

glochids: Few and very short on young pads, becoming 

more with age, but never becoming conspicuous. Remaining 

comparatively short, growing to a maximum of about 3/8 of 

an inch long. They are yellow or straw-colored. 

flowers: About 3 to 4 inches in diameter, clear lemon-yellow 

in color. The ovary is slender club-shaped and 11/2 to 3 inches 

long, with a few glochids in its areoles. The perianth segments 

are pointed spatulate, greenish at their bases, and clear 

yellow above. The filaments are greenish below, becoming 

yellow above, and the anthers are yellow. The short, greenishyellow 

style has 6 to 8 fat, white or very pale greenish-white 

stigma lobes tipping it. 

fruits: Light pinkish-red to rather bright carmine-red when 

ripe. In shape elongated club-shaped and 11/2 to about 23/4 

inches long by 3/4 to 1 inch thick at the broadest upper part. 

The umbilicus on the summit of the fruit is deeply pitted. The 

flesh is sweet and edible. The seeds are about 1/8 of an inch 

(21/2–3 millimeters) in diameter, thin, regular, and with very 

narrow but fairly thick rims. 

Range. This is primarily a Caribbean species, found on Cuba, 

Haiti, and the West Indies, but widely spread to South America 

and Australia. It is found in the United States in south Florida, 

at Houma, Louisiana, and at the entrance to Galveston Bay. 

Remarks. This was one of the earliest of our Opuntias to be 

studied. It was first described under the name, Cactus strictus 

in 1803, and then again as Opuntia stricta in 1812, both by 

Haworth. It has often been called Opuntia inermis. This is because 

of a picture, apparently of this plant, which was published 

by De Candolle in 1799 labeled Cactus opuntia inermis, but 

this is not generally taken to have constituted an official description. 

The cactus grows widely in the Caribbean Islands and the 

West Indies, which seem to be its native location, but it has been 

cultivated on the west coast of South America, and was taken to 

Australia. It is the cactus which ran wild over millions of acres 

of New South Wales and Queensland and became perhaps the 

most famous of plant invaders in modern times. There it took 

over huge tracts of both agricultural and grazing lands, making 

them unfit for any use, and earned its designation as the pest 

pear. Huge programs were instituted to control it, and it has 

more recently been brought under a measure of control in Australia. 

It is most fortunate that this cactus has not been so successful 

in the U.S. It has been found at scattered locations in Florida, 

at one location at Houma, Louisiana, and at one location in 

Texas, this being at the lower end of Galveston Bay. It is not 

known whether it was introduced to these places in modern 

times or not, but the places where it has been found, at least in 

Louisiana and Texas, are both precisely the places where early 

shipping came ashore, and thus it looks like the cactus was 

brought, either knowingly or as a stowaway, on early boats


from its Caribbean home. Anyway, the plant did not spread 

and invade to any extent anywhere in the U. S., and in fact it 

seems to have practically failed here. It has not been re-collected 

in many years in Louisiana, and can now be found only on Galveston 

Island and the Bolivar Peninsula in Texas. 

The Galveston Island specimens, which comprise the only pop- 

ulation of other than isolated individuals we know of in our 

area, is found as a solid row of thickets along the top of the 

high sea-wall embankment between the city of Galveston and 

Fort Point at the north end of the island. Here it grows near 

the massive concrete bunkers and gun emplacements thrown up 

to guard the entrance to Galveston Bay, and looking at it 

ranged near the ruins of these fortifications it is easy to imagine 

that it might have been planted there by the defenders as one 

more barrier to deter invaders. It would at least make the route 

of infiltrators more difficult. It does seem strange that anyone 

planting such a barrier would use this cactus instead of the 

native, larger, and much more spiny Opuntia engelmannii var. 

texana which must have been growing nearby, as it is today, but 

the defenders probably knew little about the country beyond 

their island and might well have brought the pest pear they had 

seen in the Caribbean here for this use. 

Opuntia stricta must be compared carefully with two varieties 

of O. engelmannii which grow on the eastern Texas Coast, 

and with which it is often confused, variety texana and variety 

alta. When they are all in flower or fruit these three are easily told 

apart. O. stricta is distinguished from both of the others by its 

elongated, club-shaped ovary, since that of the others is obovate 

or inverted cone-shaped and is usually as broad or nearly as 

broad as it is long, and also by the resulting fruits which in O. 

stricta are elongated club-shaped with deeply pitted summits 

and light red or carmine-red in color, while those of the O. engelmannii 

varieties are broad obovate to almost spherical with 

the umbilici flat or practically so and the color deep purplish or 

burgundy-red. The fruits of O. stricta are sweet and edible, 

which also distinguishes it from O. engelmannii var. texana, 

whose fruits are insipid and unpleasant, but this will not distinguish 

it from O. engelmannii var. alta, whose more rounded 

fruits are also sweet. 

The most clear difference between O. stricta and these other 

two cacti which can be seen when only vegetative characters 

are present, is the elongated ovate, elliptical, or spindle-shaped 

pads, which contrast rather clearly with the circular to very 

broadly ovate pads of all O. engelmannii forms in normal 

growth. O. stricta also has many fewer spines, and these always 

completely round, while at least the main spines of any normal 

O. engelmannii form are flattened at least at the bases. 

O. stricta is admittedly close to O. engelmannii var. alta, 

which grows profusely almost all along the Texas coast, but 

careful observation can separate them. We have been interested 

to find in our laboratory that O. stricta presents a basically different 

chromatograph map from any of these other forms. 

This is one cactus which we are not especially happy to have 

to include in this account. We believe it to have been an introduction 

to our area, and it seems fortunate that it has not spread. 

Opuntia engelmannii SD 

“Nopal,” “Tuna,” “Engelmann’s Prickly Pear,” “Flaming 

Prickly Pear” 

Description Plates 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 

stems: Always growing upright, forming a bush which may 

be compact with a definite central trunk or open and diffuse 

without a main trunk. These bushes commonly attain a height 

of 3 to 6 feet, and some varieties sometimes stand over 10 feet 

tall when in optimum environments. Individual pads are 

thick and circular to broadly egg-shaped. They are 8 to 12 or 

even 14 inches long when mature. The surface is medium 

green or sometimes slightly blue-green, often becoming pale 

yellowish-green with age. It is covered more or less thickly 

with a whitish bloom which easily rubs off. The leaves are 

about 3/16 to 1/2 inch long. 

areoles: Small and oval or oblong at first, usually becoming 

round and enlarging to 1/4 of an inch or more with maturity. 

Sometimes they produce much wool and other tissue to form 

a hemispherically bulging or even columnar structure when 

very old. 

spines: Very variable. Typically there are 1 to 5 per areole 

on newly matured pads, but sometimes the number increases 

to as many as 10 or 12 during the second year. The main 

spines are heavy and rigid on typical forms, but on some 

forms they are more slender and more or less flexible. The 

larger spines are always flattened to some degree, often great- 

ly so, and often also somewhat twisted and curved, but these 

are usually surrounded by smaller spines which may be round 

and straight. The several main spines are heavy and spreading 

and curving downward and outward, 3/4 to 21/2 inches long, 

except for one form on which they are porrect and to 3 inches 

long. The rest of the spines spread in all directions around 

these and are shorter, as well as more slender. All the spines 

are variable in color, ranging on different specimens from 

entirely yellow, yellow with only slightly brownish bases 

through yellow mottled with brown, whitish with dark brown 

bases, to deep reddish-brown only slightly yellowish above. 

They always show more or less of an annular pattern. 

glochids: Tending to be few in number on the sides of the 

pads, but often becoming rather numerous on the edges of 

old pads. They are coarse and rigid, almost like the smaller 

fixed spines, 1/8 to sometimes 5/8 of an inch long, spreading 

loosely, and in one form having an exaggerated development 

of them, becoming a large raylike cluster. They may be all 

yellow, yellow mottled with brown, or all red-brown.


flowers: Large and showy and produced in profusion. They 

are 21/2 to 4 inches tall and wide, clear yellow, orange, or 

bright red in color, the whole perianth one color on any one 

flower and never variegated. The ovary is variable in length 

from 1 to 3 inches, but is always thick for its length, obovate 

or inverted cone-shaped, often as wide at the top as it is long. 

The outer perianth segments are short and varying in shape. 

The inner segments are 8 to 10 in number, long, to about 

11/2 inches wide with the tip the broadest part, entire, blunt, 

but usually with a slight point at the apex. The filaments are 

long and cream-colored. The anthers are the same color. The 

stamens are very sensitive, moving at the slightest touch. The 

style is whitish, the stigma made up of 5 to 10 heavy lobes 

ranging from dark green to pure white in the different varieties. 

fruits: Varying within the species. Dark red, usually becoming 

dull purplish or burgundy when very ripe. They are 

completely spherical to broadly pear-shaped, with no constriction 

or else with a slight one at the base, but with the 

umbilicus perfectly flat or nearly so. Ranging in size from 1 

to 31/2 inches long in the different forms of the species. Also 

differing in the character of the fruit pulp, this in some varieties 

being edible and in some not, as noted in their descriptions. 

The seeds small to tiny, 1/16 to 3/16 inch (11/2–41/2 millimeters) 

in greatest diameter and comparatively thin, with 

narrow rims. 

Range. When all of its varieties are included, O. engelmannii is 

apparently one of the widest ranging cacti of our continent. In 

this broad sense, it grows from the Gulf Coast all the way to 

the Pacific and deep into Mexico; more specifically, in our area, 

from Brownsville all along the Gulf Coast into southwestern 

Louisiana, then back northwest past Dallas, Texas, to extreme 

south-central Oklahoma, which is its northernmost penetration. 

From there its range dips down to the vicinity of Abilene, Texas, 

after which it turns northwestward again into New Mexico, 

passing near Santa Fe, and from there going slightly southwestward 

into Arizona. It is found almost universally south of this 

line into Mexico. 

Remarks. Almost every student writing about this cactus has 

prefaced his remarks with something about this being a most 

misunderstood species or some such warning of difficulty to be 

expected. The warning is worth heeding, as only the more persistent 

cactophile will ever achieve any satisfactory understanding 

of this species. Its relationships are so subtle that no brief 

survey will ever reveal them and no one can ever identify all of 

its forms at a glance. 

Most descriptions of O. engelmannii have started, “Originally 

described as…” and then gone on to show necessary broadening 

of the original descriptions. This is because the plant was 

originally described by Prince Salm-Dyck and later by Engelmann 

from a few specimens out of Chihuahua. Immediately 

the broadening began. Engelmann himself first extended the 

species to include some California material, and later stated that 

it grew east all the way to the mouth of the Rio Grande and 

included those forms found there. Our description above is the 

broadened one very similar to the later ones of Engelmann and 

that of Britton and Rose. 

In this huge range, spanning over half the lower width of the 

continent, it is not surprising that there are many local populations 

which are different enough one from another to have been 

taken at one time or another for separate species. There have 

been various grand theories as to why so much variation occurs, 

most of them hinging upon assumed hybridization of an original, 

lately invading stock with various already existing local 

cacti. The first difficulty with these theories is in answering the 

question of what the original, invading stock was, where it 

came from and how it managed to invade so wide a territory. 

One of the pet ideas these days is that it was one of the hardy, 

edible prickly pears from Mexico, and that it was carried north 

throughout the area by early Spanish missionaries and settlers, 

after which it escaped and commenced the hybridizing procedure. 

This is an interesting and ingenious theory, but there is 

no actual evidence for it at all. Nor has there been shown any 

actual hybridization experiment to prove that this process could 

give the results this theory would require. It is not within the 

scope of this work to pass on such theories, the attempt here 

being, rather, to enumerate the forms we do find growing so 

that others may explain them if they will, but it does seem after 

studying them that such elaborate theories are unnecessary. Although 

the genetics of the cacti is still largely unknown, modern 

genetic principles would lead us to expect just such variation of 

any such widely ranging species as we find this one to be, due 

to the simple segregation of local populations in different environments. 

One must be prepared for finding these variations 

whenever he goes into the widely different locations where this 

plant grows, and must do something more than close his eyes to 

them or explain them away if he is to make any sense out of 

the cactus world. 

In general, O. engelmannii is the largest and strongest of our 

U.S. prickly pears. While in some severe locations it remains 

a straggly bush of hardly more than 3 feet in height, in much 

of its territory it is not unusual for it to become a giant of 6 

feet tall, and a south Texas variety occasionally stands more 

than 10 feet tall. Each plant is a whole thicket of giant pads 

comparable in size and shape to skillets, and seeming almost as 

indestructable. The strength of the plant is expressed also in its 

numbers. It is not unusual for it to take over a stretch of rangeland, 

and in much of south Texas there are thousands of square 

miles where it grows to the exclusion of almost everything else. 

Most of the ranchers hate it with a fury and work hard to destroy 

it, but for all their efforts they hardly affect it. This cac- 

tus can be imagined reacting with glee to the widespread rooting 

and chaining of the range, which eliminates much of the competing 

brush and most other cacti, since all of its branches and


pads torn apart and scattered by the machines only root where 

they are distributed and thus the cactus is multiplied while its 

competitors for space are being eliminated. 

At those drought times when the ranchers have nothing else 

left to feed their cattle, they suddenly look at O. engelmannii 

with a new appreciation, and move upon it with everything 

from common blow-torches to huge gas flame-throwers on 

wheels, burning off the spines which are the plant’s only protection. 

The hungry cattle soon catch on, and it is not an uncommon 

sight in south Texas and northern Mexico to see herds 

of cattle eagerly following the burner and jostling each other 

to get at the juicy pads while they are still hot from the torch 

which seared away their armor. But even this does not long affect 

our indestructable giant. Almost immediately new pads 

start rising from the old stump, and soon it is back to its old 

size. 

The newer technique of herbicide broadcasting could change 

this picture completely, as not even this giant cactus can survive 

the chemicals which destroy trees and all the rest of the range 

brush. At the time when this means is used widely enough to 

eliminate our giant prickly pear, however, there will be no flora 

of the Southwest left except grasses, and most ecologists doubt 

that even the animal life or the climate of the region could sur- 

vive such an impoverishment. 

This cactus is so commonly seen over much of its range that 

people hardly think of it, or else so dislike it—almost everyone 

in the area has his own story of most painful injury from it— 

that many cannot appreciate its beauty even when that does 

appear. But the tough giant does have its tender moments, and 

then, for usually a month of the spring, it produces every day 

a new crop of large, roselike flowers, to the delight of bees and 

all others who can evade the spines and appreciate the blooms. 

These flowers vary greatly in color, those of some individuals 

being clear yellow, those of others deep red, and there are found 

all intermediate shades of orange between these two extremes. 

While all shades are sometimes found together in the same field, 

there seems to be a gradient in this color distribution, the red 

being very common in south Texas, while it is more rare and 

most specimens bloom yellow or orange in New Mexico. 

The burgundy or deep red fruits resulting from these flowers 

are large and juicy, but vary in quality of the pulp, those of 

some of the varieties being very flavorful, while those of others 

are unpleasant. This probably is one reason why in some areas 

the fruits have all disappeared soon after they ripen while in 

other areas they remain on the plants so long that ripe fruits are 

often found nearly all winter. 

O. engelmannii as it occurs in southern New Mexico is very 

much like the original descriptions, since those were based on 

plants from neighboring Chihuahua. These plants usually have 

very heavy and whitish spines with dark brown bases. As one 

moves away from that locality either west or east he finds some 

differences in the specimens he sees. Both in Texas and California 

the predominant color of the spines becomes more yellow 

than white, and there are other differences in the various local 

populations. 

In Texas, particularly, we find many different variations to 

confuse us, as we might expect in the widely differing environments 

of that state’s huge area, and added to that we find one 

major mistake made very early in the study of this cactus which 

still affects us and distorts our understanding of the plant today. 

After describing O. engelmannii from Chihuahuan specimens 

and before understanding its wide range, Engelmann was sent 

specimens of cacti from New Braunfels, Texas. They were sent by 

Mr. Lindheimer, an early botanist living there. Some of these 

pads were from plants Lindheimer described to him as 6 feet tall 

with trunks, others from plants he said grew low and spreading. 

Unfortunately he sent Engelmann only fruits of the low-growing 

plants, and these were slender club-shaped with a deeply 

pitted umbilicus, very different from the fruits of the Chihuahuan 

O. engelmannii already described. Knowing no more than 

this about the New Braunfels plants, Engelmann described the 

whole thing as one variable new species growing either tall or 

low and spreading, and called it O. lindheimeri. 

Engelmann was too hasty in this, and, with his usual honesty, 

he admitted it later. In his Synopsis of the Cactaceae of the U. S. 

he stated without reservation: “O. lindheimeri Eng. Pl. Lindh., 

is partly this same plant [O. engelmannii, which he had just 

been discussing], partly a hybrid form between it and perhaps 

O. rafinesquii, with narrow clavate fruit.” So he who erected 

the species, O. lindheimeri, himself abolished it, stating clearly 

that the large plants of New Braunfels are O. engelmannii and 

the low form with the clavate, deeply pitted fruits which threw 

him off in the first place, is a different plant which he regarded 

as some sort of hybrid form. This low-growing form was later 

called a separate species and named by Mackensen O. lepto- 

carpa. 

The point of all this is that there is nothing left to be referred 

to by the name O. lindheimeri. That has resolved naturally into 

O. engelmannii and the then yet unnamed smaller species, incidentally 

extending O. engelmannii’s range far across Texas 

where Engelmann in his earlier works did not state it to be. 

All this seems perfectly clear, yet the name, O. lindheimeri 

still persists in usage among Texans so much that all large prickly 

pears in the state are usually called by that name. Harder yet 

to understand, most botanical works still use that name for the 

Texas specimens of this species, just because they are from Texas. 

Britton and Rose show no consciousness of O. lindheimeri’s 

synonymy with O. engelmannii. While they discuss its variableness 

at length, they seem never to have read Engelmann’s renunciation 

of the name, made within a few years of his having 

coined it. 

And as the error persists it compounds. Backeberg, most recently, 

knows well the reference to the upright, trunked form 

and the low one, but chooses not only to ignore Engelmann’s 

statement that the New Braunfels plant is O. engelmannii and 

to keep the name O. lindheimeri for it, but then insists that the


two forms found at New Braunfels are all one dimorphic species. 

Then, on this already discredited, supposedly dimorphic 

species, he erects a whole new section of the genus, section Lindheimeriana 

Backbg., into which he places together this already 

evaporated species and the reportedly polymorphic forms of the 

Galapagos Islands, merely because they are supposedly very 

variable. Before he is through, then, his O. lindheimeri has also 

become polymorphic and has taken in all the forms found at 

the mouth of the Rio Grande which Engelmann had already 

stated were O. engelmannii. 

Because O. engelmannii was for so long thought of as a practically 

unvarying species inhabiting only southern New Mexico 

and perhaps some of adjacent Arizona, the slightly differing 

forms found in Texas and the far West were constantly given 

names as new species. Engelmann started this himself, and others 

have continued it until we have a whole series of supposed species 

difficult to distinguish and place logically. Griffiths con- 

tributed a long list of these. 

Dr. David Griffiths, sent here by the Australian government, 

was associated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for some 

years, studying the prickly pears all the way from Texas to California 

in order to try to find some natural enemies of them 

which could be introduced into Australia to aid in the fight 

against those which had established themselves and become such 

a scourge there. He collected scores of specimens and grew them 

in the U.S. Experiment Stations in Texas and in California, 

which were at his disposal. He took this wonderful opportunity 

to carry on detailed taxonomic studies of the Opuntias. 

His was undoubtedly the most extensive study of this group 

made to this day. As a result he published many papers upon 

them and described numerous new species, apparently producing 

a new species name for nearly every variation of pad, fruit, or 

even flower color he found. 

Britton and Rose published their large work on cacti soon 

after Griffiths’ work, but they apparently did not have the patience 

to study through all of his forms, and it seems they chose 

to list a few of them, selected almost at random, and relegated 

all the rest, with hardly a mention, to synonymy. Since then 

most others have followed in ignoring them, which is all that 

can be done unless a great deal of time is spent in the field recovering 

them, much of this time in quite inaccessible areas. 

I was happily following this easy path, until the ranchers 

brought me up short. I was calling all of the big prickly pears 

the same name, when some of the ranchers with whom I was 

looking over the pastures objected and even took offense, pointing 

our that this one was good and tender cattle food, while 

that one was so tough and fibrous the cattle could not eat it 

even after the spines were burned off, that this one grew only 

on one ranch while that one was only on a neighbor’s, and 

so on. I felt acutely the derision aimed my way when I had no 

separate names for the various forms the ordinary cowboys 

could distinguish at a glance. This sort of prodding made me 

dig up the original descriptions of all these ignored forms from 

Engelmann through Griffiths. I studied the original Griffiths 

collection in the U. S. National Museum, and then headed into 

the hills to try to locate them. It has taken much effort over 

several years, but usually they were where they were supposed 

to be, and many of them were distinct, once the effort was 

made to understand them. I can now name my rancher friends’ 

different prickly pears to everyone’s satisfaction. 

Of course, the taxonomists will not be satisfied until the exact 

relationships of all these forms are understood, and I do not 

pretend to have any final word on that. Griffiths made a great 

start which could have led to that, but unfortunately all he was 

able to do was grow these forms together in the experiment 

stations a few years and report on the stability of their characters 

in these uniform situations, proving these characters more 

than just environmental adaptations. There is no record of anyone 

having done any breeding experiments or of any other such 

studies on them at all since then. In fact, many of these forms 

have probably not been collected again until this time. It is 

exactly for this reason that they are all dealt with here and the 

most specific data possible concerning them is given: otherwise 

they were all but lost. It is hoped that this will interest some of 

the newer experimental taxonomists in them and make it possible 

for them to find the exact forms for their detailed modern 

studies. Then and only then can we know exactly how to deal 

with them taxonomically. In the meantime it is my conviction 

after observing them widely that some of them more accurately 

deserve varietal status than species rank, and so they are listed 

that way here. Some of them, such as those based upon flower 

or spine color alone seem clearly to be only synonyms or at 

best forma, and these will be mentioned here, but not listed as 

separate taxa. 

Those readers desiring only a general knowledge of the Opuntias 

and who are satisfied with knowing what “that big prickly 

pear is that we see all over the desert,” and who are not worried 

about the detailed differences encountered within that 

wide ranging plant, need go no further into these varieties. The 

large, upright prickly pear they see all across the southern expanses 

of the U.S. is for the most part Engelmann’s prickly 

pear. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. engelmannii (SD) 


stems: As the species, except usually only 3 to 5 feet tall. 

areoles: 1 to at least 2 inches apart. They are larger than in 

some forms of the species, being 3/16 to 3/8 of an inch across 

during the first year and sometimes enlarging even further 

when older. They are oval to round and more or less bulging, 

with brown wool. 

spines: As the species, except that the main centrals are less 

than 21/2 inches long, heavy, and much flattened, and all


spines are at first brown or deep red-brown at their bases, 

shading to lighter above, until the outer parts are an opaque, 

chalky white or pale straw-colored, the whole spine usually 

fading entirely to a plain gray with age. 

glochids: As the species, except yellow, brownish, or mottled 

yellow and brown in color and often increasing greatly 

to form conspicuous, open, spreading clusters on the edges of 

older pads. 

flowers: As the species, except mostly yellow and only occasionally 

orange or reddish, having the ovary only 1 to 11/2 

inches long and the stigma of 8 to 10 dark green lobes. 

fruits: 2 to 3 inches long, globose to sometimes broadly pear- 

shaped, with little or no constriction below and a flat, wide 

umbilicus on top. In color they are deep, dull burgundy when 

ripe. The pulp is juicy and edible. The seeds measure 1/8 to not 

quite 3/16 of an inch (3–4 millimeters) in diameter, with nar- 

row rims. 

Range. From Chihuahua and western Coahuila, Mexico, into 

southwestern Texas, southern New Mexico, and southeastern 

Arizona. Specifically, in our area, west of a line running from 

near Eagle Pass, Texas, to near Austin, and then on into extreme 

south-central Oklahoma. From there south of a line to Abilene, 

Texas, and on into New Mexico between Hobbs and Clovis, to 

the vicinity of Santa Rosa and Anton Chico, New Mexico. Beyond 

this the northern boundary retreats rapidly southwestward, 

passing near Santa Fe, but then apparently crossing into 

Arizona in the mountains west of Silver City, New Mexico. 

Remarks. This is the form of the species which was first described, 

and which is meant when the name is used in the narrow 

sense, as by all those who separate from it the primarily 

Texas forms—nowadays lumping these together under the name 

O. lindheimeri—and the far western forms which are given various 

other names. This description attempts to make it possible 

to distinguish this typical form of the species from all of its related 

varieties, although it must be remembered that the distinction 

between these forms is not a distinction between separate 

species, and that there are possible intermediates which will be 

hard to place. This is the reason why it has seemed more logical 

to place this, even though it is the originally described form, as 

a varietal subdivision apart from and under the broader, all inclusive 

species description. By this method the confusion over 

these plants is reduced, at least for me. 

If any one character can be mentioned which will serve to 

set this variety apart from all the rest to follow, it is the whiteness 

of the spines, usually set off against their distinctly brown 

bases. This whiteness is usually conspicuous and only rarely and 

in young spines shades into a straw-color toward the tip, while 

in all the other varieties which stand separate in not only this 

but various other ways, the predominant color is a distinct yel- 

low which does not even bleach to a real white. 

Earle, in his recent book, Cacti of the Southwest, refers to this 

variety and recognizes one of the interesting distinctions between 

it and some of its related varieties when he states, “A 

tasty jelly can be made of the fruits from southeastern Arizona, 

those in other parts of its range have a ‘flat’ taste.” Those from 

other areas with the “flat” taste do not belong to this variety. 

It is interesting that tenderness of pads does not accompany this 

tastiness of fruit in this variety. Its supporting tissues are too 

tough for cattle to master, so in the areas where this variety is 

the only one growing, it is not the custom to “burn pears” as it 

is in those areas inhabited by some of its relatives. 

There have been proposed at various times, as varieties or 

even species, some segregates which seem to actually fall within 

the limits of this variety. These seem to represent one or another 

of the extremes it takes under various conditions, but they do 

not have consistent, qualitative differences from it. It seems best 

to regard them merely as synonyms of this variety, but still to 

mention them so that further study of them may be made by 

interested workers. I add a short discussion of those found in the 

area of this study. 

O. valida Gr. seems to represent the most spiny extreme of the 

variety. There seems to be no way to distinguish it from the 

typical specimens except that the spines average a little longer 

and a few more numerous per areole. Some specimens in most 

any large population of the variety will be apt to show this 

armament. 

On the other hand, Griffiths proposed two species which seem 

to be only specimens of this variety with minimal size of pads 

and numbers of spines. They are O. gregoriana and O. gomei. 

The first he found near El Paso, and the second in the Platt 

National Park in south-central Oklahoma. This latter is, I believe, 

the most northeasterly record of the plant, and its smallness 

as well as its paucity of spines seems a natural stunting. I 

have more typical specimens of the variety collected not far 

from the Platt Park. 

A particular problem is presented by a form growing in the 

San Andreas Canyon of the Sacramento Mountains just south 

of Alamogordo, New Mexico. Griffiths, with his usual thoroughness, 

called our attention to it and, as was his habit, erected a 

new species on it. He called it O. dillei. 

As seen growing in the type locality, a very small area where 

it comprises only a small population (Griffiths said he saw a 

dozen plants only, and there are few more in evidence today) 

this certainly seems a distinct cactus—more so than some others. 

The yellow-green pads are massive, often 12 or 14 inches long, 

as wide or wider, and up to 1 inch thick. These huge, cart-wheel 

pads are often completely spineless, only occasionally having 1 

or 2 spines up to 1 inch long scattered here and there. It only 

remotely suggests a huge, bald O. engelmannii, and for this reason 

there has been more of a tendency for writers to treat it 

separately from the typical form than in the case of some others 

of Griffiths’ many species. However, a special factor enters here 

which seems to change the picture.


Griffiths mentions that all of the specimens he saw of this description 

were growing in places inaccessible to livestock, and 

his published photo of the plant shows it growing out of the 

sides of steep canyon walls. Observations in the area seem to 

confirm that all of the population are restricted to such rocky 

ledges, which constitute a rather special environmental situation. 

As was his habit, Griffiths took some cuttings of these plants 

and grew them in his experimental plots. He found that, “Under 

cultivation the species becomes much more spiny than indicated 

above.” This sort of change did not take place with many of his 

other forms when they were cultivated, and it should make us 

suspect that we have here only an environmentally caused 

growth form instead of a genetically different plant. We should 

perhaps already have suspected this from the knowledge that 

growing out of vertical or nearly vertical rocky cliffs has the 

effect of reducing spines on other Opuntias as well. For instance, 

spineless O. macrocentra specimens are sometimes found on cliffs, 

with typical, spiny specimens above or at the base of the same 

cliffs. And there is O. laevis Coult., said to be restricted to cliffs 

in southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. While its 

presence only upon cliffs is generally interpreted as the result of 

livestock having eaten the individuals growing in the accessible 

places because they were unprotected by spines, I take this to be 

the same effect of cliff-hanging working on the normally spiny 

O. phacacantha. 

Be that as it may, Griffiths himself says, “O. dillei is most 

closely related to O. engelmannii, from which it differs in rarity 

of its spines, which are very conspicuous on that species.” It 

seems obvious that when, in cultivation, this difference is wiped 

out, we lose the real basis for making this a separate form. He 

does further state that the fruits and seeds are also different, but 

in typical O. engelmannii var. engelmannii I have found fruits 

and seeds which seemed in every essential detail identical with 

both his description and his photograph of those organs given 

for O. dillei. 

It seems best, therefore, since we want to avoid listing environmentally 

induced aberrations as taxa, to consider O. dillei 

here as merely a synonym of the typical variety. I take the 

space to discuss it in the hope that this will prompt someone to 

do ecological and genetic studies on it which will give us definite 

answers as to why the small population in that particular 

canyon develops differently. This might clear up other such problems 

for us at the same time. Engelmann, for instance, mentioned 

another growth form collected by Mr. Wright on Limpia 

Creek in the Davis Mountains of Texas, which he noticed but 

apparently did not think distinct enough for naming. I have 

seen and collected that form still there in Limpia Canyon, 100 

years later. Far better, no doubt, to leave it nameless in this 

group which has already had too many names, but it will be 

wonderful when someone discovers why in the Opuntias we 

have so many and such confusing forms. Until they do we must 

keep track of even such apparent synonyms as O. dillei, and 

require everyone to make plain whether he is referring broadly 

to the species O. engelmannii or precisely to the more closely 

limited O. engelmannii var. engelmannii when he refers to Engelmann’s 

prickly pear. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. cyclodes Eng. 

DESCRIPTION 

stems: As the species, except that it is a much spreading bush 

only 3 to 5 feet high and usually wider than it is tall, without 

a well-defined central stem. The individual pads are as those 

of the species, except only 6 to 8 inches long, usually circular, 

but sometimes very broad oval or egg-shaped. The surface is 

bright green or yellow green with some glaucescence. 

areoles: As the species, except never quite as large in maximum 

size as in some forms, and only 1 to 11/2 inches apart. 

spines: As the species, except for the following details. All 

spines are deflexed, relatively slender, and pale yellow or 

straw-colored with or without red or reddish-brown bases. 

There are usually 1 or 2 spines per areole on the upper half 

or so of the pad, but sometimes up to 6 spines. A typical 

areole’s armor consists of 1 large, flattened spine 3/4 to 13/4 

inches long, plus occasionally an additional shorter spine below 

which is only 3/8 to 1 inch long; but some specimens show 

up to 4 of the larger spines spreading downward and 2 of the 

lower, shorter ones. 

glochids: As the species, except on current growth usually 

missing entirely. On older pads side areoles show few and 

very short glochids, if any, but edge areoles produce some 

yellow glochids up to 1/2 inch long. 

flowers: As the species, except smaller, being usually only 

about 2 inches in diameter and length, with bright orange 

anthers and 6 or 7 dark green stigma lobes. 

fruits: AS the species, except always spherical or practically 

so, only 1 to 13/4 inches in diameter, purplish when fully ripe, 

but not very juicy and not pleasant to the taste. The seeds are 

about 3/16 of an inch (4–41/2 millimeters) in diameter, the 

largest found in this Species, and with broader rims than is 

typical for the species. 

Range. From the Chisos Mountains in the Texas Big Bend to 

near Anton Chico, New Mexico, and back down to Stein’s Pass, 

where the northern limit passes into Arizona. 

Remarks. ‘This variety of the Species was the first recognized of 

all which were to follow, having been set up by Engelmann as 

early as he listed the species, but it has suffered varying fortunes 

at the hands of later authorities. Engelmann encountered it at


Anton Chico, New Mexico, at the northern edge of the species’ 

range. Coulter, in the next serious study, said that the variety 

ranges over all of southern New Mexico from El Paso to Stein’s 

Pass. This would have left us with a clear idea of the plant in 

New Mexico, at least, but then Wooton unaccountably stated 

“the fruit of the New Mexico plant is never globose but ellipsoid 

to slightly obovoid, about twice as long as broad,” and also 

stated that he had never seen the variety. Britton and Rose, on 

the other hand, do not doubt the existence of spherical fruits, 

but state that the characters of the variety are not constant and 

render it a synonym of the species. All since have ignored it entirely, 

except perhaps Benson, who mentions that there is a possible 

segregate of O. engelmannii with circular joints, smaller 

flowers, and spines of this color; but he says the status of the 

plant is undetermined and he never actually links it with this 

name. 

It is not surprising, then, that when Miss Anthony found, not 

in New Mexico, but in the Big Bend of Texas a plant of almost 

exactly this description, she did not connect it with this old variety, 

but erected a new taxon for it. There is a common failure 

to relate Texas and New Mexico cacti. No doubt because it was 

in Texas and because it had yellowish spines, she related it to the 

old, defunct name for the Texas forms of the species, and called 

it O. lindheimeri var. chisoensis. I have studied the preserved 

specimens of Miss Anthony’s type, as well as the plant growing 

in all stages of flower and fruit in the Chisos Mountains, her 

type locality. I have also studied both preserved specimens and 

the living plants from Engelmann’s type locality of his variety 

near Anton Chico, New Mexico, and I cannot but think them 

the same. Various other specimens have been seen from widely 

scattered points in southern New Mexico, bearing out the existence 

of the plant in exactly the range Coulter claimed for it. 

The Big Bend material, classed with it, only extends its previous 

range 250 miles or so down along the Rio Grande from its previously 

known existence at El Paso. 

As for the question, raised by Britton and Rose and most 

others since, of whether this form is distinct enough from the 

type of the species to deserve varietal rank, a reading of Backeberg’s 

unequivocal statement of how far Miss Anthony’s variety 

is from the type of O. lindheimeri, which we have seen is more 

properly O. engelmannii, should answer that. With him the 

question would seem to be instead whether this should not be set 

up as a separate species entirely. Charting a middle course between 

these opposing views, I choose to leave it here as Engelmann 

first represented it, a recognizable variety occurring, it is 

true, wholly within the range of typical O. engelmannii var. 

engelmannii, but separate from it by several definite characters. 

Variety cyclodes grows, so far as has been seen, always on the 

lower slopes of high mountain ranges, where it often forms large 

populations. Although in several situations I have seen it growing 

within a few miles of the typical variety engelmannii, I have 

never seen the two mingled in one stand. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. texana (Gr.) 



areoles: As the species, except with less wool than in some 

of the other varieties. 

spines: As the species, except usually somewhat more slender 

than those of the typical variety and always yellow instead 

of white in their lighter color. That color varies from entirely 

bright, translucent yellow to yellow with brown bases or even 

sometimes almost entirely red-brown with only yellowish 

mottling or yellowish tips. The number of spines varies from 

1 to 8 per areole on the upper areoles of the pad. 

glochids: As the species, except perhaps fewer in number 

than in the typical variety. 

flowers: As the species, except usually around 3 to 4 inches 

in diameter. The stigma lobes number 6 to 9 and are dark 

green. 

fruits: Within the range of the species, but always 2 to 31/2 

inches long, globose to sometimes broadly pear-shaped, with 

little or no constriction below and a flat, wide umbilicus. 

They are a deep, dull burgundy in color when fully ripe. The 

pulp is juicy but flat and rather unpleasant to the taste. The 

seeds measure 1/8 to not quite 3/16 of an inch (3–4 millimeters) 

in diameter, with narrow rims. 

Range. All of south and central Texas east into western Louisiana. 

Extending north to about Tyler, Texas, and the Dallas 

area, then southwest to the Texas Big Bend and southeastern 

New Mexico, as well as into Mexico. 

Remarks. Certainly the difference between this form and the 

typical Opuntia engelmannii var. engelmannii is slight. It is hard 

to see how the two could ever be considered as separate species, 

yet this is the plant which is today almost universally referred to 

as O. lindheimeri, in opposition to O. engelmannii. Remembering 

Engelmann’s own denial of this, I am glad to be free to recombine 

the two and be done with the tedious arguments for leaving 

them two species. This plant is much more understandable 

in its proper place within that large, variable species complex, 

and only thus can we understand Engelmann’s statement that 

O. engelmannii grows all the way to the Gulf Coast. 

But can we merge it entirely with the typical form and forget 

it as a synonym? Although it is close to the typical variety and 

there may be some intermediates hard to assign between the two, 

when we make the separation between them varietal instead of 

specific, this need not hinder us, and there do seem reasons to 

assign this plant a separate place beside the other variety. Summarized, 

the distinctions between the two are as follows: variety 

texana has translucent yellow instead of opaque white as the 

dominant spine color; it has more slender spines, larger leaves, 

somewhat larger flowers and fruits, fruit pulp flat and unpleasant 

to the taste instead of tasty, pads with soft enough suppor-


tive tissues to be edible by grazing animals instead of so tough 

as to be unusable in this fashion. Admittedly these differences 

are all minor, and it is largely in deference to my rancher friends 

that I first took the distinction seriously, but in the area where 

both forms grow together, a rancher will often know the two 

varieties at a glance. This one is the widely used cactus cattle 

food of south Texas and northern Mexico. 

It is hard to establish the exact range of this variety because 

many reports and herbarium specimens are too incomplete to 

make determination exact. I have not been able to collect the 

variety myself east of the lower Brazos River in south Texas, 

but it apparently has extended much farther east. O. anahuacensis 

Gr., from Griffiths’ description, would seem to have been 

this variety growing near the mouth of the Trinity River, but 

repeated searching of that area has not revealed it growing 

there today. A related variety, O. engelmannii var. alta, is in 

profusion in the area, but it does not fit his description. Assuming 

that the name Griffiths gave to his plant meant that he 

found it near the town of Anahuac, I have searched that immediate 

vicinity repeatedly, but all around that town the land 

has long been farmed, and no cacti survive except variety alta 

growing on waste islands nearby. Griffiths’ plant may have 

been growing in what is now the cultivated area. 

Engelmann and others mention such a plant as this from 

western Louisiana, and I have seen one good specimen, definitely 

variety texana, from Cameron, Louisiana, although I do 

not know whether it was native there or introduced. I also have 

had a specimen which appeared to be this variety from the 

piney woods just north of Alexandria, Louisiana, but it was extremely 

stunted and unhealthy, and did not survive for me long 

enough that its true form could be determined beyond question. 

On the western side of its range, it is equally hard to establish 

an exact limit to this plant’s range. It has been so long the rule 

to call all western forms O. engelmannii and eastern ones O. 

lindheimeri, that few have thought to look for more subtle distinctions. 

For this reason the descriptions of O. engelmannii have 

been broadened enough to include any of this variety which 

might have appeared in the West—this being the reason for the 

statement found in more recent books that the spines of that 

species are either white or yellowish. Herbarium specimens in 

O. engelmannii folders from New Mexico show specimens which 

I would suspect are actually variety texana. The variety is fairly 

common in the Big Bend of Texas, particularly in the mountains 

all the way from the Chisos to the Guadalupes, occasionally 

growing together with the typical variety engelmannii. I have 

also seen it in the Sacramento and Organ mountains of New 

Mexico. From his descriptions and keys, I believe what Wooton 

called O. lindheimeri, collected by him in the Guadalupe Mountains 

of New Mexico was this variety, and it also appears to be 

the plant of the Organ and Tortuga mountains in southern New 

Mexico generally called O. wootonii Gr. This latter form is supposed 

to have a special shape of the pad, but it seems to come 

within this variety, as I have duplicated its shape in Texas specimens 

growing in typical populations of the variety. It must 

be noted here that Miss Anthony’s O. engelmannii var. wootonii 

cannot be the same cactus. 

In the territory from San Antonio (which is the type locality) 

to Laredo, Texas, variety texana is very common, and here it 

often has spines almost wholly red-brown, with only the tips 

slightly yellowish. This coloring formed the basis for Griffiths’ 

O. ferruginispina, but it seems only a minor color variation of 

the same plant. Upon the more typically colored specimens in 

this same area Griffiths once erected another supposed species, 

O. sinclairii, but it also is only a synonym of this variety. 

Mackensen also tried to separate this variety further, taking the 

extremes of the population as it is found at San Antonio and 

calling them O. convexa, O. griffithsiana, and O. reflexa, but the 

differences between these are minor, and after living at San Antonio 

for 6 years, I have seen so many intermediates between 

them that it does not seem they represent more than individual 

variations. 

Although it is another species which is generally known by 

the name, pest pear, this variety is the worst pest pear of south 

Texas. Only in a few local situations and along the Texas coast 

do other varieties take its place as dominant in the brush which 

has developed from the overgrazing of the range. Its increase in 

recent times has been dramatic. 

I have seen isolated specimens typical of this variety in all 

ways except with fruits very large and strongly clavate. I suspect 

that they may be diseased fruits, as are the extremely large 

and clavate ones sometimes found on O. compressa var. fuscoatra 

which were the basis for the supposed species, O. macateei. 

There is a strong temptation to say that this form of variety 

texana with the elongated fruits is Griffiths’ O. pyrocarpa, but 

his description does not otherwise fit this plant and does not seem 

to indicate a member of this species at all. I have not seen any 

plant which does conform to his description under that name, 

even in the type locality. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. alta (Gr.) 


stems: As the species, except usually forming a more definite 

trunk, and averaging taller than the typical variety, being 

commonly 3 to 6 feet tall and sometimes growing to more 

than 10 feet. The pad surface is more yellow-green than on 

most of the other varieties, and the surface is somewhat irregular, 

often giving the pad edge an irregular outline. This 

latter effect is not marked enough, however, to be considered 

a tuberculate surface. 


spines: As the Species, except for the following differences.


On the average the spines are more numerous, being 1 to 6 on 

most areoles of new pads, and ordinarily 8 to 10 or occasionally 

even 12 on very old pads. All spines are always pure 

translucent yellow in color, with no brown at the bases. The 

spines stand more porrect in the areole, not spreading so 

widely. The main spines are flattened, but not so greatly as in 

the typical variety, often only the bases showing this character; 

the smaller ones are usually round. On new growth the 

spines are usually about 1 inch long, but on older pads the 

main ones may sometimes elongate up to a maximum of 21/2 

inches long. 

glochids: As the species, except always bright yellow in 

color. 

flowers: As the species, except even more variable in color 

than those of most of the other varieties. They may be found 

from very pale cream through yellow, orange, and red to 

dark purplish-red. The stigma lobes are pale green, sometimes 

almost white. The ovary is noticeably tuberculate. 

fruits: Purplish-red in color, as the species. 1 to 2 inches long. 

In shape they are broadly oval or egg-shaped, usually with 

some slight constriction below and having the umbilici flat to 

shallowly pitted, but narrower than the widest part of the 

fruit. There are usually numerous glochids and often a few 

slender spines 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch long on these fruits until 

they are fully ripe, when they fall off. The pulp is deep red 

and edible. The seeds are quite small, being from less than 1/16 

of an inch to only slightly more (11/2–21/2 millimeters) in 

diameter, with almost no rims. 

Range. All along the Texas Gulf Coast, entering the state from 

Mexico, and found in almost continuous stands on the islands, 

just above the salt flats or back of the dunes all the way to the 

Sabine River. Said to be native in coastal Louisiana also, but 

not so numerous there, and also said to have been introduced 

all the way to Florida. Found inland in the Rio Grande Valley 

about as far as Mission, Texas, but nowhere else more than about 

20 miles or so from the Gulf. 

Remarks. We have here a variety easily confused, if only spines 

are considered, with the more spiny individuals of O. engelmannii 

var. texana, but clearly different, if we will take the 

trouble to observe such things as fruits and seeds. 

O. engelmannii var. alta grows in huge thickets around the 

mouth of each river entering the Gulf on the Texas coast. Such 

places are often most easily approached by boat—an unusual 

experience in cactus hunting—for the numerous islands in the 

bays and the first clayey rises above the salt flats are often so 

covered with huge thickets of this cactus, many individuals 

standing 6 to 10 feet tall, that one can hardly set foot on them. 

The cactus often grows so close to the water that one can reach 

it from the boat itself. Or some may prefer to observe it where 

it grows as smaller and more scattered individuals just back of 

the beach sand dunes or spotted here and there on the coastal 

plain a few miles from the baysides. Large stands of it may be 

easily and comfortably observed in the Santa Ana National 

Wildlife Refuge by the lower Rio Grande and in the Aransas 

National ‘Wildlife Refuge on the Gulf. 

When students of cacti have been faced with these huge populations 

of this cactus they have reacted variously to what they 

saw. Engelmann, in Pl. Lindh., lists “O. engelmannii… at the 

mouth of the Rio Grande, with almost globose fruits, innumerable 

small seeds and very luscious deep red pulp.” He obviously 

had this variety before him, and we notice that he had no hesitancy 

in assigning it to the species O. engelmannii, not feeling 

it necessary to set it apart from the western type in any way. 

The next person to study the coastal cacti was Dr. Griffiths. 

He evidently spent much time with them, and he got thoroughly 

entangled in trying to work out the variations he found on the 

Gulf. He had no way to indicate each form he came across except 

by describing it as a new species, and where in some other 

areas he did us great service this way, here his method seemed 

to carry him too far. He soon had a whole list of supposed 

species growing in this same strip along the Texas coast. 

When Britton and Rose were faced with this profusion of 

species, they made short work of it, writing as follows: 

Dr. Rose has examined all this region and is of the opinion 

that only one species of this series exists there, and this we believe 

is to be referred to O. lindheimeri. It is very common 

about Brownsville and Corpus Christi, where it forms thickets 

covering thousands of acres of land. It is very variable in habit, 

being either low and widely spreading or becoming tall 

and tree-like, sometimes 3 meters high, with a definite cylindric 

trunk. Plants from these two extremes, if studied apart 

from the field, might be considered as different species, but 

in the field one sees innumerable intergrading forms… Decided 

differences in the flower colors have been pointed out 

in the original descriptions, and we have observed them in 

greenhouse specimens, but they do not correlate with other 

characters. 

It seems to me that Britton and Rose were right in reducing 

the bulk of this coastal form to only one taxon, but I follow 

Engelmann in referring it to O. engelmannii, since O. lindheimeri 

is an invalid name for type material from two different 

species. Yet I am not ready to regard this Gulf Coast form as 

identical with the typical variety engelmannii, nor even with 

variety texana which sometimes grows near it. When considered 

together as one entity, this form presents definite and constant 

characters which set it off enough from all others of the O. engelmannii 

complex to make it one distinct variety within that 

species. 

In order to help serious students who may want to follow the 

many segregates of this variety which Griffiths recognized and 

check them themselves, I add a list of the more important of his 

species here included as synonyms of this variety, together with 

the most outstanding character he gave for each one: 

O. cyanella Gr. Flower brick-red, fading to purplish. 

Growing at the mouth of the Rio Grande.


O. gilvoalba Gr. Flower very pale, being yellowish-white 

or cream-colored. This rare form was collected about 30 years 

ago by Mr. Fred Lawson, the well-known cactus dealer of 

San Antonio, Texas. His original plant still is growing in San 

Antonio, and is now a huge, treelike specimen about 12 feet 

high and broad and with several trunks oval in shape and 

about 2 feet in circumference. Countless cuttings from this 

specimen have been distributed worldwide. I have heard it 

referred to as O. lawsonii, and have been told that the name 

was once published, but have failed to find this publication. 

Found near the mouth of the Rio Grande. 

O. deltica Gr. Flower yellow, fading to reddish. Spines 

not quite so numerous as in some specimens of the variety. 

Fruit broader and more spherical than average. Found here 

and there in almost the whole range, but the type locality was 

near Brownsville. 

O. laxiflora Gr. Flower orange-red to purplish-red. From 

near Brownsville. 

O. bentonii Gr. Spines usually fewer and shorter than 

typical for the variety, but ordinarily 1 to 5 on each areole. 

Pads usually darker green. Flowers yellow. Fruit oval to 

rather elongated obovate. The more elongated of these fruits 

are the most nearly like those of variety texana found in the 

area, but the same plant at the same time will display oval 

fruits more typical of variety alta—as shown in Griffiths’ 

own photograph. Said by Griffiths to grow from the Brazos 

River into southwestern Louisiana and to be in cultivation in 

Florida. This form has been listed as a synonym of O. Stricta 

by Britton and Rose and also by Backeberg, but it is much 

larger and more spiny than that plant and does not have its 

narrow, club-shaped, constricted, and deeply pitted fruits. 

The whole question of the relationship of our variety to those 

large Opuntias of the eastern Gulf Coast has hardly been explored. 

It is my suspicion that once our Texas coastal variety 

is looked at carefully as an entity separate from the more 

western varieties, and this form is compared with, for example, 

O. dillenii (Ker-Gawier) Haw., we may find the rela- 

tionship very close. 

O. engelmannii var. alta, taken to include all of those listed 

above, is probably the largest and most robust of the Texas 

cacti. A strictly coastal species, it surprises many people by 

growing so near the water. It is not useful in any stage. Its 

fruits are edible, but smaller than those of the more western 

edible varieties and full of a huge number of very small seeds. 

Its large pads are too woody and tough to be fed to cattle. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. cacanapa (Gr.) 


stems: As the species, except usually more profusely branching, 

forming a broader, more bushy plant which is usually a 

whole thicket in itself. The pads also remain more bluish and 

glaucous than those of the other forms, and are usually smaller 

and more regular in shape than in some of the others, 

being normally round or only slightly oval and usually only 

5 to 8 inches in diameter, rarely larger than 10 inches. These 

pads are also thinner than is typical for the species. 

areoles: As the species, except a little smaller than is typical. 

spines: Fewer in each areole than the typical variety usually 

shows, having commonly only 1 on each upper side areole of 

the pad with 1 to 3 and rarely to 6 on the edge areoles. These 

spines are usually all bright yellow, only occasionally showing 

brown coloring in the bases. The main spine is sharply and 

rigidly porrect, flattened, and 1 to 3 inches long. The other 

spines are 3/4 to 2 inches long, slightly flattened or round, and 

also nearly porrect. 

glochids: As the species, except very few, the sides of the 

pads often showing none, and the edge areoles only boasting 

a few scattered ones. 

flowers: As the species, except apparently always yellow, 

and in all examples observed with the stigma lobes white or 

yellowish instead of green. The blooms come several weeks 

later than the other varieties of the same species in the same 

area. 

fruits: Spherical to very broadly obovate with no constriction 

at either end. They are small for the species, being only 

1 to 2 inches long, averaging slightly over 1 inch. In color 

they are dark red, with less purple in the hue than is typical 

for the species. The umbilicus is large and perfectly flat. The 

fruit pulp is juicy, but tasteless and apparently is not eaten 

by animals, since these fruits remain on the plants long after 

those of other varieties are gone. 

Range. Along the Rio Grande in northern Zapata County and 

over the whole western half of Webb County, Texas. It also 

occurs in the Chisos Mountains of Brewster County, Texas. Both 

of these populations represent only small invasions into the 

U.S. from northern Mexico. 

Remarks. If we were to apply the appealing but too simple suggestion 

that we should separate only Opuntia forms different 

enough to be recognizable from the moving automobile, this 

would still be a separate form. Once it is noticed, the more 

bushy growth of smaller, more bluish pads with their long, porrect, 

bright yellow spines can be picked out of a mixed stand 

at a glance, even when one is riding by at good speed. The difference 

from the other O. engelmannii varieties with which it 

often grows in the same thickets is so constant that it must be 

listed separately, yet the fact seems clear that it also falls within 

the larger species. The plant is very common around Laredo, 

Texas, where it makes up in some places, particularly very near 

the Rio Grande, half of the population of large Opuntias cov- 

ering the uncleared range. 

The collection of this form in the Chisos Mountains of the


Texas Big Bend was a real surprise and very confusing until we 

observed this plant growing rather widely in northern Coahuila, 

Mexico. We found it as far south as Sabinas, Coahuila. It was 

then easy to see that our two Texas locations represent extensions 

of its territory northward at the two ends of its range 

where the Rio Grande dips south, while it apparently does not 

grow to the river along its northward arc between these two 

points. 

O. engelmannii var. cacanapa is closest to variety cyclodes, 

from which it can readily be distinguished by its longer and 

more slender, more porrect spines, larger flowers with white 

instead of green stigmas, brighter red fruits with much smaller 

seeds, and thinner, blue-green instead of thick, bright green or 

yellow-green pads. 

Dr. Griffiths first encountered this form early in his studies 

near Encinal, Texas, which is at the extreme northern edge of 

its range. He gave a rather sketchy but clear enough description 

of it then under the name, O. cacanapa. Several years later he 

redescribed it as he found it in the center of its U.S. range 

around Laredo, Texas, with a new name, O. tricolor. The two 

are clearly the same, and although the plant is more commonly 

known under the second name, the original one should be ap- 

plied to it. 

This is one of the most beautiful of the O. engelmannii varieties, 

striking along the roadside with its round, frosty bluish 

pads and long, perfectly porrect, bright yellow spines. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. flexispina (Gr.) 


stems: As the species, except smaller than some forms, growing 

only to about 4 feet tall and spreading, without a truly 

central trunk. The pads are mostly yellow-green, with a minimum 

of glaucescence, often becoming quite shiny. 


spines: As the species, except averaging longer, the main 

spines being 2 inches or more long, as well as more slender 

to the point of being somewhat flexible. All spines are yellow 

with or without brown bases, and all slope sharply downward 

or recurve tightly against the surface of the pad. 

glochids: As the species. 

flowers: As the species, except apparently always yellow 

and with the stigmas dark green. 

fruits: 11/2 to 2 inches long, broad to rather elongated eggshaped, 

with some constriction below. The seeds are about 1/8 

of an inch (3 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. Known only from Webb and Zapata counties, Texas, 

where it is never common, but may be found occasionally from 

near Zapata to about 40 miles northwest of Laredo, always near 

the Rio Grande. 

Remarks. This is one of Griffiths’ forms which, while certainly 

not a separate species in the current concept, does appear in a 

definite area among the regular population. It seems possible to 

distinguish it from the typical O. engelmannii only on spine 

characters, which are never stable enough in Opuntias to be the 

sole basis for separating species. 

I list this form here as a variety only because its unique spination 

is obviously not environmentally caused, and this seems the 

best way to retrieve it from the synonymy where it has been 

all but lost, so that the newer techniques of taxonomy may 

someday be used upon it. This might reveal its true relationship 

to the typical form of the species and to other varieties in the 

midst of which it grows. 

The spines on this plant are much more slender than is typical 

for the species, and this is all the more striking since they are 

longer. The main spines become 2 to 3 inches long. These spines 

are slender enough to be somewhat flexible to the touch, hence 

the name of the plant. If anyone wonders about listing this 

form separately from the other varieties, let him try to imagine 

an O. engelmannii with flexible spines, and I think he will realize 

that this plant requires some sort of separate treatment. 

These spines become markedly deflexed as they mature, and on 

old pads all lie pressed downward almost against the surface of 

the pad. 

The cactus is encountered occasionally on the dry hills overlooking 

the Rio Grande both above and below Laredo, but is 

never abundant. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. aciculata (Gr.) 


stems: As the species in growth except not observed becoming 

over about 4 feet high. The pads are typical, except smaller, 

being 5 to 8 inches long. They are also a deep, vivid green 

seldom seen in the other varieties. 

areoles: As the species, except more closely set than typical, 

being from only 1/2 to 11/4 inches apart, and with somewhat 

more brown wool. The young areoles on the sides of the pads 

are not as small as is typical and seem more round, but the 

edge areoles are typical in size, all seeming, however, much 

more conspicuous than ordinary because of the exaggerated 

glochid formation. 

spines: Often completely lacking. However, many plants 

produce 1 to 3 spines on the upper and edge areoles. Only 

occasionally a plant will produce a full armament of 3 to 8 

spines on old stem pads. These spines are typical for the species, 

except more slender and all more strictly deflexed or 

spreading downward. They are brown with yellow tips or 

mottled. 

glochids: Very conspicuous and formidable. They are bright


red-brown or mottled or bright brown with yellow tips, and 

vary in length from 1/8 to 1/2 inch in the same areole and 

spread outward from all parts of the areole so as to form a 

large, loose, starlike cluster up to 1/2 inch across. These pronounced 

clusters are found on all areoles, not just on the 

edges of the pads. 

flowers: As the species, varying from clear yellow through 

orange to brick-red, and sometimes almost magenta. The stigmas 

have dark green lobes. 

fruits: Oval to broadly pear-shaped with a little constriction 

below and with the umbilici flat or nearly so. They are deep 

purplish-red in color. The seeds are 1/8 of an inch or slightly 

more (3–31/2 millimeters) in diameter. 

range. Apparently limited to Webb County, Texas, northwestward 

along the Rio Grande to about 50 miles above Laredo. It 

has been observed also in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, southwest of 

Laredo. 

remarks. This has been a much misunderstood cactus. Originally 

discovered by Griffiths, it would probably have remained 

unnoticed like most of his other finds except that Britton and 

Rose chose to list it as a separate species instead of lumping it 

with his other forms in the synonymy of O. engelmannii. Kept 

in this way before the public while the other forms were overlooked, 

the striking beauty of the spineless specimens with their 

areoles like stars of which the widely spreading glochids are the 

bright rays made it a favorite of growers. It has been cultivated 

almost around the world by collectors, and has recently been the 

only strictly Texas Opuntia cultivated and listed for sale in the 

catalogs of the large California dealers. All this testifies to its 

uniqueness, and when a spineless specimen of the darker flower 

color is crowned with its deep red blooms it is certainly one of 

the most beautiful of the Opuntias, worthy of a place in any 

cactus collection. 

This spineless form, which is the one cultivated, is seldom 

linked in the minds of cactus growers with the common, spiny 

O. engelmannii. Griffith seemed to have had only this or specimens 

with an occasional short spine before him, so his original 

description does not reflect the whole range of spination in the 

form. Britton and Rose mentioned that it may have several 

spines, but that they were deciduous. Observation in the type 

locality, however, shows some specimens with up to 8 long, deflexed 

spines on older pads. These are quite like the spines of the 

O. engelmannii complex in character and nearest to those of O. 

engelmannii var. flexispina. When it is observed that the flowers 

and fruits are practically identical to those of some other 

members of this group, it seems clear to us that we have here 

another variety of that complex with only minor differences 

from the typical form except for the exaggerated glochid formation. 

Backeberg’s O. aciculata is this form, but the plant he describes 

and pictures as O. aciculata var. orbiculata is another cactus entirely, 

clearly of the O. phaeacantha species. 

O. engelmannii var. aciculata is encountered a few miles east 

of Laredo, Texas, and north of that city along the Rio Grande, 

where it grows only on the tops of the gravelly hills. It is most 

common in the vicinity of the Dolores Ranch. Formerly one 

could drive north of Laredo on the river road and find it growing 

rather profusely on the shoulders of that unimproved road 

where it passes the Dolores Ranch, but recently that road was 

widened and paved, and the shoulders scraped bare of all vegetation 

in the process. Now one can only catch glimpses of the 

cactus through the ranch’s very high deer-proof fence and must 

drive on 40 to 50 miles above Laredo, where it is not nearly so 

common, to observe or collect it. I know of no other place where 

it can be found without a rather strenuous expedition into rough 

rangelands. It has been reported to me by some Texas collectors 

that it has been found southeast of this area below Hebbron- 

ville, Texas, but I have been unable to verify this. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. dulcis (Eng.) Schumann 


stems: As the species, except growing more low and spreading 

than typical. The tallest plant observed was about 31/2 

feet tall. 

areoles: As the species at first, but becoming very large, often 

to 1/2 inch in diameter when old and containing a large amount 

of gray wool in the form of a raised doughnut with spines 

and long glochids on the outer edge of it and a tuft of short 

glochids in the center. This wool proliferates with age until on 

older pads each areole contains a raised doughnut of wool 

which becomes a columnar growth extending outward sometimes 

up to 1/2 inch, with spines and long glochids on the edge 

of it and the tuft of short glochids in its center. At a touch 

the whole structure of a mature areole dislodges from the surface 

of the plant as a unit, instead of glochids being dislodged 

individually, the whole cluster of spines and glochids with 

the woolly center sticking to clothing or flesh like a burr and 

leaving the surface of the plant with a small pit where the 

areole had been. 

spines: As the species, except usually 1 to 3 and never over 

6 per areole in number. In color they are brown at the base, 

the upper parts whitish to pale straw-yellow, all fading to 

dirty tan. 

glochids: Mottled brown and yellow or all yellow in color. 

Arranged in a unique way as follows: around the lower edge 

of the young areole is a semicircle of scattered, spreading glochids 

which are coarse and formidable, becoming with age al- 

most bristle-like and up to 1/4 of an inch long. With age the 

upper part of the areole is nearly ringed with these also. The 

center of the new areole contains the bulging gray wool, at 

first with a mass of short, very fine glochids growing out of


it. The wool seems to overtake these smaller glochids and 

grows over them except in the center of the areole, where it 

remains depressed, forming the doughnut of gray wool. Out 

of this depressed center there continues to grow the tight 

cluster of very fine, short glochids not at all like the heavy 

ones on the edge of the areole. These center glochids seem to 

stay just ahead of the wool as it grows outward to form the 

curious projection in the middle of the areole. 

flowers: As the species. Yellow and orange colors have been 

seen. The stigmas are dark green. 

fruits: Egg-shaped with a slight constriction below and the 

umbilici broad but slightly pitted. They are 11/4 to 13/4 inches 

long, and purplish in color, and are said by Engelmann to be 

sweet and more edible than most others of this group, a statement 

which is borne out by the fact that they are so soon removed 

from the plants by animals that fully ripened fruits 

are seldom seen in the field. The seeds are 1/8 of an inch or a 

little more (3–4 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. Originally said by Engelmann to have been collected at 

Presidio del Norde and Eagle Pass, Texas. Collected in this study 

only about 50 miles southeast of Eagle Pass, Texas, growing on 

the hills overlooking the Rio Grande and again about 20 miles 

southeast of Anahuac, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, which is about 

60 miles southwest of Laredo, Texas. Although we were not 

able to find it there, a specimen said to have been collected some- 

where near Presidio, Texas, is growing in the garden of Mr. 

Homer Jones, the cactus dealer at Alpine, Texas. 

Remarks. It is another testimony to the thoroughness of the 

early students of cacti that a hundred years ago they found and 

described carefully this unusual form. Engelmann made the first 

description from Bigelow’s specimens. Coulter also worked with 

the same preserved specimens and with the living plants which, 

remarkably, were still growing at the Missouri Botanical Garden 

30 years later. He was the first to recognize that it was actually 

only another form of our large species; so, using the other name 

for the species, he called it O. lindheimeri var. dulcis. Schumann 

studied it also, and first made the combination of names I am 

using. 

Wooton still later claimed our plant as growing in southeast 

New Mexico, but his description and picture shows an entirely 

different cactus, and to our knowledge it has not yet actually 

been found in New Mexico. 

Britton and Rose, perhaps seeing that Wooton’s plant seems 

nothing but a rather typical O. engelmannii, ignored the form 

completely, calling it a synonym of their O. lindheimeri. Everyone 

has followed in this since, as the plant is rare and was ap- 

parently not seen again. Even Griffiths makes no mention of it. 

We happened upon the cactus growing rather sparingly in the 

very small areas described above. The areole structure with its 

remarkable wool and glochid formation is most striking on old 

plants and surely warrants listing the plant so that it is not 

overlooked entirely as it has been in all the studies since Britton 

and Rose. Other than in the unique areole structure, however, 

the plants characters are all similar to those of the species to 

which it belongs. Something like this remarkable areole structure 

is found again in quite another plant, however. On old pads of 

O. atrispina there usually develops something like the doughnut- 

shaped elevation of wool, but in that plant the edge areoles then 

proliferate the growth centers until they finally have several of 

these elevated circles in each areole. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. subarmata (Gr.) 

“Flap-Jack Cactus” 


stems: Growing as a large, upright, compactly branching bush 

to at least 6 feet high and often as broad. Individual pads are 

round to obovate or often broader than they are long. They 

are to at least 12 inches long and wide, blue-green with much 

white glaucescence on them at first, changing when very old 

to yellow-green. They are firm and heavy, sometimes up to 

1 inch thick. 

areoles: As the species, except smaller than in some forms. 

spines: None on young, active pads. On very old pads which 

have enlarged to form a trunk or main branch there may occasionally 

be one spine on some areoles. It is 1/2 inch or less 

long, mottled brown or gray, slender, and flattened, as well 

as deflexed in position. 

glochids: As the species, except very few in number. 


fruits: Very broad egg-shaped with a slight constriction below 

and the umbilicus flat or nearly so. They are 2 to 21/2 

inches long, and dark red to almost purple in color. The seeds 

are a little more than 1/16 to just over 1/8 of an inch (2–31/2 

millimeters) in diameter, with wider rims than are found in 

most other varieties of the species. 

Range. Never common, but encountered occasionally along the 

Rio Grande from near Laredo, Texas, to the Devil’s River. 

Remarks. Here is a large, robust O. engelmannii, standing sometimes 

higher than a man’s head, and displaying huge, smooth 

pads, yet totally without spines except some small ones on old 

trunks. These pads are so broad and round that they naturally 

evoke the name, flap-jack cactus, long used for them. The question 

naturally occurs to one, how can a plant which appears so 

luscious stand perfectly spineless but untouched in a pasture 

where the animals eat any ordinary O. engelmannii to the very 

ground as soon as its spines are burned off ? The ranchers answer 

that the flap-jack cactus survives because it is so tough that 

the animals can’t chew it. And a person’s first attempt to lop 

off a branch of the plant confirms this assertion very quickly. 

The skin of the pads itself is very tough and the supporting vas-


cular tissue is the most rigid I have seen in any U.S. Platyopuntia. 

One has to go to the large chollas to equal its strength. It 

takes a hatchet or some similar tool to sever even a young pad 

from this giant. Spines are rendered unnecessary by the tough- 

ness of this plant’s tissues. 

The cactus is never common, and there is no indication that 

it grows in stands anywhere. It is encountered here and there 

within its range as a proud individual usually towering over the 

lower O. engelmannii forms around it. These occasional individuals 

have been found along the Rio Grande from the Devil’s 

River on the northwest to within about 25 miles of Laredo, 

Texas, on the southeast. 

The listing of the plant here as a variety of O. engelmannii 

does not imply that all about its relationship is known, any 

more than about the other forms of this species listed as varieties. 

If anything, it really implies the opposite. The cactus does 

present general plant body, flower, and fruit characters so similar 

to those of O. engelmannii as to make it difficult to let it 

stand as a separate species. Yet it does not seem proper to lose 

it in that species by synonymy. Its unique features are more 

than just the one of spinelessness—they include its manner of 

growth, its robustness, the firmness of its tissue mentioned above, 

and so on, so that it seems it has to be regarded as more than a 

simple genetic form emerging here and there. The varietal status 

seems best until it is further studied. 

We find no real intermediates between O. engelmannii var. 

subarmata and the other varieties of the species. Griffiths, as we 

have seen, described what would sound like an intermediate, 

calling it O. dillei. But that was from canyons of the Sacramento 

Mountains of New Mexico, where we do not find our form, and 

its character of having few spines appears definitely to be an 

environmental one so that it seems necessary to regard it as a 

synonym of the typical variety. The spinelessness of our present 

form is not due to environment, as it often is found in the field 

surrounded by extremely spiny examples of the species, and it 

puts on no additional spines in cultivation. The point is also 

made that O. dillei survives only where it is inaccessible to livestock 

which eat it otherwise, while variety subarmata scorns 

such enemies. 

Opuntia engelmannii var. linguiformis (Gr.) 

“Cow’s Tongue Cactus,” “Lengua de Vaca” 


stems: Growing upright or sprawling, often 3 to 5 feet high. 

Individual pads narrowly ovate to linear, varying often on 

the same plant from a minimum of about 8 inches long by 6 

wide to a greatly exaggerated length of sometimes as much as 

36 inches long by only 4 inches wide at the widest point at or 

near the base of the pad. Otherwise these stems are as the 

species. 


spines: As the species, except often shorter than typical. 

glochids: As the species. 

flowers: A weak bloomer. Some plants fail to bloom at all 

and are reproduced only vegetatively, but other plants bloom 

fairly well in good situations. The flowers are identical to the 

species. All observed, however, were orange or red in hue with 

dark green stigmas. 

fruits: As the Species in both fruits and seeds. 

Range. Originally found and definitely known to grow wild 

only in Bexar County, Texas. The original location was near the 

southeast quadrant of San Antonio’s Loop 13 and Loop 410, 

just south of the small towns of China Grove and Sayers. 

Remarks. The cow’s tongue cactus has long been a favorite with 

gardeners. The strange shape of the exaggerated pads is very 

striking, and countless yards in South Texas have somewhere in 

a corner a bush of this cactus. It grows well in the whole area 

and reproduces itself vegetatively by the rooting of dislodged 

pads, but it is not grown for its flowers, as many people have 

never seen it bloom, and some specimens, it seems, cannot even 

be pampered into blooming. 

The striking shape of the pads is obviously due to the continued 

activity of each pad’s growing tip. It appears that this 

growing tip somehow escapes the biological restriction which 

would normally stop growth early in the pad development on 

most cacti, and thus the pads of this form continue to lengthen, 

perhaps as long as they live. There is reason to believe that the 

more healthy the plant is the more rapidly the growing tip proliferates 

in relation to the lateral growth, and so the more exaggerated 

the shape becomes. Nothing is known of the internal 

physiology or the genetic basis for this unusual growth pattern, 

but the plant seems to put all its energy into the lengthening of 

the pads at the expense of flowering. Fruits with seeds are occasionally 

produced, but the seedlings have never been observed. 

This may represent some mutant form of O. engelmannii which 

reproduces itself entirely vegetatively. There is an accompanying 

loss of strength, as the form is more damaged by insect pests 

than the Species, as well as more easily killed by frost. 

The original plants came from southeastern Bexar County, 

Texas. In the type locality most of the land is now farmed, and 

few of the wild population have survived. Only an occasional 

specimen may still be found persisting in a fence-row. But innumerable 

examples are in the yards of San Antonio and most 

of South Texas to as far north as the vicinity of Austin, beyond 

which the cold will hardly allow it to be grown. 

It is hard to know now whether the form ever grew wild in 

other than the Bexar County location. San Antonians like to 

believe it is their own unique contribution to the cactus world, 

and it may well be. I have been told of the plant’s growing wild 

in various other places, but all of these I have been able to check 

have been near old farm sites or in some such situations where


they could well have escaped from some old cultivation. Britton 

and Rose mention having seen similar plants from near Brownsville, 

Texas, but do not indicate whether they were native there. 

Opuntia chlorotica Eng. & Big. 

“Clock-Face Prickly Pear” 


stems: Erect, bushy, becoming 6 or 7 feet tall in good situations, 

but often smaller. They form a definite, rounded trunk 

quite early, often when only 2 or 3 feet tall. The individual 

pads are circular to very broadly obovate, with little or no 

constriction below, 6 to 12 inches long, pale yellowish-green 

with some whitish glaucescence when young. 

areoles: Small to medium-sized and spaced about 1 inch 

apart on young and growing pads, but on the very old pads 

increasing in size, often to 1/2 inch and until the trunk is almost 

entirely covered by these enlarged areoles. In the old 

areoles much wool appears, producing on the trunk a thick 

layer which has sometimes been called a tomentum. 

spines: Pure yellow in color, 1/2 to 2 inches long, more or less 

flattened, medium in thickness, and mostly deflexed. There 

are 1 to 6 spines per areole on young, growing pads, but they 

continue to be produced on older pads, until on the main 

stems and trunk the total may run 20 to 30 per areole, these 

large clusters of deflexed spines often almost wholly covering 

the trunk with a formidable mass of spines unique in the 

Platyopuntias. 

glochids: Few and short on new pads, but also increasing 

greatly with age until becoming a spreading mass of rigid 

bristles, many up to 1/2 or 3/4 of an inch long, in each en- 

larged areole. They are always yellow or straw in color. 

flowers: Clear yellow in color, 11/2 to 3 inches in diameter. 

The ovary is 11/8 to 11/2 inches long and very wide, usually 1 

inch or more in diameter, tuberculate, with each areole having 

a cluster of short, brown glochids and occasionally 1 or 2 

bristles up to 1/2 inch long. The stamens are yellow, and the 

stigmas have 10 or 12 fat greenish-yellow lobes. 

fruits: Spherical to ovate, 11/2 to 2 inches in length, with a 

shallowly pitted umbilicus. In color they are reddish-purple. 

The seeds are around 1/8 of an inch (21/2–31/2 millimeters) in 

diameter. 

Range. The mountains of southwestern New Mexico west of the 

Rio Grande on into Arizona and said to extend into California 

and Sonora, Mexico. 

Remarks. This cactus is very close to some forms of O. engelmannii, 

so close that there is a temptation to reduce it to the 

status of a variety of that species. As far as I know, however, 

no authority has yet actually done this, although several have 

discussed the possibility. I have found no one expert enough to 

tell the 1-year-old pads of this cactus, when removed from the 

bush, from those of some specimens of O. engelmannii var. 

texana, for instance, in every case. There seems to be little difference 

except that the areoles of O. chlorotica are closer together 

on the average. And the 2-or 3-year-old pads of O. chlorotica 

are almost identical with those of some O. engelmannii 

var. flexispina specimens. But after that, the older, trunk-forming 

parts of this cactus go on in the growth of their areoles and 

the production of spines beyond anything seen in the O. engelmannii 

forms. The flowers are practically identical in all visible 

aspects to those of O. engelmannii, and the seeds are essentially 

the same. The fruits of O. chlorotica seem more consistently 

round and they have more areoles with more glochids on them, 

as well as a little more deeply pitted umbilicus. 

This cactus is a beautiful inhabitant of the high mountains in 

southwestern New Mexico, being especially common and robust 

on the slopes of western Sierra, Grant, and Hidalgo counties, 

where the massive covering of bright yellow spines on the lower 

parts of old plants rivals in shining brilliance those of some of 

the chollas. 

Opuntia tardospina Gr. 


stems: An erect cactus, diffuse and spreading instead of bush- 

like. Lacking any central stem or trunk, it produces many 

ascending blanches, forming a small thicket 2 to 3 feet tall 

when mature. The pads are round to broadly pear-shaped, 6 

to 12 inches long, medium in thickness. The surface is glaucous 

and bright to yellowish-green. 

areoles: Conspicuous from the first, being almost round and 

3/16 of an inch or more long when young, often increasing to 

round and 3/8 of an inch in diameter when old, bulging with 

much wool. They are situated 3/4 to 15/8 inches apart. 

spines: As observed in the field, 1 or 2 per areole in number, 

in only a few upper areoles of the pad. The main spines are 

3/4 to 11/2 inches long, rather heavy and flattened, deflexed or 

even recurved tightly against the pad. The second spine, when 

present, is a small lower spine also deflexed and only 3/16 to 

7/8 of an inch long. The spines are all translucent yellow with 

or without brown bases. O. tardospina is said by the discov- 

erer to become much more spiny under cultivation. 

glochids: Few at first, soon becoming many to very many 

in all areoles, 3/16 to 1/2 inch long, yellow or sometimes yellow 

mottled with brown. 

flowers: 21/2 to 3 inches in diameter and pure lemon-yellow 

in color. The ovary is 13/4 to 2 inches long, club-shaped, 3/4 of 

an inch wide, with a few very short glochids on it. The style


is shorter than the stamens. The stigma has 7 white or yellow- 

white lobes. 

fruits: Broadly egg-shaped to club-shaped, with rather noticeable 

constriction of the base and with the umbilici pitted 

fairly deeply. They are 11/2 to 21/4 inches long and purplish- 

red when ripe. The pulp is not very juicy, is slow ripening, 

and is unpalatable. The seeds are 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch (3–41/2 

millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. In the hills along the Colorado River in central Texas 

from near Austin to Llano and Lampasas, Texas, and southwest 

to upper Uvalde County. 

Remarks. This is one of Griffiths’ numerous discoveries which 

has been very difficult for students to confirm, but which has 

seemed from his description unique enough that, although we 

can tell from their handling of it that most scholars never saw 

the plant, they have consistently retained the species with little 

comment. 

The amount of living material which Griffiths had before him 

when he made his description must have been small. He, in fact, 

states that the description is mainly from the type plant. This 

plant was collected near Lampasas, Texas. Griffiths’ reliance on 

so little material, the failure of more recent students to show 

evidence that they had their own material, and the difficulty we 

encountered in this study in finding it, all show that the cactus 

is rare in its type locality. Perhaps this is because the type lo- 

cality is the most northerly location at which it has been found. 

The fact that Griffiths based his description upon a plant from 

the extreme edge of its range, where the soil and water conditions 

are not severe, and even there upon a plant from the “valley 

lands,” may explain why it has been so hard to recognize the 

plant again. Even in that area it has been impossible to rediscover 

specimens with pads and fruits quite as big as his maximum, 

and farther southwest, where the conditions are much 

more rocky and arid, the specimens found are much smaller. 

But the species has truly outstanding characteristics, and once 

a person realizes that the size descriptions given are for a seldom-attained 

maximum and starts looking for these characters 

in a smaller plant, he will find O. tardospina here and there in 

the hills from the type locality southwest along the edge of the 

Edwards Plateau. 

The most remarkable things about the cactus are the large, 

bulging, dark-colored areoles, the conspicuous, loose clusters of 

uneven glochids, and the yellow and deflexed, but late-appearing 

and soon discolored spines. Griffiths did not describe the 

flowers, but they seem always to be clear yellow, fading to 

pinkish. I have always found them appearing early in the spring, 

being over and gone before those of the other species growing in 

the same area arrive. 

Neither did Griffiths describe the seeds of the plant. Britton 

and Rose erroneously state them to be 5 millimeters (over 3/16 of 

an inch) broad, and Backeberg follows them in the description. 

But then, Britton and Rose give a description almost completely 

different from the original and ignore all of the most conspicuous 

details of areoles, glochids, and spines. Their whole description, 

including seeds, would fit an O. phaeacantha var. camanchica 

with minimum armament, and they show to represent their plant 

a drawing of a plant from north of Dallas, Texas, where that 

other cactus is the main large Opuntia to be found. Seeds 

produced by the specimens collected in this study were rather 

smaller in diameter, very different from those of O. phaeacantha 

var. camanchica, and in the range of those of O. engelmannii, 

which is its nearest relative. Our plant also shows some similarities 

to O. atrispina, another of Griffiths’ species, whose range 

begins just beyond where that of O. tardospina stops on the 

southwest. 

Opuntia spinosibacca Anthony 


stems: A strictly upright bush, its base becoming more or less 

trunklike by much thickening of the old pads. Many branches 

arise from this short base, each composed of rows of pads 

small for so large a cactus. These branches standing close together 

make this a compact, tidy shrub up to at least 4 feet 

tall. The pads are usually pear-shaped with rather pronounced 

constrictions at their bases, but occasionally they are 

almost round. They are from 4 to 7 inches long and 3 to 6 

inches wide, of average thickness for their size, but conspicuously 

tubercled so that each areole is on the summit of a 

small elevation. This gives the edge of the pad an unusual, 

slightly notched outline. The color of the pads is a light green 

or yellowish-green. 

areoles: Situated 3/4 to 11/2 inches apart, the areoles are 

oval to round, small on the faces of young pads, but to 1/4 of 

an inch in diameter on the edges of older pads. 

spines: There are 1 to 8 spines per areole, with all or almost 

all areoles spiny. As is common in Opuntias, lower areoles 

have fewer spines and the number rises in areoles toward the 

upper edge of the pad. A fully spined areole has 1 to 5 main 

spines 3/4 to 23/4 inches long spreading in all directions. These 

spines are heavy to very heavy, slightly or greatly flattened, 

often twisted and curved. They are red-brown or dark brown 

over the lower two-thirds of their lengths, then gray above, 

with the tips yellow and translucent. Below these main spines 

are 1 to 4 lower spines spreading downward, straw-colored 

mottled with brown. These range from 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch 

long, and are very slender bristles. 

glochids: Very few on this cactus. There appear to be none 

on the sides of most pads and only 6 to 12 in each areole of 

the upper edge. These few, however, are up to 1/2 inch long 

and light brown in color, often with yellow tips. 

flowers: Standing about 2 inches tall, but not opening widely, 

so normally 2 inches or less across. In color, they are


bright orange-yellow with red centers. The ovary is 1 inch 

long, broadly vase-shaped, slightly tuberculate, and 3/4 of an 

inch across at its top, which is its widest point. The petals are 

very wide, the edges usually somewhat ragged, but with a tiny 

point at the apex. They are orange-yellow, with their bases 

bright red, and this red may flush up the midline most of the 

way to the top. The stamens are very pale yellowish. The style 

is long and white. The stigma is composed of 7 to 9 light yellowish 

lobes. 

fruits: 1 to 13/4 inches long, 1/2 to 1 inch thick, oval or egg- 

shaped, and slightly tuberculate. There is no constriction at 

the base, which is broadly rounded. There is a rather pronounced 

constriction at the top, above which the upper 

edge flares widely to enclose the broad, very deeply concave 

flower scar. All of the areoles on the edge and a few down 

farther on the sides of the fruit have 1 to 4 spines on them. 

These are 1/4 to 1 inch long, rigid, round to slightly flattened, 

colored much as are the spines on the pads. Spreading straight 

out from the upper edge of the fruit or turning slightly downward, 

they surround the whole upper part of it with a formidable 

armament. When mature the fruits take on a very light 

greenish-yellow color. They never show any red or purple 

shading. Almost at once after yellowing, the fruits begin to 

dry out. This starts below and proceeds upward, the skin becoming 

tan and papery in appearance and wrinkling slightly, 

but not enough to change the shape or reduce the over-all 

size. When opened, the dried fruit presents a mass of very 

tightly packed seeds with the outer skin of the fruit resembling 

a peanut hull. The seeds are remarkably irregular. They 

may be almost any shape from perfectly round to elongated 

and from a little less than 3/16 to just over 1/4 of an inch (4– 

61/2 millimeters) in diameter. They are usually thin or very 

thin, but may be flat or sometimes greatly twisted. The rim is 

from medium width to very broad, 1/2 to 11/2 millimeters 

wide, varying on its way around the seed. 

Range. Known only in the small area extending a few miles 

from near the ranger station at Boquillas toward the Hot Springs, 

all in the Big Bend National Park, Brewster County, Texas. 

Remarks. It is remarkable that this unique cactus was not described 

until 1956. It presents a set of characteristics truly 

amazing when all combined in the one cactus. It is no wonder 

that theorists have not yet decided where its relationships lie. 

It has a tall, upright, bushy manner of growth found in the O. 

engelmannii group, but the compactness of its form and the 

smallness of its pads contrast sharply with those upright but 

spreading Opuntias with their large pads. It has a very yellow- 

green color of the surface, which I have seen otherwise only in 

O. chlorotica and a few specimens of O. engelmannii. Its spines 

appear more similar to those of some O. phaeacantha forms. It 

has a tubercled surface unique to itself, or equaled only on some 

of the small, crawling Opuntias. And most unusual of all, it has 

fruits which do not ever color any shade of red or purple like 

our other large forms and which are similar to those of the 

small, dry-fruited Opuntias and the Corynopuntia by being 

truly spiny, by becoming faintly yellowish when mature, and 

then by becoming dry and hard and papery. This is undoubtedly 

the platypus of the Opuntias. Miss Anthony discovered O. spinosibacca 

during her study of the Opuntias of the Big Bend, 

and it is clearly the greatest achievement of her study. 

The reason for the late date of its discovery no doubt is the 

fact that this prickly pear seems to grow only on a few remote 

hills bordering the Rio Grande in the very deepest tip of the 

Big Bend. Until comparatively recently there would have been 

no way to enter its area except by the most strenuous expedition. 

But fortunately for the cactus fancier, the Parks Department’s 

new paved road to Boquillas Canyon runs right through 

this area, and one may see ranks of these tidy, compact bushes 

drawn up stiffly on the limestone ledges of the hills he skirts 

without even leaving the asphalt. Fortunately also, the range of 

this cactus is within the Big Bend Park, where it is protected 

and will no doubt be flourishing when many of the desert spe- 

cies are gone the way of the bulldozer and the herbicide. 

Opuntia rufida Eng. 

“Blind Pear” 


stems: Growing erect and bushy with a definite trunk, and 2 

to 6 feet tall. The pads are 4 to 8 inches long, round to broadly 

egg-shaped, or sometimes wider than they are long. They are 

thick, with flat surfaces, pale gray-green to somewhat yellowish-green 

in color. The surface appears dull due to being 

covered with a very short pubescence. 

areoles: Conspicuous, being round and large, 3/16 to 1/4 of an 

inch in diameter, and crowded, being 1/2 to 1 inch apart. 

spines: None. 

glochids: Very many, but very short and extremely slender. 

They are only about 1/16 of an inch long, and so crowded in 

the areole as to form a dense hemispherical tuft. This is red- 

brown to light brown, often fading to grayish with age. 

flowers: 2 to 21/2 inches in diameter, orange-yellow in color. 

The outer petals are almost linear or at least lanceolate, the 

inner ones obovate, with the ends erose or notched. The stamens 

are whitish. The style is somewhat longer than the stamens, 

and there are 5 to 11 dark green stigma lobes. The 

ovary is 1 to 11/8 inches long and about 5/8 of an inch across 

at the top, which is its widest part. It is tuberculate. 

fruits: Almost spherical. They are about 1 to 11/4 inches in 

length, and greenish-red in color. The pulp is greenish. The 

seeds are between 1/16 and 1/8 inch (2–3 millimeters) in diam- 

eter, irregular in shape, with narrow rims. 

range. Crossing from Mexico into the United States only in 


Corynopuntia


Texas, and there growing only on rocky mountainsides along 

the Rio Grande from near Presidio, through the Big Bend National 

Park. 

Remarks. This is a large, beautiful, and distinctive Mexican spe- 

cies which enhances our flora by crossing into our territory. 

However, it does not venture far into the United States. Only 

along a stretch of the Rio Grande something over a hundred 

miles long beginning near Presidio and ending at about the eastern 

edge of the Big Bend National Park is it to be found on our 

side of the stream, and nowhere is it found over about 20 miles 

north of the river. 

This narrow strip of territory comprises the most rugged and 

inaccessible mountains of the Big Bend, and in them O. rufida 

is to be found growing on rocky mountainsides and high ridges. 

Most typically it is seen as proud bushes growing out of almost 

vertical cliffs far above one, where it would take hours at least 

to climb up for a close look. In the past a full-scale expedition 

was needed to get to its area, but more recently, in the Big Bend 

National Park, some roads and trails lead past good stands of 

the cactus. And only very recently the very beautiful new road 

constructed from Presidio down along the river to the Park has 

opened up most of its U. S. range to all. Along this road there 

are several places where the cactus can be found close enough to 

the road to be accessible to hardy cactophiles. The best stands 

I have observed which are readily accessible are near Boquillas 

and just off the highway west of Terlingua, Texas. 

Because of its inaccessibility, early students had few specimens 

to refer to, and their descriptions of O. rufida were far 

from complete. This led to confusion. It was particularly confused 

with another smaller Mexican cactus, O. microdasys (Lehmann) 

Pfeiffer, because both of these have pubescent surfaces 

and lack spines. It does relate to that species, but O. microdasys 

is a low, spreading, or at best only a partly erect species without 

a trunk and with everything in miniature as compared to 

O. rufida. O. microdasys was and still is the most commonly 

cultivated Opuntia. Almost every dime store has starts of it for 

sale. So often was it taken for our larger cactus that Griffiths 

stated that in his time specimens of O. microdasys were still being 

distributed for O. rufida in American collections. Working 

from these specimens and probably never having seen the real 

O. rufida alive, Schumann called the cactus O. microdasys var. 

rufida, and this name has hung on for the form of O. microdasys 

with red glochids. This is, however, a completely different thing 

from the real O. rufida which grows in Texas—and yet, at the 

beginning of this study it was only this O. microdasys with red 

glochids which I found in the few existing Texas collections and 

which I naturally took for O. rufida until I saw the real thing 

growing in the wild. I have still never seen the real O. rufida in 

cultivation. All cultivated or herbarium material going under 

that name should be checked carefully before being accepted as 

the real thing. 

It is also very easy to confuse the true O. rufida with a cactus 

found growing in Mexico, which Griffiths named O. macrocalyx. 

This cactus grows around Saltillo, Coahuila, and I have 

seen it as far north as Monclova, Coahuila. It might be taken 

for a low, spreading, trunkless variant of O. rufida. Its pads are 

fully as big and very similar, except that they are darker green 

in color. Its growth form is mostly ascending, but is spreading 

and diffuse in its branching, without any central trunk, forming 

thickets usually about 2 to 3 feet in height. Its areoles are even 

closer together than those of our cactus, more like those of O. 

microdasys in spacing. Its flower is similar to that of O. rufida, 

but its fruit is elongated and 2 inches or more in length. It is 

not necessary here for us to evaluate its relationship to O. rufida, 

but the two should not be confused. 

Griffiths considered that O. rufida resembled O. glosseliniana 

var. santa-rita (Gr. & Hare) Benson more closely than any of 

these, except for the lack of spines. No one has studied this relationship. 

Anthony, in her study of the Big Bend Opuntias, 

describes a new variety, O. rufida var. tortiflora, which Backeberg 

does not regard as valid. It is interesting that on seeing her 

actual preserved specimen of this plant, I would have called it 

a spineless example of O. glosseliniana var. santa-rita. Whether 

future studies can link the two more closely will be interesting 

to watch. 

Opuntia macrocentra Eng. 

“Purple Prickly Pear” 


stems: Upright, forming a small bush up to 2 or 3 feet high, 

but without any trunklike main stem. The pads are 4 to 8 

inches in length, round, broader than they are long, or sometimes 

broadly egg-shaped. These pads are comparatively thin, 

being often only 1/2 to 5/8 of an inch thick. They may be 

medium green to yellowish-green when shaded and well 

watered, but more often they are purplish over-all or at least 

spotted and streaked with purple. In the winter and in the 

heat of the summer this purple coloration is usually very pro- 

nounced. 

areoles: Small and inconspicuous on the sides of the pads, 

enlarging to about 1/4 of an inch in the edges. They vary in 

the distance of their spacing, on some smaller plants being only 

3/8 to 3/4 of an inch apart, while on larger, more robust plants 

they may be 3/4 to 11/4 inches apart. 

spines: Few in number, being limited to the very upper and 

edge areoles, but these long and conspicuous. There are only 1 

to 4 spines as a maximum, with 1 or 2 per armored areole 

being most common. Of these, 1 to 3 are very exaggerated 

spines 2 to 5 inches long, the upper round and the lower one 

flattened or often even grooved. They are so slender for their 

length that they are flexible and usually are twisted and bent. 

rufia -> rufida


They are all black or else blackish below with usually gray 

or brown zones at the center and tips. There is sometimes 1 

lower deflexed spine 3/4 to 11/2 inches long. 

glochids: Very few to average in number, short, 1/16 to 3/16 

of an inch long on the sides of the pads and not increasing in 

number but sometimes increasing in length to 1/2 inch on the 

edges. They are brown or red-brown in color. 

flowers: Approximately 3 inches in diameter, light yellowish 

with red centers. The ovary is short and egg-shaped, with 

some glochids on it. The stamens are yellow, and the stigma 

has 5 to 11 yellow or light greenish-yellow lobes. 

fruits: 3/4 to 11/2 inches long, spherical to broadly vase- 

shaped, with no constriction at the base and with the apex 

deeply pitted. They become bright red or orange-red in color 

when ripe. The seeds are about 3/16 of an inch (4–5 millimeters) 

in diameter, flat but twisted and irregular, with a 

wide, undulating rim. 

Range. West of a line from Brewster County in the lower Big 

Bend of Texas northwest through the Davis Mountains to near 

Van Horn, Texas, and from there north to near Roswell, New 

Mexico. In New Mexico all south of a line from near Roswell 

northwest at least as far as Socorro, then back southwest where 

it enters southeast Arizona. 

Remarks. O. macrocentra is one of the most striking Opuntias. 

The sight of this bushy prickly pear with the beautiful purple 

pads and extremely long, blackish spines is one of those desert 

visions which remain so visibly in a visitor’s memory. And it is 

remarkable that the more severe the desert climate the more 

vivid the coloring of the purple prickly pear becomes. Actually, 

the beautiful hue is merely the means this cactus uses to survive 

severe conditions, whether they be heat or cold or desiccation. 

It survives by building up large amounts of these bright pigments 

at its surface to shield its tender flesh. This means of protection 

is widely used by cacti, as many of them turn reddish in 

severe conditions. This cactus only excels in the amount and 

richness of its coloration, but that is enough to render it memorable. 

The spines of this cactus are few in number, but among the 

longest of this genus, being normally 2 to 4 inches but sometimes 

to 5 inches long. They are, however, slender for their length and 

flexible. At least one of them is always flattened, which seems 

to set this form off from O. gosseliniana var. santa-rita (Gr. & 

Hare) Benson, with which it is often confused. Benson’s insistence, 

strange in the light of all early descriptions, that the spines 

are round contributes to this error. 

O. macrocentra is very common, even forming the dominant 

Opuntia in much of the lower Big Bend of Texas. In the area of 

the Big Bend National Park it grows profusely, the small bushes 

often standing on rocky slopes where almost nothing else can 

survive, burnt purple by the sun in summer and frozen as purple 

in the winter, but still erect and unvanquished. Here in the Big 

Bend, in the most severe exposures, the pads are often smaller 

with closer areoles than typical, but nearby, where there is a 

little protection and moisture will be the larger, greener pads 

with areoles farther apart. Miss Anthony, in her study of Opuntias 

of the Big Bend designated the specimens she found with 

everything in miniature as O. macrocentra var. minor, but it 

does not seem this is other than the typical form stunted by environment. 

In the Hueco Mountains on the Texas-New Mexico border 

there has been noticed another population smaller than typical 

and having lighter colored spines than typical. This form, which 

has not been proved distinct either, has been referred to as O. 

macrocentra var. castetteri, but I have not found this name’s 

official publication. 

In southern New Mexico and Arizona O. macrocentra grows 

typically, as in the Big Bend, but as one goes farther north anywhere 

in its range, where the heat and aridity is not so severe, 

the species often has larger pads than farther south and presents 

much less of the purple coloring in the summer. Spination is also 

less heavy here, occasionally reduced to none. In the Davis 

Mountains of Texas, on a protected ridge where moisture oozed 

out of the rock ledges most of the time, I collected specimens 

with broad, fan-shaped pads, bright green in the summer and 

perfectly spineless. This would no doubt be the extreme effect 

of easy conditions on the species. But these northern plants get 

their turn to deck out in color when winter hits them, often 

standing beautifully purple against the white snow. 

There is so much variation in the shape and color of the fruits 

and the size of the seeds in various individuals of this species 

that I suspect the variations might fall into definite segregates 

within it, but so far I have not been able to correlate these differences 

with any other constantly varying characters or any 

definite populations. This would bear much more study. 

The species is very close to and often confused with the cactus 

O. phaeacantha var. brunnea Eng., which grows with it in the 

Big Bend and around El Paso. This other form often shows reddish 

coloring, sometimes almost as purple as O. macrocentra, 

and also has long, blackish-based spines. Almost every herbarium 

collection I have seen contains a scattering of this form in 

its O. macrocentra file, and some descriptions of O. macrocentra, 

beginning with those of Britton and Rose who did not recognize 

variety brunnea, have been broadened to include characters of 

that other plant. Before being satisfied that he knows the purple 

prickly pear one should study the description of that other form 

and be sure he can distinguish the two. 

Opuntia gosseliniana vat. santa-rita (Gr. & Hare) Benson 


stems: An erect, bushy shrub 2 to 5 feet high with a distinct, 

though short trunk. The pads are thin and mostly circular


but varying occasionally to be very broadly egg-shaped or 

sometimes broader than they are long. Their surfaces are glaucous 

blue-green, with reddish coloring around the areoles and 

along the edge; this coloring is more pronounced during 

winter. 

areoles: Oval to round and only 1/8 of an inch or slightly 

more in diameter when young, but increasing with age to 

about 1/4 of an inch. They are bulging when young, with much 

wool and many short glochids. The growth of the wool and 

glochids on old stem pads sometimes produces an elongation 

of the areole structure outward somewhat like that seen to an 

extreme degree in O. engelmannii var. dulcis. The areoles are 

spaced about 1/2 to 1 inch apart. 

spines: Not numerous, new pads often being spineless or with 

1 spine present on only a few edge areoles. Older pads may 

have up to 3 spines in the upper areoles only. These spines are 

brown or red-brown at the bases with the upper parts yellowish 

or mottled with yellow. In shape they are cylindrical, in 

position spreading or deflexed, in size slender and 3/4 to 4 

inches long, although usually about 11/2 to 2 inches. 

glochids: Many on all areoles, but very short, being usually 

only about 1/8 of an inch long, forming with the wool a compact, 

bulging mass in the areole. They are yellow to brown in 

color. 

flowers: Yellow, with white or yellowish-white stigma lobes. 

fruits: Oval to oblong, said to often be curved, 1 to 13/8 

inches long, 3/4 of an inch or a little more in diameter, with 

little or no constriction below and with a pitted apex. They 

are purple or purplish-red in color. The seeds are 1/8 of an 

inch or less (2–3 millimeters) in diameter, flat, with narrow, 

acute rims. 

Range. Long known to extend out of Sonora, Mexico, into extreme 

southeastern Arizona. It has been found more recently in 

extreme southwestern New Mexico, where it is probably limited 

to Hidalgo County. It is found again in Texas near the Rio 

Grande between Presidio and the Big Bend National Park. 

Remarks. Everyone has been cautious about declaring this a 

New Mexico plant, although it has seemed it should enter out 

of adjacent Arizona into that state. Now, however, it is definitely 

known to be there, having been collected a number of 

times. I am even more reluctant to claim it as a Texas plant, 

but I have found a few specimens growing on the mountains 

near the Rio Grande below Presidio, which I have followed all 

the way through fruiting and cannot distinguish from plants I 

have which were gathered in the Santa Rita Mountain type 

locality itself. 

O. gosseliniana var. santa-rita shows similarities not just to 

one, but to several other cacti. The reddish coloring of its pads 

makes it seem at first to be close to O. macrocentra, but in almost 

everything else it is very distinct from that cactus, growing 

more arborescent, having a similar number of spines but these 

very different in shape and color, having different color of both 

flowers and fruits, and having entirely different, much smaller 

seeds. In these seeds, as well as in its size and manner of growth 

it is somewhat like O. engelmannii, this and O. rufida being the 

only other Opuntias in our area equaling O. engelmannii var. 

alta and var. tricolor in the smallness of their seeds, but it is 

different from that species in various other ways. However, the 

seeds, almost identical to those of O. rufida, give us another 

link, and it is a strong one. In all main appearances this cactus 

is very much like a spiny O. rufida, and the discovery of variety 

santa-rita growing in that plant’s range in Texas requires us to 

take a second thought about this. Of course, there are differences 

besides the spines between them, variety santa-rita not being 

pubescent and having a different hue of pad, not having its 

glochids quite so fine, having white instead of green stigmas and 

different colored fruits, but, nevertheless, it may be the most 

closely related to O. rufida of any cactus in our area. 

Originally, in the first description of this cactus, Griffiths and 

Hare emphasized another similarity which they thought so 

strong that they named the plant O. chlorotica var. santa-rita. 

About the same number of similarities and differences separate 

O. chlorotica and variety santa-rita as the others. Britton and 

Rose were heroic enough, if it may be called that, to ignore all 

these and let the plant stand as Opuntia santa-rita, without 

comment. Marshall followed them. But more recently Benson 

has chosen to link the form up with yet another species, Opuntia 

gosseliniana. This is a much more spiny cactus found in Sonora 

near the Pacific. I do not know that plant, and since all of the 

students from Arizona and California who should know both 

forms best now choose to make this combination, I will trust 

that the reasons for it are even stronger than the ones which 

could be given for combining it with any of the above. 

This cactus is beautiful, but seems to be more affected by environmental 

factors than most large Opuntias, suffering quickly 

from both extreme drought or too much moisture, unusual cold, 

and so on. Perhaps for this reason it is never common and only 

isolated individuals are encountered anywhere in the U. S. 

Opuntia strigil Eng. 


stems: Erect, growing as a diffuse shrub without trunk, usually 

about 2 feet tall. The pads are 3 to 8 inches long, round 

to broadly egg-shaped, medium in thickness with no constriction 

at the base. The surface is pale green or yellow-green 

in color. 

areoles: 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch apart and therefore appearing 

crowded on the sides of the pads, but often running together 

on the edges. They are round or oval, 3/16 to 3/8 of an inch 

across, and often become elevated by the addition of much 

gray wool.


spines: Possessing an array of 5 to 10 very slender, almost 

bristle-like spines 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch long around the lower 

half of each areole. These are dark brown at their bases, fading 

to red-brown and finally, toward the tips, becoming yellow 

or whitish, or else they are all whitish. Some plants have 

1 to 3 central spines on each upper and edge areole, but many 

individuals lack these. When present they are 3/4 to 13/4 inches 

long, slender to medium strength, round or somewhat flattened, 

straight and erect on the edges while more or less deflexed 

and bent in various directions on the sides of the pads. 

They are dark brown below, medium or red-brown and rather 

translucent in the middle zone and translucent yellowish beyond 

that, the three colors contrasting conspicuously. 

glochids: Each mature areole has a loose, spreading cluster 

of slender yellow glochids in the upper part of it. They are 

from 1/8 to 1/2 inch long, the largest ones standing upward 

from the upper part of the areole opposite the lower radiating 

spines and almost equaling them in length, contrasting sharp- 

ly with them in color. 

flowers: Small to medium in size, being 11/2 to 21/2 inches 

across and 11/4 to 11/2 inches tall. The ovary is short, with 

leaves and a few long bristles on its areoles. The petals are 

lemon-yellow to cream-yellow, with a slight orange cast to 

the midline, their ends 1 inch broad, blunt, and entirely erose 

or with a very slight point at the apex. The stamens are 

cream-colored; the stigmas with 6 cream-colored or very pale 

greenish-white lobes. The flowers fade to pinkish or salmon as 

they wilt. 

fruits: Spherical or practically so, and very small, usually 

only 1/2 to 7/8 of an inch long. They have a few very slender, 

brown bristles on them, and broad, flat or slightly depressed 

umbilici. They are bright red in color. The seeds are 1/8 of an 

inch or slightly larger (3–4 millimeters) in diameter, regular, 

and flat, with narrow, acute rims. 

Range. A comparatively small, triangular area of Texas from 

just west of Fort Stockton on the northwest to near Ozona on 

the northeast, and narrowing to the vicinity of Longfellow, 

Sanderson, and Dryden on the south. 

Remarks. There has long been a lack of specific information 

about this cactus. It is so unusual in appearance that all students 

have given adequate descriptions of it, but none seem to have 

known where it actually grows. This was probably because 

Engelmann, in first describing it, said simply, “In crevices of 

limestone rocks, between the Pecos and El Paso, Texas.” This 

was repeated by Coulter and by Britton and Rose, all of whom 

apparently saw only the type specimens. 

Much time spent in the huge area covered by that statement 

has enabled me to pinpoint its range rather closely. It does not 

occur in far west Texas at all. It first appears as one leaves the 

mountains of west Texas traveling east. At the edge of its western 

range it will be found as compact little upright bushes standing 

on the flat tops of limestone ridges and buttes just west of 

Fort Stockton on the north and near Longfellow, Texas, on the 

south. In these locations it is fairly common, but only on the 

tops of the hills. East of Fort Stockton it is found here and there 

on the hills or high ground, but less and less commonly all the 

way beyond the Pecos River to its easternmost collection just a 

few miles west of Ozona, Texas, this giving an east-west range 

at this latitude of about 100 miles. The range is much narrower 

south of this, running only from near Longfellow to about Dryden, 

a distance of only about 30 miles. It has never been seen on 

the Pecos River beyond a few miles from the site of the old Fort 

Lancaster, which must have been the type locality where Wright 

first found it in 1851. 

Over all of its range O. strigil is always found associated with 

O. phaeacantha var. nigricans, the two forms contrasting beautifully 

in almost all characters as they stand together on the tops 

of the hills. 

O. strigil is one of the most unusual of the Opuntias. Its close- 

set areoles with their numerous, very slender bristles give it an 

appearance of gracefulness and an entirely misleading aspect of 

delicacy which make it among the most attractive in any collection 

of Opuntias. Its fruits are among the smallest of any Opuntia 

in the Southwest. Its small, compact bushes are only at home 

on the very thin soil overlying limestone outcrops. It seems 

never to form thickets, probably because no arm of the bush 

ever touches the ground so there can be no rooting of still attached 

parts of the plant. It doesn’t spread from the original 

base. 

The relationship of O. strigil to other Opuntias is not clear. It 

has small seeds similar to those of the O. engelmannii complex, 

but is unlike those forms in almost all other characters. On the 

other hand, O. phaeacantha var. nigricans, which grows with it 

over all of its range, has seeds hardly larger, and some specimens 

of variety nigricans approach rather closely to O. strigil in the 

character of their smaller spines and glochids. However, this 

cactus has very different flowers and fruits. Near Dryden, Texas, 

the extreme southeastern edge of O. strigil’s range is close to the 

extreme southwestern tip of O. atrispina’s range. In this area are 

found some specimens which are almost intermediate between 

these two closely related forms. The relationship between the 

two is worthy of more study. 

Opuntia atrispina Gr. 


stems: An ascending, spreading plant 2 to 3 feet tall, with 

joints round to broadly egg-shaped, 4 to 7 inches long by 31/2 

to 6 inches wide, with pads thin to medium thickness, and 

with the areoles usually somewhat raised. The surface is rather 

shiny and bright or yellow-green, occasionally with some 

reddish color around the areoles on specimens growing in 

severe exposure.


areoles: Slightly elongated oval and 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch 

long when young, to egg-shaped or almost round and 1/4 of 

an inch or more in diameter when older. Situated 1/4 to 11/4 

inches apart on the pad. The areoles on this plant have the 

peculiar habit of proliferating when old until each areole 

contains 2 to as many as 6 or 8 circular growing centers, the 

glochids arranged in these bunches and the areoles then becoming 

very big and bulging. After this sort of growth the 

edge areoles become to 1/2 inch in diameter and almost touch 

each other. 

spines: 3 to 6 in number on the upper 1/2 to 2/3 of the pad, 

the main spines with black or very dark red-brown bases 

shading into a zone of brown followed by yellow toward the 

tips. The smaller spines are similar except lighter in color. 

There are usually 1 or 2 main spines 1/2 to 11/4 inches long, 

heavy and rigid, round, porrect or deflexed, and bent downward, 

but in some specimens these main spines may be missing 

entirely. There is below them another central 3/8 to 11/8 

inches long, identical to them except strongly recurved downward. 

There will then be 1 to 3 lower, deflexed and spreading, 

thin and bristle-like spines 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch long. All 

of these spines seem to fade to a dull gray-brown or blackish 

within a year or so and often the old spines seem to become 

brittle so that many of them are broken or missing entirely on 

old pads. 

glochids: Yellowish or brownish or mottled at first, becoming 

dull blackish-brown when old. There are average to many 

on young pads, 1/8 to 1/2 inch long, in irregular, untidy clusters, 

becoming very many and filling the areoles on old edge 

areoles. 

flowers: Deep chrome-yellow with a somewhat greenish 

center when first open. Soon fading to flesh-color or apricot. 

They usually stand only 2 to 21/2 inches in diameter, but are 

sometimes smaller, down to 1 inch in diameter. The ovary 

tube is small, 3/4 to 1 inch long, slightly tuberculate, with 

some glochids on it. The stamens are cream-colored; the style 

white. The stigma has 7 or 8 yellow or slightly greenish- 

yellow lobes. 

fruits: Bright red or yellowish-red in color, with pulp rather 

dry and greenish. In shape they are almost round to broadly 

pear-shaped, with little or no constriction below and with the 

umbilici from almost flat to sometimes quite deeply pitted. 

Extremely variable in size, ripe fruits having been measured 

which were from 3/8 to 15/8 inches long. The seeds are 1/8 of 

an inch or a little more (3–4 millimeters) in diameter, comparatively 

thick, with narrow rims. 

Range. A narrow strip of southwest Texas about 20 miles wide 

from the Anacacho Mountains in the southwest corner of Uvalde 

County west past Del Rio, the mountains of the Devil’s and 

Pecos rivers, to near Dryden, Texas. We have collected it again 

in some hills just east of Sabinas, Coahuila, Mexico, which in- 

dicates that the range extends on into Mexico for an unknown 

distance. 

Remarks. This is another of Griffiths’ Texas discoveries, first 

found near the Devil’s River, where we find it today only near 

the mouth of that river. This is the center of that narrow strip 

along our border in which it grows. 

I believe the knowledge of this cactus has been clouded for 

must by an unfortunate lack in the original description and a 

subsequent misunderstanding. Dr. Griffiths described the spines 

of his plant very completely as to color and size, but unaccountably 

failed to make any statement at all about their shape. Britton 

and Rose apparently put great reliance on the color of 

spines, stated by Griffiths to be for this species, “Jet black to 

reddish brown at base with yellow rips.” One would think that 

this would be striking enough to distinguish any plant, so when 

Dr. Ruse, looking over the type locality, found a plant with jet 

black spine bases, he thought he had O. atrispina. This plant had 

heavy, very flat spines, and Britton and Rose, therefore, incorporated 

into their description the statement, “Principle ones 

[spines]… flattened.” Once added in this way to the description, 

the supposed trait of flat spines has remained in all subsequent 

write-ups, even being featured in Backeberg’s description 

of the plant and his key. 

It is easy to see how this idea of O. atrispina having flat 

spines got started and persists. There is a cactus at the Devil’s 

River with very heavy and very conspicuously flattened, often 

even triangular black-based spines, their upper parts whitish. 

It is the cactus one would probably notice first when one visits 

the type locality. I thought it was O. atrispina and grew it in 

my own collection for some time for that species. This plant 

grows quite commonly from Del Rio west to at least the Davis 

Mountains and thence northwest into New Mexico. I even tried 

at one time to persuade some New Mexico cactophiles that they 

had O. atrispina in their state, fortunately with little success. 

However, I would have been right if this were Griffiths’ cactus. 

At this time I already had a cactus for which I could not find 

a name, which I kept finding on the higher elevations along 

about a hundred miles of the Rio Grande. It had spines blackish 

below with yellow rips, but these spines were always round. 

When it bloomed and fruited, it fitted Griffiths’ description 

exactly. Only when I began to suspect that this was the true 

O. atrispina and that Britton and Rose had seen the wrong 

plant, did I check everything on their plant with flat spines 

against Griffiths’ description, and when I did I found that its 

areoles were too far apart to fit O. atrispina, it had larger 

orange-yellow flowers with bright red centers and much too 

large fruits. It couldn’t be the plant Griffiths described. I then 

understood why their figure illustrating O. atrispina looks so 

little like it as to be no better than misleading. 

The true O. atrispina has been virtually unknown all these 

years while the other plant has been taken for it. This other cac- 

tus, also unknown by its right name all this time due to the

witholding -> 

withholding 


confusion, is actually O. phaeacantha var. nigricans Eng. O. 

atrispina, as rightly known, has no trait of flower, fruit, or 

pad relating it to the O. phaeacantha group. It is actually closest 

to O. strigil, whose range adjoins that of this cactus on the west. 

As I have mentioned in discussing that species, there are some 

specimens which appear almost intermediate between these two 

around Dryden, Texas. It also has some characters in common 

with O. tardospina, whose range almost but not quite meets its 

own on the northeast. 

A remarkable peculiarity of this cactus, noted by Griffiths, 

is the way its fruits differ so widely in size. Healthy, well- 

watered plants produce fruits 1 to 15/8 inches long, yet one often 

sees in the field specimens having fruits 3/4 of an inch or so in 

length. Quite by accident I learned that this variation is due to 

the environment. A pot containing one of these plants once got 

moved back in my garden by mistake, just after flowering, to 

where it got almost no water for the rest of the summer. I first 

noticed it when its fruits ripened to a beautiful red when only 

1/2 inch in length. Experimentation since then has shown that 

by withholding water at flowering and fruiting time I get on this 

plant as many flowers as usual, but these reduced to as little as 

1 inch in diameter, and I have had these small flowers produce 

tiny fruits only 3/8 of an inch long yet ripening normally and 

containing 1 or 2 normal seeds. This is very different from most 

Opuntias, which in my experience either fail to bloom at all 

under such conditions or have regular-sized flowers which either 

manage to produce normal-sized fruits or abort them entirely. 

Opuntia leptocarpa Mackensen 


roots: Usually tuberous, but in Some whole populations they 

are fibrous. 

stems: Large, robust pads which stand upright at first, but 

are too weak to support each other, so that when a branch 

attains the length of 2 or 3 pads it falls over and lies on the 

ground, thus keeping the plant a low, sprawling one at most 

1 to 11/2 feet high. The pads are broadly oval or egg-shaped 

to sometimes almost spindle-shaped, with a gradual but not 

pronounced constriction at the base. They are 4 to at least 10 

inches long and to 7 inches wide, but thin for the size, which 

probably accounts for their being so often bent over by the 

weight of new pads sprouting from them. They are bright, 

deep green with a shiny surface when healthy, but somewhat 

glaucous and yellow-green when suffering from drought or 

sunburn. 

areoles: Small and oval or round on the sides of the pads, 

enlarging somewhat, but not conspicuously on the edges. They 

are located 3/4 to 2 inches apart. 

spines: 1 to 5 per areole, found on upper and edge areoles 

only. Occasional plants are almost spineless. The main spines 

are yellow or straw mottled with brown, the lower and smaller 

spines gray. All spines are slender to medium thickness, 

round or only slightly flattened. A fully armed edge areole 

will present 1 main central 1/2 to 11/4 inches long, porrect or 

slightly deflexed; 1 to 2 upper spines standing at any angle, 

1/2 to 1 inch long; and 1 or 2 slender, deflexed lower spines 

1/4 to 1 inch long. 

glochids: Brown to red-brown in color, few and short, 1/16 

to 1/8 of an inch long on the sides of the pads, to medium in 

number and sometimes to 1/4 of an inch long on the edges of 

the pads. They are never conspicuous. 

flowers: 21/2 to 3 inches across, yellow or orange with maroon 

to bright red centers. The ovary is 11/2 to 2 inches long, 

narrowly club-shaped, and tuberculate, with short red glochids 

on it. The petals have a more pronounced point at the 

apex than on most Opuntias. The anthers are cream in color. 

The stigmas consist of 6 to 8 white or greenish-white lobes. 

fruits: Very large, being 2 to 31/2 inches long and 1 to 15/8 

inches thick. They are club-shaped with a pronounced or even 

exaggerated constriction of the base and narrow and deeply 

pitted umbilici. They become old red when fully ripe, but the 

flesh often remains greenish and sour until late fall, when it 

finally becomes red and sweet. The seeds are less than 1/8 to 

not quite 3/16 of an inch (21/2–4 millimeters) in diameter. They 

are regular in shape, flat but rather thick bodied, with nar- 

row, acute rims. 

Range. An area of south Texas bounded, so far as is presently 

known by the following points: Langtry, Texas, and the vicinity 

of the mouth of the Devil’s River on the west, near Austin on 

the north, Flatonia on the east, Mustang Island in front of Corpus 

Christi Bay to near Brownsville on the southeast, and La- 

redo on the southwest. 

Remarks. Mackensen, in originally describing O. leptocarpa, 

stated that it was intermediate between O. macrorhiza and O. 

lindheimeri [O. engelmannii]. His remark was one of those 

purely subjective pronouncements which contribute nothing but 

confusion, and much confusion has entered here. 

Having the combination of such large pads and fruits with 

such small seeds and growing, as it does around San Antonio, 

in the same fields with O. engelmannii, the careless observer, encouraged 

in this direction by Mackensen’s statement, sees it as 

just a low, prostrate form of that upright, bushy giant. On the 

other hand, to some such observers casually alerted by Mackensen’s 

statement, its flowers and fruits may seem essentially only 

oversized versions of those of O. macrorhiza, while its often 

tuberous roots will surely strengthen this idea. I find people 

about equally divided as to which of these other species to call 

it. This is unfortunate. Closer observation will show that its flowers, 

fruits, and roots are essentially different from those of O. 

engelmannii, while its pad character and size, glochids, spines, 

and seeds put it clearly outside the limits of O. macrorhiza. Nat-


ural hybrid or what have you though it may turn out to be, 

although it is somewhere between the two, yet it is neither of 

them, and in the preoccupation with relating it to those two, 

the fact has not been mentioned that its closest similarity is actually 

to the O. phaeacantha group. But it seems clear that with 

our present knowledge such speculation gets us nowhere. 

This plant probably figured in Engelmann’s confusion which 

resulted in his contradictory description of his now long-defunct 

O. lindheimeri as “erect, robust or low and prostrate,” and accounts 

for his attempt to set that off from E. engelmannii at all. 

He said in Plantae Lindheimerianae, “the fruit which Lindheimer 

has sent as belonging to this species [O. lindheimeri] resembles 

very much that of O. vulgaris, 2–21/2 inch long, slender, 

with a deep umbilicus, very different from that of the following 

species [O. engelmannii].” It should be noted that the plants 

sent him by Lindheimer were from New Braunfels, Texas, within 

the range of O. leptocarpa. Later, after gaining more knowledge 

of the New Braunfels plants, Engelmann said, “O. lind- 

heimeri Eng. Pl. Lindh. is partly this same plant [O. engelmannii], 

partly a hybrid form between it and perhaps O. rafinesquii 

[O. compressa], with narrow clavate fruit.” While the low, 

prostrate form referred to above, that first caused Engelmann 

to set up a species O. lindheimeri, could conceivably have been 

O. phaeacantha var. camanchica, which is found about New 

Braunfels also, that plant does not have the long, narrow, 

clavate fruits he mentioned. These are found on O. leptocarpa, 

and we still find in the area in question the large, upright O. 

engelmannii with large but broad and flat-topped fruits and the 

low, sprawling O. leptocarpa with large but narrow and deeply 

pitted fruits. Both have similar large pads and small seeds, but 

they have different flowers and roots, and so, as Engelmann 

discovered and admitted long ago and as any careful observer 

will verify, they cannot be combined into the one nonexistent 

species O. lindheimeri. 

Speculation about this plant’s relationship to O. phaeacantha 

var. major might prove to be more fruitful. A careful checking 

of the characters of the two show few really clear differences 

between them. About all that can be demonstrated to distinguish 

them is O. leptocarpa’s lower maximum height and much more 

sprawling, almost prostrate aspect, its fruits being larger and 

its seeds smaller. While O. leptocarpa has tuberous roots in most 

specimens seen and O. phaeacantha usually fibrous, we know 

from other species that this seldom if ever can be a diagnostic 

character. There have been found O. phaeacantha specimens in 

New Mexico with tuberous roots. At this writing I am leaving 

the two separate, but further study is needed to see if they are 

really more closely related. 

In few places in its whole range does O. leptocarpa exist in 

large stands. It is most widespread and common in Comal 

County, Texas, which is the type locality, and in Bexar County. 

Outside of these counties we find scattered small populations 

with many miles between them, the main ones being just west 

of Falls City, Texas; near Devine and Flatonia; in the sand 

dunes at Port Aransas on Mustang Island; in the sandy river 

bottoms at Laredo, Texas; and in the flats from Del Rio to 

Langtry. 

Opuntia phaeacantha Eng. 

“New Mexico Prickly Pear,” “Brown-Spined Prickly Pear,” 

“Tulip Prickly Pear” 


roots: Almost always fibrous, but some specimens have been 

found with tuberous roots. 

stems: Growing either as a large, robust, ascending cactus 2 

to 3 feet or more high, trunkless, and forming dense thickets 

sometimes up to 6 or 8 feet across, or else as a low, prostrate 

plant with most of its pads resting their edges on the ground 

and so only 1 to 11/2 feet in height. The pads are flat, almost 

spherical to broadly egg-shaped or sometimes even club-shaped 

from 4 to 9 inches long and 3 to 7 inches wide. The surface 

is glaucous and bluish-green or deep green when young, usually 

becoming bright shiny green or yellow-green when older, 

and sometimes taking on a purplish cast around the areoles 

and pad edges during the winter. 

areoles: Small to medium and oval to round when young, 

becoming round and enlarged to 1/4 of an inch or so when 

older. They vary from 3/4 to 2 inches apart. 

spines: 1 to 8 spines per areole on only the very upper areoles 

of the pad or sometimes on the upper 3/4 or more of each pad. 

In length the spines vary from 3/4 to 3 inches long. They 

spread in almost all directions from the areole, with the upper 

spines large and heavy, the uppermost of these usually 

round and at least the main porrect or deflexed central flattened. 

There are usually some small, weak spines below these 

main ones. All spines are yellow, gray, or mottled toward the 

tips, with the bases brown, red-brown, or black. 

glochids: Few to average in number and short on young 

pads, becoming usually quite numerous to very many on the 

edges of old pads and 1/2 to 3/8 of an inch long. In color they 

are pale brown to red-brown. 

flowers: 2 to 3 inches in diameter, bright yellow or orange 

with red to maroon centers. The ovary varies from only 3/4 

of an inch long in some forms to as much as 13/4 inches in 

others, always with some short red-brown glochids on it. The 

stamens are yellowish or cream in color. The style is long and 

pinkish or whitish. The stigmas have 6 to 10 short, fat, whitish, 

yellowish, or very pale greenish lobes. 

fruits: Variable within this large complex: from oval or 

goblet-shaped with little or no constriction at the bases and 

the umbilici somewhat pitted to flat, to pear-shaped or even 

club-shaped with pronounced constriction of both the bases


and umbilici. In size they range from 1 to 21/2 inches long; 

in color, from yellowish-red to bright scarlet or cherry-red 

to deep purplish-red. The seeds measure from 1/8 to 1/4 of an 

inch (3–6 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. A very large area covering many states. In our area it 

grows over approximately the western halves of Oklahoma and 

Texas and all of New Mexico. 

Remarks. This is the second major complex of U. S. Opuntias. 

It includes a number of forms so different as to require separate 

treatment. Their existence renders any general description like 

the above almost useless, and yet they intergrade so often that 

they have caused much confusion. Most of them have been described 

at one time or another as separate species, yet they 

hardly seem that distinct, and there have been many schemes 

for grouping them. At the present time there is no agreement 

as to how they should be treated, the writings of the authorities 

ranging all the way from those who would give most of them 

species rank to those who speak of O. phaeacantha in general 

terms such as the above and would forget almost all of the segregates. 

The method followed here is to give the above general 

description, beyond which anyone satisfied with merely knowing 

O. phaeacantha in this general way need not go, but then to 

describe below the segregates which we find definite and distinguishable 

with known ranges, listing them as varieties. In this 

way we hope to satisfy the serious student and also to keep the 

knowledge of these forms alive until more about their real relationships 

can be learned. 

O. phaeacantha, all of these forms included, may equal or 

even exceed O. engelmannii in the amount of territory it covers 

in the United States. While it does not venture as far into the 

southeast as does that other species, it does range practically to 

the Pacific, and extends its territory far north through Nebraska, 

Colorado, and Montana. It is an extremely hardy, often 

very conspicuous cactus over most of the western United States. 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. major Eng. 


stems: Ascending and spreading. Growing without a central 

trunk to at least 3 feet tall. The pads are round or nearly so, 

only rarely being very broadly pear-shaped, and 4 to 8 inches 

long. Their surfaces are flat, deep green to yellow-green in 

color, often with some purplish around the areoles, and with 

only very slight glaucescence, usually becoming shiny when 

older. 

areoles: As the species, except smaller and more elongated 

oval when young than some phaeacantha forms, and spaced 

1 to 2 inches apart. 

spines: Fewer, shorter, and lighter in color than most forms 

of the species possess. There are typically 1 to 3 spines on only 

the upper edge areoles, with only a few individuals showing 

to 4 spines on the areoles of about the upper half of the pad. 

The 1 or 2 main spines are porrect or spreading, 3/4 to 17/8 

inches long, averaging about 11/4 inches, flat or round, with 

usually the uppermost one round and the lower one flattened. 

These are gray, whitish, or straw with brown or red-brown 

bases. There may or may not be 1 or 2 lower, deflexed, bristle- 

like spines, 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch long and grayish in color. 

glochids: Very few and short, or even none on the sides of 

the pads. The edges of old pads develop an average number 

of them to 1/4 of an inch or longer and yellow or brownish 

in color. 

flowers: As the species, except that the ovary is usually 11/4 

to 13/4 inches long. 

fruits: 11/2 to 21/2 inches long, club-shaped, with noticeable 

constriction of the bases, and constricted, pitted umbilici. In 

color, they are light red to purplish-red. The pulp is juicy, but 

sour to the taste. The seeds are about 3/16 of an inch (4–5 millimeters) 

in diameter. 

Range. From at least as far north as the vicinity of Santa Fe, 

New Mexico, south and east over the southeastern corner of 

New Mexico into far west Texas from El Paso to at least Fort 

Stockton. 

Remarks. Engelmann felt it necessary after describing O. phaeacantha 

in very general terms to break the species up into varieties, 

and one of these was his variety major. He described 

this variety rather poorly, merely stating that it had suborbiculate 

pads to 8 inches long and spines fewer, shorter, and paler 

than typical for the species. Coulter, working from the same 

specimens as Engelmann, while abandoning all of Engelmann’s 

other varieties of the species, felt this one alone was so distinct 

as to require listing. Wooton apparently means this variety only 

and is eliminating all of the lower, very spiny, and very common 

New Mexico forms of the species when he writes of O. 

phaeacantha, since he says it grows to 1 meter tall and “is the 

common sub-erect species of the north and central part of the 

state of New Mexico, but nowhere very abundant.” Britton and 

Rose, on the other hand, were the first to eliminate all of these 

varieties and spoke of O. phaeacantha only in the most general 

way. 

Early in this study, after we had seen many small, very spiny 

plants of this species with fat, hardly constricted fruits, we began 

looking for the reason why Engelmann and Coulter in their 

descriptions of the species both called the fruits “slender,” “Pyriform,” 

with “base much constricted,” and so on, as well as why 

Wooton described it as so large and so uncommon. We sensed 

something more than meets the eye in the usual present-day accounts 

of the species here, and began looking for some special 

form. 

In this search we finally found the form described above 

growing in a garden collection in New Mexico. It was a large, 

spreading plant 3 feet high and had grown in the few years it


had been in the garden to an impenetrable thicket over 6 feet 

across. The gardener could not remember where he had collected 

it, beyond the fact that it was in the mountains near 

Santa Fe, which is exactly the type locality given by Engelmann 

for his variety major. It was the first O. phaeacantha we 

had seen with actually club-shaped fruits, deeply pitted at the 

apex. The fruits were up to 21/2 inches long. In studying this 

plant, we soon realized that we must have the form which was 

the basis for Engelmann’s variety major. 

Wooton was certainly correct in stating that this form is not 

abundant anywhere, as much searching has never enabled us to 

find it growing wild anywhere in northern or central New 

Mexico. The nearest to that area where we have ourselves found 

it growing is west of Roswell, New Mexico, where we have 

found numerous individuals growing on the eastern foothills of 

the Capitan Mountains. We have also found isolated individuals 

of this form growing near Lovington and southeast of Carlsbad, 

both in the southeastern corner of the state. Griffiths’ herbarium 

specimens in the United States National Museum appear to increase 

the southeastern range of the variety still more, as he has 

what appear to be this same plant from near Fort Stockton, 

Texas, and from El Paso. We have not been able to collect it 

in Texas ourselves, however. 

The true extent of the range of this variety is very hard to 

discover, since, because of the general tendency to submerge any 

brown-spined Opuntia under the catch-all name O. phaeacantha 

and dismiss it, there are too many incomplete descriptions in the 

literature, and herbarium collections are hopelessly mixed. There 

are specimens from Arizona which may be this variety, but one 

can hardly be sure from a single pad, and we hesitate on this, 

since we have not found it anywhere in western New Mexico. 

In Texas the relationship between this variety and O. leptocarpa, 

which has almost identical flowers and fruits, but which 

does not grow so robustly and which usually has tuberous roots 

as well as smaller seeds, should be considered. While we have 

not seen variety major in far northern New Mexico, we do find 

a form of O. phaeacantha rather intermediate between this and 

O. phaeacantha var. camanchica in Colorado, growing at higher 

elevations and farther north than variety camanchica does in 

that state. It has spines, fruits, and seeds much like variety major, 

but is much smaller and more low-growing than this variety 

appears farther south. We do not know whether this difference 

is due to the environment and variety major should actually be 

considered to range into Colorado or whether this is another 

segregate, but we assume this is the cactus from Colorado described 

by Coulter as O. mesacantha var. oplocarpa, which 

might, therefore, be a synonym of variety major or might be a 

very closely related Colorado form. It is our opinion that O. 

expansa Gr. is a synonym of variety major. 

This is a rather rare variety of O. phaeacantha, but an important 

one to the understanding of the species. The ignoring of 

it in most recent accounts of the species has made much of the 

early literature on this species hardly understandable. We do not 

pretend to know the details of its relationship to the other forms 

of this complex, but the knowledge of it must be kept alive 

until all this is worked out. The tendency to overlook it entirely 

or to casually dismiss it as a hybrid between O. phaeacantha and 

O. engelmannii without presenting any evidence that this hybridization 

actually occurs will surely not satisfy any thorough 

student. 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. nigricans Eng. 


stems: A large bush 2 to 3 feet high when mature. The branches 

are upright but without any central stem and so it spreads 

outward to form small thickets. The pads are normally 4 to 8 

inches but sometimes to 10 inches long, round to broadly egg- 

shaped, with little or no constriction below. These pads are 

thin to medium thickness. In color they are at first a very 

glaucous blue-green, but when older become yellow-green. 

The two colors often contrast sharply between the upper and 

lower pads of the same plant. 

areoles: 3/4 to 17/8 inches apart. They are oval to round and 

small to medium sized on the sides of the pads, increasing to 

3/8 of an inch and becoming round on the edges of the pads. 

spines: There are 1 to 6 spines per areole on the upper 1/2 to 

almost all areoles of the pad. There is 1 main central spine 

which is only rarely missing, 1/2 to 2 inches long, porrect to 

deflexed in position, medium thickness to very heavy, very 

flattened or even triangular in shape. This spine is mostly 

black or blackish-brown, with usually a zone of gray or purplish-gray 

above and then a dark tip. There will usually be 2 

lateral spines very similar to this one, spreading and often 

curving outward. There will usually be 1 upper spine (which, 

however, may be missing) the same length as the others, erect 

or porrect in position, and similar to them except apparently 

always round. Below these main spines will be 0 to 4 lower, 

deflexed, slender, often bristle-like spines 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch 

long, usually gray with bases and tips somewhat blackish. 

glochids: Red-brown, brown, straw, or mottled in color. 

They are very variable in number, from almost none to very 

many on the sides of the pads, but almost always becoming 

many to very many and 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch long on the 

edges of the pads. 

flowers: As the species, except that the ovary is only 3/4 to 

1 inch long. 

fruits: Oval to goblet-shaped, with some slight constriction 

at the base and a rather deeply pitted apex. In size they are 

3/4 to 11/2 inches long. They become deep purplish-red. The 

seeds are 1/8 to almost 3/16 of an inch (3–4 millimeters) in diameter, 

flat, but usually very irregular in shape. 

Range. Apparently comprising a narrow but very long strip of


territory entering Texas from the south, where we have collected 

the plant in Coahuila, Mexico, and proceeding far north 

into New Mexico. The eastern and western boundaries of this 

strip are approximately as follows: entering Texas between Del 

Rio on the east and the Chisos Mountains on the west, proceeding 

northward past Fort Stockton on the east and Alpine on the 

west, then to the eastern foothills and the western slopes of the 

Guadalupe and Capitan mountains in southern New Mexico, 

and finally to the sides of the abrupt escarpment just east of 

Mosquero, New Mexico, in Harding County, which is its most 

northeasterly known range, and to the hills between Albuquerque 

and Cuba, New Mexico, which is its most northwesterly 

known penetration. 

Remarks: This cactus often forms dense thickets on the sides and 

tops of rocky ridges or steep slopes. It is a beautiful plant in the 

spring of the year when its pads are new and a wonderful bluish- 

green color, their smooth, glaucous surfaces contrasting with the 

heavy, blackish spines. But later in the summer, when the extreme 

heat and dryness have had their effect, one would hardly 

recognize it as the same plant, for its pads have become by then 

a yellowish-green from which they will not change for the rest 

of their lives. 

Because it grows in the type locality of that plant and because 

both have blackish coloring in the spines, this form has 

been widely mistaken for O. atrispina Gr., particularly since 

Britton and Rose seem to describe this plant under that name. 

However, any careful reading of Griffiths’ description of O. 

atrispina will show that this cannot be the cactus he had in 

mind, and even a casual comparison will separate the two. 

When we come to establish what this cactus really is, we find 

only one account in the literature which will fit it, and that is 

Engelmann’s description of O. phaeacantha var. nigricans. Admittedly 

his description of this form is so incomplete that we 

can only guess at what he had before him, yet we cannot ignore 

the statements of a botanists of his stature, so when we find a 

cactus fitting his description perfectly as far as it goes and still 

existing in the area of his type, we must presume that we have 

in this cactus the plant he meant. When we notice that the flowers, 

which he did not describe, are on our plant the large, orange- 

yellow blooms with red centers of the O. phaeacantha complex, 

and that the fruits fall within the limits of that species, then I 

feel that we can be certain we have before us the O. phaeacantha 

var. nigricans of Engelmann, and that it is a wide-ranging vari- 

ety of this very large and complex species. 

It has been the fashion for many years to regard this variety 

as merely a synonym of the species broadly considered, yet any 

reasonable amount of observation will show how different this 

form is from the other varieties here listed. The flower has a 

remarkably short ovary (about 3/4 of an inch long), which is 

distinctly different from the l1/4- to 11/2-inch ovary of some others 

in this complex. Its spines are as others in the group in 

having the main central flattened and the uppers round, and so 

on, but only variety nigricans has such dark colored, such heavy 

and such greatly flattened lower centrals, and no other form of 

the species has the heavy, flat, spreading laterals of this variety. 

It is interesting to note that almost every recent work which 

has dropped O. phaeacantha var. nigricans has then described 

this plant separately under the name of O. atrispina. 

After studying both her description and her preserved specimens, 

I believe that Miss Anthony’s O. engelmannii X phaeacantha 

of her Big Bend study is this cactus. I have heard it 

called such a hybrid by others, and if one likes to speculate on 

hybrids, this would be a likely candidate. The bluish-green of 

its young pads, the possession of heavy, curving lateral spines, 

the grayness instead of yellowness of the upper parts of its 

spines, much about its fruits and seeds all remind one of O. 

engelmannii, but no form of O. engelmannii has red-centered, 

yellow flowers. Here again experimental work with these plants 

to establish something of their genetics is all that would clarify 

things further, and renaming various forms as hybrids before 

we even know whether the species involved can interbreed 

would not seem really to advance our understanding. 

On the tops of many limestone ridges from just west of Fort 

Stockton, Texas, to around Sanderson, this plant grows together 

with O. strigil, the two such contrasting Opuntias making a 

strikingly beautiful sight together. 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. brunnea Eng. 


stems: To about 3 feet tall, consisting of upright branches 

without a central trunk. Pads 4 to 8 inches long, round or 

even wider than they are long, usually with no constriction 

below, but sometimes broadly egg-shaped with some lower 

constriction. Their color is slightly blue-green when very 

young, when older glaucous yellow-green, usually with some 

purplish-red mottling on the edges of the pads and these often 

suffused with this color in winter. The pads are rather thick. 

areoles: Small to medium and elongated to almost round on 

the sides of the pads, enlarge to about 3/16 of an inch or so 

and become almost round on the edges of old pads. They are 

spaced 3/4 to 15/8 inches apart. 

spines: 1 to 5 per areole on only the upper edge or to at most 

the upper third of the pad. The main central spine is 1 to 3 

inches long, porrect or deflexed, straight or often twisted and 

bent, medium to heavy, and round to slightly flattened. There 

will usually, but not always be 1 to 3 upper spines, 1 to 21/2 

inches long, erect or spreading upward, medium to very 

heavy, round to very flat and twisted. These main spines are 

all blackish, chocolate-brown or red-brown at the bases, their 

upper parts tan or grayish. There may be 1 or 2 lower, deflexed, 

slender, and often bristle-like spines, 3/16 to 1 inch 

long. These are either round or flattened, and gray in color.


glochids: Brown to straw in color, almost none to an average 

number but very short on the sides of the pads. On the edges 

there are few at first, later often increasing to very many and 

growing to 3/4 of an inch long. 


fruits: 11/4 to 21/2 inches long, oval to club-shaped with some 

constriction below and a shallowly concave umbilicus above. 

They are dull red in color. The seeds measure 3/16 of an inch 

or a little more (41/2–51/2 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. Southwest Texas from the Anacacho Mountains east of 

Del Rio along the Rio Grande through the Big Bend at least to 

El Paso, Texas. Also northward from the Big Bend through the 

Davis Mountains to the southern parts of the Guadalupe and 

Organ mountains, where it enters New Mexico a short distance. 

Remarks. Engelmann had an O. phaeacantha var. brunnea from 

El Paso, which was never redescribed after his time and which 

was apparently never taken seriously by anyone except Griffiths. 

In Griffiths’ preserved collection I find very good specimens 

of this form collected at El Paso and at Fort Hancock and 

labeled by him with this name, but relabeled otherwise since 

then by others. I find the variety quite abundant in the Anacacho 

Mountains, growing here and there around Langtry, 

Texas, and on into the eastern Big Bend. It becomes quite numerous 

again west of Terlingua, Texas, and continues all along 

the Rio Grande to El Paso. There are some fairly good stands of 

it in the Davis Mountains and scattered individuals along the 

Texas-New Mexico line at the Guadalupe, Hueco, and Franklin 

mountains, where it enters New Mexico for a short distance. 

Engelmann described the form very incompletely, but did 

mention most of the important features which distinguish it 

from the other varieties of the species. The greater glaucescence, 

thicker joints, and purplish-red winter coloring he mentions are 

all important points in recognizing it. He remarks that the spines 

are longer than typical for the species, and with the spines 

usually to 3 inches long this is important. He calls the spines 

greatly angled, which is true of most of the main ones, but in 

this cactus one notices that it is the upper centrals which are the 

most greatly flattened instead of the lower central-a reversal 

of the usual order in the species. Beyond this he does not go, 

but the flowers and fruits are typical for the species, and the 

seeds larger than those of most of the other varieties. 

The coloring this plant assumes in severe weather, when linked 

with the 3-inch spines, misleads many observers into thinking it 

is O. macrocentra. When I first realized the existence of this 

form, I checked back through those of my own specimens which 

I had called O. macrocentra and found that I had included several 

of this cactus under that name. I am convinced that herbarium 

collections filed under O. macrocentra often contain 

specimens of this cactus, and that some descriptions of that plant 

have been overly broadened and made almost useless because 

of this confusion. 

To distinguish these two cacti from only vegetative parts is 

not always easy, but one clue is that the coloring of O. phaeacantha 

var. brunnea is not ever actually purple, as is that of the 

other, but really a dull, dark, purplish-red. In gardens of west 

Texas collectors I have several times had my attention called to 

the fact that one of a collector’s O. macrocentra specimens will 

be a beautiful purple while the other one beside it will be a very 

different purplish-red. This is because they have collected for 

that plant a specimen of this variety which is all but unknown 

today after reposing in the synonym of O. phaeacantha for 100 

years. 

There are other differences besides differences of hue, but they 

take close observation. The pads of variety brunnea are thick, 

while those of the other are thin. While the areoles of this variety 

are 3/4 of an inch or more apart, with an average over 1 

inch apart, those of the other species are always less than 1 inch 

apart. The spines of this variety are long, but never as long as 

the maximum on O. macrocentra. Although they easily equal 

in length those on some less robust specimens of that other species, 

they are more brown than black, and are rigid rather than 

flexible like those others. The flowers of the two are very similar, 

but the fruits are different. O. macrocentra’s fruits are to 

only 11/2 inches long, with no constriction below, deeply pitted 

above, and bright red to orange-red. Those of variety brunnea 

are to 21/2 inches long, with some constriction below, shallow 

umbilicus, and dull, dark red color. 

It is my opinion that when Britton and Rose gave for O. 

macrocentra fruit to 23/8 inches long and purple, they did it 

because they had included in their specimens some which were 

actually of this variety. This idea seems to be borne out by the 

figure they featured to illustrate O. macrocentra. I could never 

visualize O. macrocentra from their figure, while it is a passable 

representation of an O. phaeacantha var. brunnea pad. More recently 

both Backeberg and Earle have followed in giving such 

overly broadened descriptions of O. macrocentra. 

Anthony’s O. tenuispina from the Big Bend also appears to 

be this cactus. There are reasons to think that Rose’s O. chihuahuensis 

may also have been this variety, but it is so incompletely 

described that one cannot be sure what it was. Wooton and 

Standley considered the plants of the O. phaeacantha complex 

found in the Organ Mountains just within New Mexico to be 

O. chihuahuensis, saying that they exactly match the type specimens 

of Rose’s plant. They also say that a specimen from that 

location classified by Coulter himself as his O. mesacantha var. 

oplocarpa is the same. Specimens that I have collected in this 

area exactly match the description given above for variety 

brunnea, and the evidence seems good that both of the above 

are this variety. These plants are certainly different from the 

Colorado plants called variety oplocarpa by Coulter. If that is 

a valid variety at all it apparently does not enter New Mexico 

from Colorado. 

The question of how far variety brunnea ranges into New 

Mexico is a hard one. Assuming that the above-mentioned plants 

are synonyms, Wooton mentions them from only the Organ


Mountains, but Britton and Rose talk as though they were more 

widespread over southern New Mexico, extending north out of 

Chihuahua. I have seen this variety in New Mexico only in the 

Guadalupe and Organ mountains, and this not over 40 miles 

or so from the border. I have never seen this plant west of El 

Paso, but recently I was sent a specimen from the Santa Rita 

Mountains of Arizona which appears to be it. Whether further 

study will enlarge its range westward remains to be seen. 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. camanchica (Eng.) 


roots: Although in most cases the roots are fibrous, occasional 

specimens have tubers upon their roots. 

stems: Growing as a low, semiprostrate, spreading cactus. It 

produces large pads, but these usually lie on their edges by the 

second season to form chains of reclining pads. By the rooting 

of these pads there are formed clumps sometimes 3 to 5 feet 

across. The pads are often 8 or 9 inches in length, so a leaning 

branch may rise to a foot or even a little higher, but this is 

about the maximum height. The pads vary from perfectly 

round through egg-shaped, to occasionally broad club-shaped 

with constricted bases. They vary from 3 to 9 inches long, 

with slightly less width. The average size would be about 6 

inches long by 5 inches wide. The surfaces are flat and the 

thickness medium, which is slightly less than 1/2 inch thick. 

They are rather deep green in color with some glaucescence, 

sometimes taking on a reddish cast around the areoles and on 

the edges during the winter. 

areoles: These are oval or oblong to round. They are about 

3/16 of an inch across on the sides of the pads, enlarging to 

about 1/4 of an inch on the edges. They are from 3/4 to 11/2 

inches apart. 

spines: There will be from 1 to 8 spines on the upper 3/4 or 

more of the areoles, only the lowest areoles not bearing spines. 

The lowermost spine-bearing areoles usually have one spine, 

with the number increasing upward until the very upper and 

edge areoles have 3 to 8 spines. A fully armed areole will 

contain 1 to 5 straight upper spines 3/4 to 3 inches long. These 

spread in all directions upward and outward, are of medium 

thickness, entirely round on some specimens, flattened on 

others, their bases and usually the lower half brown, redbrown 

or blackish-brown, followed by a zone of tan, gray, 

purplish-gray, or whitish, and ending in yellowish, semitranslucent 

tips. It will also contain 1 to 5 lower spines turning or 

spreading downward from the lower part of the areole. The 

largest one of these may be up to 11/4 inches long, flattened, 

and rather heavy, but the rest of them will range smaller in 

size and thickness until they are hardly more than deflexed 

bristles. All of these lower spines are whitish or gray with 

brown tips. 

Plants not vigorous for some reason, such as those growing 

in shade, may put out pads as big as those on normal, robust 

plants, but will be deficient in spines. It is common then for 

only the upper third of the areoles to bear spines at all, and 

for these to have only 1 to 3 spines. In this case there will be 

2 lower, deflexed spines 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch long, gray with 

lighter tips on most of the armed areoles, and only an occasional 

areole on the very edge may have 1 of the heavier, 

brown upper spines to about 11/4 inches long. 

glochids: Somewhat variable. Some specimens will have almost 

none, some an average number, and sometimes on old 

pads of the same plant they may become very conspicuous. 

From 1/8 of an inch or nearly that short on the sides of the 

pads to at least 3/8 of an inch long on the edges of old pads. 

They are straw, tan, or brownish in color. 

flowers: As the species, except longer, with the ovary 11/4 to 

13/4 inches long. 

fruits: Bright cherry-red to dull plum-red when ripe, with 

juicy, pleasant-tasting flesh. Oval in shape, not constricted 

at the base, 1 to 21/2 inches long by 3/4 to 11/2 inches wide. The 

umbilicus is a rather narrow surface which is flat or only very 

shallowly concave. The seeds are 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch (41/2–6 

millimeters) in largest measurement. They are very irregular in 

shape, perfectly flat and thin, or much twisted and thicker, 

round to square or even sometimes almost triangular. They 

have conspicuous rims 1 to 11/2 millimeters wide, but sharp. 

These rims are usually wavy and irregular. 

Range. Out of Kansas and Colorado to the north over western 

Oklahoma, Texas, and all of eastern New Mexico. More specifically, 

it occurs in Oklahoma west of a line running approximately 

from Blackwell to Ardmore, and in Texas west of a line 

from near Fort Worth south to the Balcones Fault in the vicinity 

of San Antonio. It is not known to grow south of San Antonio, 

and occurs rather commonly east of the central mountains in 

New Mexico, but is seldom if ever seen west of central New 

Mexico. 

Remarks. This is the smallest, most prostrate, most spiny version 

of the species. It occurs primarily east of the more upright, 

bushy varieties’ mountain ranges, preferring to grow on the 

high plains and hills east of the mountains. In their healthy, 

robust, typical forms these varieties are easy to tell apart. In 

immature, stunted, atypical conditions it is often impossible to 

distinguish them one from the other. This is, however, true of 

most Opuntias, even separate species. When he undertook the 

study of our cacti, Engelmann found it necessary to distinguish 

this form. He listed it as a separate species, but he remarked that 

it differed from O. phaeacantha “only in habit.” This is essentially 

true, but exactly what that means and what significance 

there is to it cannot really be told even yet, 100 years later.

camanchia -> 

camanchica 


It is true that the upright growth of the other varieties and 

the prostrate growth of this variety are hardly definite enough 

characters upon which to separate species. Shade or poor growing 

conditions will render them all almost identical in a couple 

of seasons. This smaller cactus called variety camanchica is also 

normally more spiny than its larger relatives, but the same poor 

conditions will cause it to develop fewer spines. Fruit shape 

seems a minor point also, yet minor as these things may be individually, 

when taken together they add up to two clearly different 

cacti. No matter how closely they may coincide when 

they can’t grow normally, when they are grown side by side in 

the same good environment, they are separate entities. I have 

seen this in a well-arranged old garden, where on one hand was 

upright O. phaeacantha var. major 3 to 4 feet high and lightly 

spined, while 6 feet away a plant of prostrate O. phaeacantha 

var. camanchica made an impenetrable mat, about 1 foot high 

covered with its much more numerous spines. Fruits were characteristically 

different on these two plants also. 

So there is a difference, even though, beginning with Britton 

and Rose, numerous authorities have made these and the other 

forms listed here as varieties synonymous. Borg has stood almost 

alone in setting this cactus off from the others in the species 

as a separate subspecies. No one quite knows, even yet, the 

basis for these differences or what their significances are. The 

kind of differences we see do not seem great enough to fit our 

modern ideas of separate species, and so we agree in the downgrading 

of such as this form from that of species rank. But then 

what is it, if not a species? Is camanchica an intermediate of 

some kind? Is there a hybridization, and if so between what 

forms? Or are these merely individual variations within a species? 

There is even yet not one particle of evidence, no breeding 

records, no hybridization experiments, no genetic studies on 

these plants, so we cannot answer such questions as these. We 

only know that we are faced with the separate forms and need 

a way to refer to them. Hesitating to call them species, suspecting 

that they are in some way more closely related than that, 

we use the only other rank currently in vogue for such close 

relationships, and our cactus becomes O. phaeacantha var. Camanchica. 

This then, is the prostrate but large-jointed, heavy-spined 

prickly pear which Engelmann found growing on the Llano 

Estacado, which we know is common in western Oklahoma, 

northwestern Texas, the panhandles of both these states, and 

into New Mexico, and which Coulter stated grew “from southern 

Colorado through western Texas, New Mexico and Ari- 

zona.” 

As might be expected in any form with such a wide range, 

there are many minor variations in local races. There have been 

attempts to give various of these species or varietal rank, but it 

does not seem they can be maintained. Much confusion has resulted. 

Some of these local forms which can best be regarded as 

synonyms but which are often referred to separately should be 

mentioned here to help a beginner past the confusion. 

In central Texas a form with somewhat fewer spines than 

typical and more often having tuberous roots, but otherwise 

indistinguishable from this variety was described and named by 

Rose O. mackensenii. Because of its occasional tuberous roots he 

seemed to associate it with O. compressa rather than the O. 

phaeacantha group, but otherwise it is clearly of this complex. 

It is the form seen commonly around Austin, Texas, and west 

through the Texas hill country on the southern edge of the variety’s 

range. Perhaps its fewer spines may be due to marginal 

growing conditions on the edge of the range. 

O. phaeacantha var. camanchica has often been called. O. 

tortispina, a name coined by Engelmann for a form with spines 

lighter-colored and more twisted than is typical. The two cannot 

be separated, and I have a number of times, in northwestern 

Oklahoma, seen the two supposedly different forms growing 

together along with all sorts of intermediates between them. The 

lighter form is more common in northern Oklahoma and Kansas. 

Miss Anthony unaccountably uses this name for he variety 

with the regular dark spines as it is found in the Big Bend. 

There grows in Colorado the nearest thing we have seen to an 

intermediate between variety camanchica and the upright varieties 

of O. phaeacantha. These Colorado plants have the low- 

growing form of this variety, but far fewer spines as well as 

elongated, clavate fruits and small seeds such as it never has. 

Most of the characters of this Colorado plant are like those of 

variety major, except that it lacks the size and erectness of that 

variety. It seems to be the form described by Coulter as O. 

mesacantha var. oplocarpa, but may represent only the effect 

of the severe northern climate and altitude on variety major. At 

the same time, variety camanchica grows very spiny and very 

typical up along the east side of the Colorado mountains. However, 

we have seen a few specimens from Oklahoma and north- 

west Texas of variety camanchica which approached this Colorado 

form by having longer than typical fruits. Although it is 

so incompletely described that no one can be sure, O. pyrocarpa 

Gr. may have been such a variety camanchica with minimum 

spines and long fruits. 

Indistinct and problematical as variety camanchica may be 

to a taxonomist, it is very real and very much a plant to be 

taken into consideration over huge areas of the high plains. Here 

it is the largest Platyopuntia to be found, and often quite a 

pest. The grass it protects from grazing animals often grows up 

to practically hide it, but everything moving must be alert for 

it or suffer the consequences of blundering into it. 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. tenuispina (Eng.) 


roots: Previous accounts did not describe the roots, except 

for Wooton, who said they were sometimes tuberous. Roots of 

those living plants examined in this study were fibrous.


stems: A low, semiprostrate, spreading plant. Occasionally 

the most ascending branches of the plant may extend to about 

1 foot high. The pads are 3 to 8 inches long and to 4 inches 

wide, pear-shaped, with the bases noticeably constricted. The 

pads are rather thin, smooth, and dark blue-green or bright, 

shiny green in color. 

areoles: The areoles are oval to practically round, and from 

slightly over 1/8 to about 3/16 of an inch across. They are closely 

set on the pads, varying from 3/8 of an inch apart low on 

the pad to one inch apart higher up. Some full-sized pads 

have no areoles over 3/4 of an inch apart. 

spines: There are found 1 to 6 spines on all but the very lowest 

areoles of the pad. Areoles up to about the middle of the pad 

will carry 1 to 3 slender, whitish spines from a mere fraction 

of an inch to as much as 1 inch long. These all grow downward 

and lie spread almost against the pad surface. The most 

fully armed areoles around the upper edge of the pad will 

carry 1 or 2 main spines 1 to 21/2 inches long, usually white 

or gray, always with brown tips and often with pale brownish 

bases. They are usually turned severely downward, but occasionally 

one may stand fairly erect on the edge of the pad. 

These main spines are straight, slender, round or practically 

so, firm instead of bristle-like, but slender enough to be easily 

flexible. Below them in the areole will be 1 to 4 shorter, de- 

flexed spines like those found lower on the pad. 

glochids: Bright reddish-brown fading to dirty brown, rather 

numerous, forming a dense tuft in the center of the areole, 

but very slender and short, being only 1/8 of an inch or slightly 

longer on any areole. They hardly extend beyond the 

brown wool of the areole. The effect of this is to give the 

areoles the appearance of bulging outward. 

flowers: As the species, except only 21/2 to 3 inches across, 

and when old fading gradually to a pale pinkish. There are 6 

to 8 green stigma lobes. 

fruits: Bright red in color, oblong or elliptic, with little if 

any constriction at the base, but with a very deeply pitted 

umbilicus. From 1 to 15/8 inches long and about 3/4 of an inch 

thick. There are usually brown glochids on the areoles of the 

fruits, and sometimes the upper edge areoles have 1 to 3 slender, 

whitish spines, tipped brown and up to 3/8 of an inch long, 

on them. The seeds are very irregular in outline, sometimes 

round and almost even, but more often elongated in one axis, 

twisted, or otherwise unevenly shaped. This gives quite a variation 

in measurement, individual seeds from the same plant 

ranging from hardly more than 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch (3–6 millimeters) 

in greatest diameter. They are of average thickness. 

Range. Originally stated to be limited to the sandhills around 

El Paso, from the village of Dona Ana, above Las Cruces, New 

Mexico, to the village of San Elizario below El Paso, in Texas. 

In spite of numerous claims to a broader range, there seem to be 

no indisputable records of the plant outside of this limited area. 

Remarks. In his study of cacti 100 years ago, Engelmann described 

and named a small prickly pear growing on the sand- 

hills around El Paso. It had several distinctive characters, namely 

its constricted pads, its rather numerous, light-colored, and 

slender, flexible spines which were mostly pointed downward 

on the pads, its bright brown or reddish-brown but short 

glochids, its close-standing areoles, and its oblong, deeply-pitted 

fruits. Engelmann considered it a separate species and called it 

O. tenuispina. 

Coulter repeated Engelmann’s description and range for the 

plant, apparently no other specimens of it having come to light 

in the 40 years intervening before his own study but those first 

seen by Engelmann. It appears from this that it was a rare plant 

limited to the habitat of the Rio Grande Valley sands around 

El Paso and Las Cruces. 

In his own accounts a little later, however, Wooton made a 

strange statement which opened the gates to much confusion, 

saying, “This is the most common species in the lower Rio 

Grande Valley on the heavier soils.” How he transferred the 

cactus from the sand hills to the heavier soils is unknown, and 

the photograph he reproduced for the plant is so poor that it 

does not tell us whether he was confusing this plant with another 

or not. 

At any rate, Britton and Rose apparently did become so confused. 

Although they saw the real thing and give us probably 

the best picture of the cactus so far existing, their description 

shows that they also included with it something quite different, 

something with fewer spines. Having brought in some other 

plant, they included this other plant’s range and said the species 

even grows west into Arizona. 

Following them, the range has been enlarged by other writers 

until the plant has sometimes been considered a common cactus 

of all southern New Mexico and Arizona. Finally Anthony 

called a rather large, bushy cactus of almost entirely different 

description growing in the Big Bend of Texas O. tenuispina. We 

have concluded that her plant was instead O. phaeacantha var. 

brunnea. 

Nothing can be definite until the question is decided: is O. 

tenuispina the rare plant of very limited habitat it at first appeared 

to be, or is it really a common plant of wide range? Is 

the broadening of range and description a natural result of 

wider study or is there another cactus close enough in general 

characters to have become confused with it and so explain the 

increase of range? 

A partial answer to the question can be found by looking at 

Rose’s own specimens as they are still preserved. Upon searching 

them out, we find that all of the specimens he called by this 

name from outside the original small range have been redetermined 

by other students since as ordinary O. tortispina. This is 

the white-spined form O. phaeacantha var. camanchica sometimes 

takes, and I believe some of the confusion has arisen be- 

cause of mistaking this cactus for O. tenuispina.


There is an even better explanation for the trouble with this 

cactus. One of the problems of Opuntia study is the fact that 

most Opuntias, when immature or not growing in conditions 

very favorable to them, fail to put on their complete spination. 

The very characters of spines upon which so much depends in 

recognizing them do not show at all on such stunted specimens. 

Anyone who has tried to collect and grow Opuntias knows that 

all too often his various beautiful types, painstakingly gathered, 

end up in a few years of cultivation practically indistinguishable. 

And he will find that all of the O. phaeacantha group show in 

this imperfect growth form a few slender, whitish, rather deflexed 

spines and lack their main and heavy upper spines. If too 

little light is part of the trouble there is also a tendency for the 

pads of all of them to lengthen and produce narrowed bases. 

Now this imperfect form of all these varieties happens to fit 

somewhat nearly the description of O. tennispina, especially the 

very general and simplified descriptions of Wooton and Britton 

and Rose, which have been the ones most widely copied by recent 

writers. The details of areoles and so on, having been left 

out of their descriptions and so not being referred to, it has been 

easy to imagine that many weakly spined specimens of the other 

O. phaeacantha varieties were this cactus. In this way, we believe, 

the supposed range of O. tenuispina has grown and grown, 

while the conception of the plant has become diluted so that 

more and more plants have been taken in. 

The actual O. tenuispina, however, when properly recognized, 

is one of our rarest prickly pears, and it is now probably very 

near extinction. Most of the sandy strip along the Rio Grande 

where it had grown is now included in the remarkable megalopolis 

which is fast fusing Las Cruces, El Paso, and Juarez, and 

most cacti there are already gone or appear doomed as the 

build-up proceeds across the sands toward the slopes of the 

Franklin Mountains. It may be that in the future there will be 

no further opportunity to study the problem of this form. 

I have not been so fortunate as to collect this cactus myself, 

in spite of quite a lot of wandering around the sands of 

its area. However, I am indebted to Mr. Charles Polaski, the 

remarkable collector and grower of cacti who has been the 

source of most of the Oklahoma specimens in European collections, 

for making it possible for me to describe and photograph 

the plant. He has a whole bed of the variety grown from a collection 

he made, “west of El Paso.” We feel most certain it is the 

plant in question, and it may represent the only living specimens 

in cultivation today. It represents what we feel to be at least a 

very distinct variety with definite form not due to stunting or 

other environmental influence. It has kept its characteristics unchanged 

both in Mr. Polaski’s yard in the rather severe Oklahoma 

climate, and in my garden in San Antonio. I feel most fortunate 

to be able to include it in this study at all, even though 

I cannot give any further data on presently existing wild populations. 

Perhaps this will prompt someone to locate and study 

them further, if they still exist at all. 

It is my opinion that this form is the smallest, most low- 

growing of the O. phaeacantha complex, and so I list it here as 

a variety of that species. 

Opuntia cymochila Eng. 


roots: Described as fibrous, and usually so, but occasional 

examples with tuberous roots have been found. 

stems: Prostrate. Growing as a spreading mat of small pads 

rooting where they lie either flat on the ground or resting on 

their edges. The height of the clump will be the height of the 

most upright pad, which may be 6 or 8 inches, while the width 

of the clump is usually 1 to 4 feet. Pads are usually round or 

sometimes even wider than they are long, but occasionally become 

slightly egg-shaped. These pads are rather thick for their 

size, averaging about 1/2 inch thick. They are from 21/2 to 

occasionally 6 inches long and to 4 inches wide. In the dry 

season or in the winter the pads are much shrunken and take 

on a very wrinkled appearance, but in a moist growing season 

they fill out and become flat. They are deep glossy green 

when filled with moisture, but when dry or suffering from 

freezes, they become lighter green often suffused with a reddish 

color. 

areoles: These are oval or round, small or medium in size, 

and usually 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch apart, but have been found 

1 inch apart. 

spines: Robust plants will have a total of 1 to 7 spines on 

almost all areoles or sometimes on those of only the upper 

half of the pad. Of these spines, 1 to 3 are main central spines 

which are 1 to 23/4 inches long, fairly heavy, round to flattened 

and often twisted, but straight. Most of these spread in 

a downward direction, but sometimes one or two of them 

may stand straight out from the areole or even ascend. From 

the lower part of the areole there will spread downward 1 to 

5 small spines 3/16 to 1 inch long. These are slender, almost 

bristle-like to fairly stout and very slightly flattened. All 

Spines are white or gray with the very tips light brown and 

translucent, and the bases brownish. Occasionally the brownish 

coloring extends up most of the length of the spine. Less 

healthy plants growing in excessively dry or exposed places 

and all new pads before maturity will lack the main upper 

spines entirely and will present only the lower, deflexed 

spines, these 1/4 to 1 inch long, slender and bristle-like, and 

pure white with brownish tips. 

glochids: Yellow, straw, or dirty brownish-yellow in color. 

They are not too numerous in young areoles, but usually increase 

to very many in old areoles. They stand out in a com-


pact cluster in the middle of the areole and are comparatively 

long, 3/16 of an inch at first, becoming often 1/2 inch long on 

old pads. 

flowers: About 3 inches in diameter and 21/2 inches tall. Usually 

wholly chrome-yellow in color, but sometimes with the 

center golden-brown. The outer petals are short and pointed, 

the inner ones broad at the ends with a tiny point at the apex. 

The stamens are very pale yellow, the style long and pale 

green. There are 9 green stigma lobes. 

fruits: Purplish-red in color, oval or broadly egg-shaped, 1 

to 11/2 inches long and 3/4 to 1 inch in diameter at the thickest 

point. The base is not constricted at all, or only very slightly 

so on some plants. The umbilicus is narrow and forms a deep 

pit. The seeds are large, a little over 3/16 to just over 1/4 of an 

inch (5–61/2 millimeters) in diameter, of medium thickness, 

irregular in shape. In the same plant there will be seeds practically 

round, elongated, and almost triangular, and sometimes 

they are greatly twisted. The body of the seed is depressed 

in its center with a ridge around its edge. The rim of 

the seed is wide to very wide (1–2 millimeters), but very 

sharp. It often undulates, but there is no notch at the hilum. 

Range. The whole of the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles and 

adjacent New Mexico west to the mountains and south into west 

Texas. Extending east from the panhandles about as far as 

Cheyenne, Woodward, Alva, and Manchester, Oklahoma, and 

north into west and central Kansas and eastern Colorado. It 

also grows south in Texas to a line running from near Abilene 

approximately to Big Spring and Pecos, then dipping sharply 

south past Fort Davis to just south of Marfa, the southernmost 

point at which the cactus has been recorded. From there the 

range retreats northward abruptly, entering New Mexico east 

of the Sacramento Mountains. 

Remarks. O. cymochila was first described and named by Engelmann 

as a small cactus of the Comanche Plains. When he 

later erected his large species O. rafinesquii he included this 

plant in it as O. rafinesquii var. cymochila. When Coulter substituted 

mesacantha for rafinesquii, he left our cactus as O. mesacantha 

var. cymochila. These men would, therefore, connect 

this cactus with O. compressa, which is the presently accepted 

name for that widespread Opuntia complex. 

Wooton, in his study of New Mexico cacti, says instead that 

the cactus, except for its having succulent instead of dry fruits, 

resembles O. polyacantha. 

Britton and Rose, in their study, made O. cymochila a synonym 

of O. tortispina Eng. and were followed in this by Borg. 

Backeberg connected the two, but still distinguished between 

them and so has O. tortispina var. cymochila. Since both Boissevain 

and Benson consider O. tortispina closely related to or 

even a variety of O. phaeacantha, a view with which I agree, 

this gives us yet another way of relating this plant. 

There are plausible reasons for each of the above combina- 

tions, yet obviously they can’t all be correct. The cactus remains 

recognizably distinct from them all, and since there seem to be 

about as many reasons for one combination as for another, it is 

probably better not linked any more closely to any one of them 

than to the others. We therefore leave it standing separate among 

them until we have better evidence for one relationship or 

another. 

The mature and robust O. cymochila is easily distinguished 

from the actual O. compressa and all the varieties of that cactus, 

some of which may grow in its range, by the possession of 

spines on all or nearly all areoles. O. compressa and its varieties 

have spines only on the upper parts of the pads. This seems a 

simple distinction, but a chance for confusion enters with the 

fact that young or stunted specimens of O. cyrnochila often lack 

the major spines, and the appearance of this weakly bespined 

growth is almost identical to that of some forms of O. compressa. 

I have collected plants, particularly just north of Big 

Spring, Texas, which seemed perfectly good examples of O. 

compressa until grown for a couple of years in good conditions, 

when they put forth more numerous spines than that cactus ever 

has. These plants, by then, had also displayed the fruits of O. 

cymochila, rather oval fruits with little or no constriction of the 

bases and with very large, relatively thin seeds. These features 

are greatly different from the narrow, clavate fruits of the other 

plant, with its much smaller, very thick seeds. 

It is obvious that O. cymochila is distinct from the dry, spiny- 

fruited O. polyacantha, and I do not believe that Wooton ever 

meant they should be combined, but it is surprising how closely 

a stunted plant of O. cymochila with pads all shrunken and 

with only depressed, white spines can approximate this other 

species when seen on some dry Canadian River bluff. Here 

again, a chance to grow well and put out its real spination as 

well as its purplish, naked, fleshy fruits will show it as so entirely 

different from the other with its dry, spiny fruits that 

in one’s garden it is hard to believe they could ever have looked 

alike. 

The problem of relating this cactus properly to the O. phaeacantha 

group is more complex. It might have fallen in line 

neatly as a smaller relative of O. phaeacantha var. camanchica, 

much of whose range it shares, except for the interjection of 

another name and description which has brought nothing but 

confusion for this area. 

At the same time and in the same publication in which he 

first put forth O. cymochila, Engelmann also described an O. 

tortispina. He gave the same range for the two, the Comanche 

Plains. Coulter repeated the description of the latter, but said 

that O. tortispina grows all the way to Nebraska. Significantly, 

he did not combine it as a variety of his O. mesacantha (O. 

compressa), as he did O. cymochila. Wooton ignored O. tortispina 

entirely, but Britton and Rose took this to be the proper 

name for the common cactus growing from Wisconsin and Dakota 

all the way to New Mexico, and decided O. cymochila was 

the same plant. They were followed in this by others. We must


take time to see what O. tortispina was before we can determine 

if it is our plant or how they are related. 

Engelmann’s description of O. tortispina had some characters 

in common with O. cymochila. He said it was a practically 

prostrate cactus with round or nearly round pads. It had straw- 

colored or brownish glochids. It had upper spines 11/2 to 21/2 

inches long and white or white with yellowish tips and bases. 

Its fruits were oval and not constricted. All this is similar in the 

two plants. But in size of pad O. tortispina was said to be larger 

than O. cymochila. Engelmann had before him pads 6 to 8 

inches long with areoles 1 to 11/2 inches apart. This larger plant 

also had a total of 6 to 8 spines, 1 or 2 more than a robust O. 

cymochila has. Much has been made of the fact that Engelmann 

said his O. tortispina had spines compressed, angled, sometimes 

even channeled and twisted, and named the plant for this feature. 

Its fruits were also longer, being 13/4 to 2 inches long, with 

at most a shallow depression at the top. 

Everyone remembers the twisted-spine character, but most of 

the other characters Engelmann gave for that plant have been 

ignored. I believe a careful reading of the description shows that 

Engelmann’s O. tortispina has characters found quite often in 

O. phaeacantha var. camanchica, but except for the whitish 

spine color, its characters really give us a much more robust 

plant with larger pads, more widely spaced areoles, and fruits 

and seeds more similar to that cactus than to O. cymochila. 

This leaves us with O. cymochila as a distinct form occurring 

over a vast area of the high western plains. Where it grows in 

more hilly country it still is usually found on the flats of the 

valleys rather than on steep slopes. It often dots the flat plains 

of the panhandles where the sod has not been broken. It has 

kept its hold through the dust storms of the area, often now 

perched on top of low mounds formed by the drifting dust 

which was held by its older pads and through which its newer 

ones have grown. In more grassy places and especially on the 

rough breaks along the Canadian and other rivers of the area, 

it is often very hard to find, as the grass grows up in the clump 

and entirely shields the low pads from view. One can learn to 

spot it by looking for the mounds of longer grass here and there 

on the prairie caused by the protection from grazing animals 

the grass gets from the unseen pads between which it grows. 

Opuntia compressa (Salisbury) Macbride 

“Low Prickly Pear,” “Smooth Prickly Pear” 


roots: Fibrous, often entirely so, but often with spindle- 

shaped to spherical tubers upon these fibrous roots. The plant 

never has a central taproot. 

stems: A low-growing species with pads entirely prostrate or 

spreading upward at first and then reclining on their edges 

with age. The height of the plant thus is usually 1 foot or less, 

but occasionally in some forms it grows to 18 inches tall. The 

pads are round or even broader than long to egg-shaped or 

sometimes spindle-shaped, some with and some without constriction 

below. They are typically 1 to 6 inches long, by 1 to 

5 inches wide, but occasionally in some forms they may be to 

7 or 8 inches long on exceptionally robust specimens. They 

are of average thickness to very thick for their size, tuberculate 

by raised areoles or smooth and flat, dark green to pale 

or yellowish-green, some forms with purplish spots at the 

areoles in the winter. 

areoles: Small and inconspicuous, 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch in 

diameter and elongated oval to circular at first, becoming 

with age more circular and sometimes to 1/4 of an inch across. 

They are spaced 3/16 to 11/4 inches apart. 

spines: Entirely spineless or with spines on less than the upper 

half of each pad. Areoles of the lower half to two-thirds of 

each pad are always spineless. The armed areoles with 1 to 5 

spines are arranged as follows. There may be 1 or 2 straight 

main spines which stand porrect, somewhat deflexed or erect, 

1/4 to 21/4 inches in length, rather slender to heavy, round or 

flattened, their color from almost pure grayish-white to yellowish 

or mottled above with the bases brown or red-brown, 

or occasionally the whole spine brown. There may be present, 

but more often will be lacking, one lower, deflexed spine 3/16 

to 1 inch long, slender, similar in color. Some forms have occasionally, 

besides these, 1 or 2 bristle-like spines spreading 

downward, only 1/8 to 3/8 of an inch long, and white in color. 

glochids: Few, short, and fine at first, comprising a compact 

tuft in the middle of the areole, but usually increasing greatly 

in number on old pads and becoming to 1/4 or even 3/8 of an 

inch long. As numerous on the sides of the pads as on the 

edges, or even more numerous. They are greenish-yellow, 

straw, brown, or bright red-brown in color. 

flowers: 2 to 5 inches in diameter, pale yellow to orangeyellow, 

or orange-yellow with red centers. The ovary is elongated 

obovate to clavate and is 1 to 21/4 inches long. The 

anthers are cream-colored. The stigma lobes are 4 to 9 in 

number, white or yellowish in color. 

fruits: Clavate with constricted or greatly prolonged bases 

and narrow, noticeably depressed to deeply pitted umbilici, 

red-brown in color. The seeds are round, flat, but thickbodied, 

with narrow, acute rims. They are 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch 

(3–6 millimeters) in diameter and 2 to sometimes 4 millimeters 

thick. 

Range. Including all of the forms at least tentatively assigned 

to the species, ranging over the entire U. S. except approximately 

the northwest third and the state of Maine. 

Remarks. When all of its varieties are considered together, this 

small, prostrate, inconspicuous prickly pear is no doubt the leading 

candidate for the most wide-ranging cactus in the U. S. It is


known to occur from New England southwest through all states 

to the Rocky Mountains, and from there on west through New 

Mexico and Arizona probably into California. It is said to be 

absent only from the state of Maine and those states west of the 

Continental Divide and north of Arizona and California. 

This wide-ranging, adaptable cactus was naturally among the 

earliest noticed, and should be the easiest to recognize and name, 

but it actually presents the greatest confusion to serious students 

of cacti. Even finding the proper name for the species is enough 

to discourage the hardiest cactophile. It was first christened 

Cactus opuntia by Linnaeus, and shortly thereafter Cactus compressus 

by Salisbury. Soon it was called Cactus humifusus by 

Rafinesque. By the rules of nomenclature, after the genus Opuntia 

was erected, its name could not remain Opuntia opuntia, although 

some books have called it that, so Salisbury’s name, as 

revised by Macbride into Opuntia compressa is now accepted as 

valid, although Prince Salm-Dyck had in the meantime coined 

yet another name, Opuntia Vulgaris, for it. 

But this is only the beginning of the naming problem. Any 

plant growing over so huge an area is likely to present various 

localized forms, and whatever level of relationship they represent, 

few will be satisfied with a view so general that it ignores 

them. I know from experience that few collectors who have side 

by side two of the widely differing forms this species can show 

are satisfied when I tell them they are both O. compressa. They 

want to know more exactly what they have. So from the first 

these differing forms had to be studied and named, and here the 

real confusion enters. We will deal with these variations which 

come within our area of study one by one. 

Rafinesque seemed to be the first to notice these different 

variations. He treated them all as separate species, erecting first 

of all a species, O. humifusa, for the western, Mississippi Valley 

form. Later he broke down even this, his original western species, 

into several others, O. humifusa (in a more restricted sense), O. 

caespitosa, and O. mesacantha, plus others, but his descriptions 

of these latter variations were so vague that no one can really 

identify plants from them, so that Engelmann, in exasperation 

with him and failing to go back to the earlier names, proposed 

instead to start over, calling the whole complex O. rafinesquii. 

This seems an illogical solution, and most students have returned 

to the name O. compressa as the valid one for the species, with 

mostly newer names having been proposed for the varieties. 

The description given above is a broadened one drawn to include 

all of the varieties presently assigned to the species complex. 

It is not the description of the form restricted to the eastern 

seaboard, which was the type variety and which is still 

commonly referred to as O. compressa, but which, under the 

modern system, should be given a varietal rank. This typical 

variety does not enter the area of this study, and so is not described 

separately here. The question of what forms to include 

in the species complex is at present a very arbitrary one, with 

very little solid evidence for or against the inclusion of some 

forms. I am drawing the species boundaries as they seem most 

understandable to me. Future study may very well revise the 

limits of this species further. 

Opuntia compressa var. humifusa (Raf.) 


roots: Usually fibrous, but occasionally with peanut-shaped 

or spindle-shaped tubers on these fibrous roots. The plant 

never has a fleshy taproot. 

stems: Prostrate, never ascending over 1 or 2 pads high. The 

pads are round to broadly oblong, usually 2 to 4 inches long, 

but sometimes reaching 5 inches. The pads are thick and flat 

when healthy, becoming wrinkled when desiccated, but never 

being tuberculate by elevations at the areoles. The surface is 

dark or bright green and shining, sometimes having some purplish 

coloring at the areoles in winter or drought. 

areoles: Small, being only 1/16 to hardly 1/8 of an inch long 

and enlarging little if any with age. They are elongated oval 

to round in shape, and the opposite of being bulging outward 

with wool, they are usually rather concave, pitlike depressions 

on the surface of the flat pad. They are spaced 1/2 to 1 

inch apart. 

spines: Most often the plant is spineless. If spines are present 

they will be found in only a few upper edge areoles and will 

number only 1 to 3 per areole. They ordinarily consist of 1 or 

2 spreading spines up to 1 inch long. Rarely there will be 1 

lower, deflexed, and very small one. The main spines are 

round, straight, and heavy, whitish to brownish in color. 

glochids: Few and short at first, comprising a small, compact 

tuft of minute bristles less than 1/8 of an inch long in the 

small areoles. Often they do not increase at all on old pads, 

but in some specimens they lengthen to 3/16 of an inch or so 

with age. They are red-brown to yellowish in color. 

flowers: Yellow, usually, but not always, with red centers or 

else streaked with red. They are 2 to 3 inches in diameter and 

13/4 to 3 inches tall, including the relatively long, slender 

ovary. On the ovary there are some glochids. There are 10 to 

14 broad inner petals. The filaments are orange, often conspicuously 

so, and the anthers are cream-yellow. The style is 

short, and there are 4 to 8 white or very pale greenish-yellow, 

fat, grooved stigma lobes. 

fruits: Elongated club-shaped or oval above, always with a 

constricted, slender, and markedly elongated base and deeply 

pitted apex. They are 11/8 to 2 inches long, 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch 

thick at the thickest part, which is near the top, the whole 

lower one-third at least being only 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch thick. 

These fruits are greenish for a long time, but tardily become 

apricot or plum-red or brownish red, the pulp remaining 

greenish and sour in poor growing conditions, but when growing 

in the best conditions becoming reddish and sweet. The


seeds are 3/16 of an inch or just under (31/2–41/2 millimeters) 

in diameter, thick to very thick, with narrow rims. 

Range. Entering our area from the north and east, coming into 

Louisiana from Mississippi, into Arkansas from Mississippi, Tennessee, 

and Missouri, and extending throughout Arkansas and 

northern Louisiana into Texas and probably into Oklahoma. Its 

southwestern limit seems to be a line running approximately 

through Alexandria, Louisiana, to the vicinity of Silsbee, Texas. 

From there its known range turns sharply north, remaining east 

of the Trinity River until it nears Dallas. From there it seems to 

retreat back toward Arkansas, except for an apparent occurrence 

of it near Madill, Oklahoma, which opens up the possibil- 

ity that it ranges widely over eastern Oklahoma. 

Remarks. There has been continuous discussion for 150 years 

about how different the O. compressa of the eastern seaboard is 

from that found in the Mississippi Valley. One thing is apparently 

agreed upon from Rafinesque through the last article 

treating the problem. All seem to agree that there is a difference 

between the two forms, although it is frustrating to find so little 

anywhere by way of a concrete statement of how they actually 

differ. 

The early students regarded the two as entirely separate species. 

The eastern one, apparently found only east of the Appalachian 

Range, is usually called O. compressa. It is the type form 

of the species, and considered as part of the bigger complex, 

would be the typical variety of it. But how do we treat the 

form of the Mississippi Valley, which is the one concerning us 

directly? Rafinesque divided it into his several separate species 

before he was through. It was his inability to identify these by 

their descriptions that caused Engelmann to abandon them all 

and rename the Mississippi Valley form O. rafinesquii. Engelmann 

then added new names for what he regarded as new spe- 

cies he found farther west. 

Coulter, regarding this as an unsatisfactory dodge, and working 

from the fact that Rafinesque said his O. mesacantha grew 

from Kentucky to Louisiana, took this name, O. mesacantha, for 

what he considered a major western species in opposition to the 

eastern O. compressa. He ended up with nine named subspecies 

in his western complex under that name. 

More recently it has been regarded as improbable that all of 

these forms are separate species and even as doubtful that many 

of them are separate forms at all. It has come to be considered 

more correct to regard those which are separate forms as varieties 

of the one huge species, O. compressa. This has caused the 

most recent works to eliminate all the names of Rafinesque and 

most of those of Engelmann and of Coulter. The change has 

made for greater clarity, except when one turns to various floras 

and handbooks which still often use the different names of the 

above authors, apparently at random. There has been no standardization 

of the varietal names. The result is that most beginners, 

not knowing which are synonyms, go into the field with 

twice as many names as there are cacti, and are soon frustrated 

when they can’t find them all. With the aid of the above admittedly 

over-simplified summary and the following discussion 

of our form, it is hoped some of this can be avoided. 

In the geographical territory we are considering we are not 

concerned with the typical, eastern variety. However, we do 

have throughout Arkansas and much of Louisiana and coming 

into Oklahoma and Texas what appears to be the midwestern 

or Mississippi Valley variety of the cactus. We need the correct 

varietal name for it. The first person to deal with this particular 

form was Rafinesque. However incompletely he described it, it 

seems clear that he meant this cactus by his O. humifusa. Engelmann 

described our form, but, as already mentioned, his solution 

of renaming it entirely to O. rafinesquii is unsatisfactory. 

Coulter, who next described it, returned to a Rafinesque name, 

but chose a more obscure one, O. mesacantha, which we cannot 

pin down to anything we know at all. We are left with Rafinesque’s 

first name for the Mississippi Valley form. Regarding it 

now as a variety instead of a species, we get as a name for the 

low prickly pear of this area O. compressa var. humifusa. 

By whatever name, this is an inconspicuous little prickly pear 

found mostly in sandy places or on the drier hillsides jutting 

out of the piney woods. In such places it sometimes forms mats 

covering the ground. Occasionally plants are found on wooded 

hillsides under the trees, but here they are more straggling and 

pads tend to be somewhat etiolated, in which case they become 

larger and more elongated than typical, but still remain fat and 

thick. 

I have plants from various locations in Arkansas. In Hempstead 

County, near Tokio, they grow in sandy bottoms. There 

are fine examples to be seen in Benton County in the northwest 

corner of the state, growing east of Rogers, Arkansas. They are 

not as common in the eastern part of the state, but have been 

found near Batesville in the north and Warren in the south. 

In Louisiana the plant is less common and only a few records 

of it there have been found. It appears to grow best in the north- 

west part of the state, having been found just north of Alexan- 

dria, near Winnfield, and near Minden. 

The variety enters Texas from Louisiana, but only grows along 

the eastern edge of this state. The southwesternmost record of it 

is from near Silsbee, Texas, in Hardin County. It does not progress 

farther to enter the coastal plain or the central Texas limestone 

hills, being restricted almost entirely to the eastern piney 

woods. It grows quite profusely under the trees at Woodville, 

Texas, and has been found again at various places north of there. 

It is rather common at Longview, Texas, this being the apparent 

basis for Griffiths’ O. nemoralis. 

The question of this variety’s occurring in Oklahoma is still 

an open one. Engelmann and Coulter both state that, when they 

wrote, it had not been found west of the western boundary of 

Missouri and Arkansas. We have seen that it progresses farther 

west than that in Texas, but there have not been any good records 

of it from Oklahoma cited in more recent works, although 

Waterfall, in his “Catalog of the Flora of Oklahoma,” lists O.


rafinesquii as well as O. macrorhiza, and must mean this variety. 

Not having found it in many trips into Oklahoma, I would 

be inclined to doubt its growing there, except for one population 

of plants which I found growing in the Tishomingo Wildlife 

Reservation near Madill, Oklahoma. These seem to be referable 

only to this variety, even though they are growing so far 

west. Perhaps future study will show that the variety is found 

in very scattered spots over the eastern hills of Oklahoma. 

O. compressa var. humifusa has small, shiny, dark green pads 

which are very thick. They become very wrinkled in winter or 

drought, in which case they also often get purple blotches at the 

areoles, but the pads are smooth-surfaced and never appear 

tuberculate by elevation of the areoles. In fact, more often the 

small areoles actually seem to be in slight depressions of the sur- 

face. In this and in the fact that neither the areole nor the 

glochids increase noticeably in size with age or on the edge of 

the pad, as do those of most of its relatives, it is like the more 

eastern, typical variety. It is also a very prostrate form. When 

it is growing in the same garden bed with them, the difference 

is striking between this form with its pads all reclining once 

they have reached maturity and variety macrorhiza, variety 

fusco-atra, and variety allairei, all of which have arms more or 

less turning upward from old pads that much prefer to touch 

only their edges to the ground. 

It has often been stated that this variety always has fibrous 

roots. In fact, these roots have been used as the main character 

to distinguish it from the more western forms. Britton and Rose 

separate this form from O. macrorhiza in their key by roots 

fibrous versus roots tuberous alone. But handy as this would be, 

it just isn’t true that variety humifusa always lacks tubers. While 

fibrous roots are the most common, I have found small, peanut- 

shaped tubers up to about 3/4 of an inch in diameter and 11/2 

inches long on specimens in Arkansas and in Louisiana, as well 

as in Missouri. The character of the roots cannot be used to separate 

forms in this species. 

Opuntia compressa var. macrorhiza (Eng.) Benson 


roots: Having a basically fibrous root system without a 

central taproot, but these slender fibrous roots often having 

spherical to spindle-shaped tubers on them. These tubers may 

be from a fraction of an inch up to Sometimes 3 inches in 

diameter. They may occur in clusters on the various branching 

roots, or may sometimes be found in a series of several one 

after another along the same root. Plants lacking tubers completely 

are not uncommon. 

stems: Prostrate or nearly so, with old pads mostly leaning 

on their edges on the ground, and with newer pads only 

temporarily upright, the whole plant being 6 inches to 1 foot 

high. The pads are almost round to elongated obovate, often 

with some constriction at the bases, but this not pronounced. 

These pads are medium in thickness to rather thick; the surface 

is quite tuberculate by raised areoles when growing, and 

these elevations remain more or less noticeable on old pads, 

which may also become wrinkled. In color they are medium, 

shining green when young, becoming dull, dark green when 

old. The pads are normally 2 to 5 inches long, but when growing 

under shading vegetation they sometimes become etiolated 

to 6 or even 8 inches long. 

areoles: Oval or almost round and 1/8 of an inch or so across 

at first, enlarging to 1/4 of an inch or more on old pads. They 

are 1/2 to 11/4 inches apart. 

spines: Spines are present on the upper one-fourth of the pad 

or less, but the pads are occasionally but not often totally 

spineless. The most common spination is 2 to 3 spines per 

areole, but very robust plants present up to a maximum of 5 

spines on some edge areoles. On young or weak plants all 

spines are round or with only the bases somewhat flattened, 

but robust specimens have the main spine conspicuously flattened. 

Completely armed areoles present 1 main central spine 

which is porrect or a little deflexed, slender to medium thickness, 

straight, round if weak but flattened if robust, and 1/4 to 

13/4 inches long. There may be, but will not always be, 1 or 2 

upper spines porrect to erect, 3/8 to 1 inch long, slender, weak, 

and always round. These main spines are gray or whitish, 

with often the bases and sometimes the tips brown or red- 

brown, fading to all gray and rough when old. On robust 

specimens there will sometimes be 1 or 2 lower spines spreading 

below which are very slender, thin, whitish bristles 1/8 to 

3/8 of an inch long. 

glochids: Bright red-brown to dirty straw in color, medium 

in number, and 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch long, in a compact clump 

at each areole at first. On old pads they often grow to 5/16 of 

an inch long and form large clusters. 

flowers: Orange yellow with red centers. They are 21/2 to 3 

inches in diameter and 3 to 31/2 inches tall, the ovary being 

11/4 to 21/4 inches long, with some reddish-brown glochids on 

it. There are 7 to 9 inner petals which are very broad from 

narrow, red bases. The stigma has 4 to 9 yellowish, fat stigma 

lobes. 

fruits: Elongated club-shaped, 11/4 to 21/2 inches long and 3/4 

to 1 inch in diameter at the thickest part. The base is greatly 

constricted and prolonged. The top is shallowly to deeply 

pitted. These fruits become light red to purplish-red, often 

however remaining greenish very late in the season. The pulp 

is greenish and tasteless until fall, finally becoming colorless 

or slightly reddish and sweet to the taste. The seeds are from 

just under 3/16 to just under 1/4 of an inch (4–51/2 millimeters) 

in diameter. They are thick or very thick, their rims of me- 

dium width but acute. 

Range. Western Arkansas on the east through all of Oklahoma


and all of Texas west of a line from near Tyler to near Houston. 

The plant grows almost throughout New Mexico and on into 

Colorado and Arizona. 

remarks. This is a very wide-ranging plant, but, being small 

and marked by no unique feature, it is usually ignored or actually 

avoided even by cactus fanciers. Over a huge area it is the 

common prostrate prickly pear that lies in the grass or under 

thickets and, except for a few days each year when it has beautiful 

flowers, has little to offer to anyone except thorns for those 

who don’t look before they step. 

Information about the exact range of this plant and its relationships 

is hard to be sure about even today, because it so nearly 

approaches other forms in appearance and because the name has 

been so often misapplied that printed records of it and even 

labeled herbarium specimens are often actually something else. 

One has to wade through a mass of extraneous material to assemble 

a picture of the true form. Also, the early descriptions 

were largely taken from too few and often stunted specimens, 

and so there has had to be a broadening of the original concept 

almost from the beginning, a broadening which has threatened 

to go on until it seemed almost all prostrate prickly pears would 

be herded under this name. Only by a tracing of the history of 

the form can its present status be understood. 

When Engelmann made the first concerted study of the western 

forms of this species, he found in the west, beyond the O. 

compressa forms he had seen in the east, several small, prostrate 

cacti. Almost without exception he set each one of these up as a 

separate new species. One of them was a plant sent him by Lindheimer 

from the upper Guadalupe River at New Braunfels, 

Texas. Engelmann described it from Lindheimer’s specimens and 

called it O. macrorhiza. These specimens were, by any character 

he gives for them—size of pad, number of spines, character of 

spines, length of spines, size of fruits—less than robust. I have 

seen some of these Lindheimer specimens, and they are small, 

weak examples such as one can find in the type locality, but 

which one has to search out on the most exposed, dry, rocky 

ledges. The plant usually attains a much greater size and development 

even in the type locality. I cannot but conclude that 

these type specimens are atypically underdeveloped individuals 

with characters nearer to those of the more eastern O. compressa 

var. humifusa than are found in more typical individuals. But 

all of Engelmann’s specimens from New Braunfels happened to 

have tuberous roots, and he seized upon this as a distinguishing 

feature, actually stating that the plant is really different from 

the eastern form mainly by the roots. 

Taking Engelmann’s limited description and following his 

statement, some students have had real trouble with these two 

forms. For instance, Britton and Rose happily keyed them: roots 

fibrous = the eastern form, roots tuberous = O. macrorhiza. It 

would be wonderful if it were that simple, but following this in 

the field gives difficulty. In numerous fields in Texas, Oklahoma, 

and Arkansas, I would be forced by this to say that I have the 

two forms growing as close as 6 feet apart and all intermixed 

over the whole population. Even in the type locality of O. macrorhiza 

both kinds of roots are found together. So, if this were 

true, not only would we have variety humifusa growing all the 

way into New Mexico when all have stated that it hardly goes 

west of Arkansas and Louisiana, but we would in honesty be 

required to combine the two. The only conclusion is that either 

plant can have either wholly fibrous roots or roots with tubers 

present, the western form, it is true, having tubers more often 

than not, while the eastern one usually lacks them. But the character 

of the roots obviously cannot be used to separate the two 

cacti. 

If this is true, then why not combine the two forms entirely? 

It seems remarkable that this has never been attempted. But per- 

haps the fact that the western form so often surpasses Engelmann’s 

original description in other characters has enabled all 

to see that it is actually different in other ways. 

Coulter was quick to see that the description of this form had 

to be broadened, and he set about it, raising the spination maximums 

in number, length, and stoutness, but still not realizing 

the maximums of fruit size sometimes attained, or the fact, unnoticed 

until Griffiths observed it, that the main spine could be 

flattened when fully developed. 

Because the plant, as originally described, was a less than 

robust thing, more robust specimens were sometimes described 

as new species when they were noticed. Engelmann himself 

started this, for instance, with his O. fusiliformis of Kansas and 

Nebraska. All students since have considered this merely a synonym. 

Only the very long fruits, said to be sometimes 2 to 21/2 

inches long distinguish it from the other, and I have collected 

variety macrorhiza from a dozen places, including the type 

locality, with fruits this size. More recently Mackensen called 

some long-spined examples he found at Kerrville, Texas, O. 

roseana, but I find nothing in this locality outside the limits of 

variety macrorhiza as it grows in its own type locality not very 

far away. 

But the broadening of the characters of the plant cannot go 

on indefinitely, to include everything. I have given in this description 

the full maximum of each character that we have found 

in and near the type locality close to which we have lived and 

in which we have observed constantly for 7 years. I have excluded 

from consideration any described or preserved materials 

from any other place which do not, in all their features, fall 

within the limits attained in that type area. 

This gives us in O. compressa var. macrorhiza a very widely 

distributed plant. Its easternmost record would be that mentioned 

by Coulter of near Fayetteville, Arkansas, and Demaree’s 

collections from near Bismarck and from Magnet Cove, Hot 

Springs County, Arkansas. We also have the plant collected 

near Jasper, in Newton County, and near Little Rock, Pulaski 

County. These records give us a range of the whole northwestern 

part of that state. It has apparently not been collected in 

Louisiana, and the known collections of it in Texas give as an


eastern limit excluding the whole eastern edge of the state, it 

first appearing along a line roughly from Tyler—where Griffiths 

collected it and dubbed it O. sanguinocula—to Houston. It apparently 

ranges practically all of the rest of Texas, being very 

common in the central and northern parts, but occurring in scattered, 

usually very sandy, localities elsewhere. I have collected 

it on the Bolivar Peninsula—where, however, it was growing 

only on and around the grounds of old Fort Bolivar, and one is 

tempted to assume it may have been introduced—in the Corpus 

Christi area, as well as near Harlingen in the southern extremity 

of the state. At the other end of the state, in the Chisos Mountains 

and near Muleshoe, Texas, well up toward the northwestern 

edge of the state, I have come across isolated populations 

which seem clearly to be this cactus. It ranges practically all, if 

not all of Oklahoma, being very common as far west as Alva 

and Woodward. It occurs in scattered localities in New Mexico, 

becoming quite common in the northern mountains of that state, 

and I have seen good specimens of it from both Arizona and 

Colorado. 

It will be noticed that this range does give us both variety 

macrorhiza and variety humifusa in an overlapping area in 

western Arkansas and probably some of Oklahoma. When the 

two are so close, how, without the roots to decide for us automatically, 

can we tell them apart? Admittedly in weak speci- 

mens without blooms it can sometimes be almost impossible, and 

everyone should be honest enough to admit that he can’t identify 

an incomplete or atypical specimen with certainty. This would 

reduce the confusion. Also, if we think of these two as varieties 

instead of separate species, we need not be surprised if there are 

specimens apparently intermediate. But in identifying typical 

specimens there is little difficulty. The salient differences between 

them are as follows: variety macrorhiza has tuberculate 

surfaces to the pads, up to 5 spines with the main spine flattened 

and to 13/4 inches long when spination is completely developed, 

flowers with only 7 to 9 inner petals. On the other hand, variety 

humifusa has a flat surface to the pad, a maximum of 3 spines 

which are heavier but always round and to only 1 inch long, 

and flowers with 10 to 14 inner petals. The two are very close 

together, and there may be intergrading. They surely do not 

warrant being considered separate species. This form seems most 

logically considered, therefore, as the more western member of 

the O. compressa complex, and so is known today by most taxonomists 

as O. compressa var. macrorhiza. 

Opuntia compressa var. microsperma (Eng.) non Benson 


roots: Mostly fibrous with small tubers on them, but sometimes 

entirely fibrous. 

stems: Prostrate, 6 to 8 inches high, with most pads resting 

one edge on the ground. The pads are broad to elongated egg- 

shaped, 1 to 4 inches long by 3/4 to 21/2 inches wide, rather 

thick, with the surface very tuberculate by elevations of the 

areoles. The color is medium green with purplish shading 

around the areoles. 

areoles: Small, round or oval, 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch long, on 

top of distinct elevations. They are situated 1/4 to 3/4 of an 

inch apart. 

spines: Sometimes spineless, but more often with 1 to 3 spines 

on the upper areoles of the pad. The one or two main spines 

are very slender, round, and all white, or with the bases 

brown and the upper parts white. Occasionally there is 1 

lower, deflexed, bristle-like spine, 1/8 to 3/4 of an inch long 

besides the main spines. 

glochids: Greenish-yellow or straw color, many in all areoles, 

at first to 3/16 of an inch long, but when older becoming 

to 1/4 of an inch long. 

flowers: Identical with those of the previous variety. 

fruits: Very elongated club-shaped. They are 1 to 11/4 inches 

long by 3/8 of an inch thick at the widest part, which is near 

the top, the base being very constricted. The apex is deeply 

pitted. The fruits on my specimens remain green all summer 

and through September, after which they dry without turning 

color. The seeds are from just under 1/16 to just under 1/8 of an 

inch (1/2–21/2 millimeters) in diameter, smooth, and thick, 

with almost no rims. 

Range. Collected 10 miles north of Campbellton, Atascosa 

County, Texas, growing in deep sand near the Atascosa River. 

Remarks. Engelmann originated this variety over 100 years ago, 

but he gave almost no description of it except to emphasize its 

extremely small seeds. He also neglected to give any location 

for it. Coulter, working with Engelmann’s materials before him, 

both the preserved specimens and living plants still being cultivated 

at that time at the Missouri Botanical Garden, was impressed 

enough by the tiny seeds to continue listing it as a sepa- 

rate form. But after that all authorities dropped it into the syn- 

onymy. 

Most recently the name has been revived and used in an entirely 

new sense. When Benson decided to treat the common, 

prostrate, Mississippi Valley Opuntia—until then always regarded 

as a separate species and called O. humifusa, O. rafinesquii, 

or O. mesacantha—as a variety instead of a species, he, in 

an attempt to be taxonomically proper, called that form O. compressa 

var. microsperma. His stated reason was that this was the 

earliest varietal name in existence under that species. This is true, 

but in using it thus he ignores the fact that Engelmann erected it 

for the very special form with the tiny seeds and meant it to 

refer to that form alone, as the meaning of the name clearly 

shows. To use this name for the ordinary, larger seeded, common 

form is to say that this seed difference is of no significance, and 

to apply this name to the large-seeded form is an error which 

every person who can tell the meaning of this simple name can


recognize. It blurs a distinction which was considered significant 

by those earlier students of cacti. 

In the course of this study many collections of the species O. 

compressa were made over several states. Time and again the 

ordinary forms with seeds 3 to 5 millimeters in diameter were 

found, and we had only wondered vaguely about Engelmann’s 

variety microsperma with the tiny seeds. Since we knew the 

seeds of the species well, it was a real surprise when Mr. Kim 

Kuebel, an interested friend and cactus collector, brought in a 

plant of the O. compressa complex which had tiny seeds only 

11/2 to 21/2 millimeters in diameter. They equal in size the smallest 

Opuntia seeds we have seen, but are very thick. It was obvious 

to us that we must have the plant referred to by Engel- 

mann, but probably not collected again until this time. 

We studied the plant carefully, trying to discover the details 

of its relationship. It is certainly only a variety of the large O. 

compressa complex. Within that, however, its closest affinities 

are to the more western O. compressa var. macrorhiza rather 

than to the eastern variety humifusa. This is shown by the tuberculate 

surface of the pads, the more numerous glochids, more 

slender spines, and so on. The fruit is remarkable for never turning 

red, but then many others of this species only turn light red 

or apricot, and sometimes this is only a blush on the sunny side 

of the fruit. 

It is impossible to give a range for this form, as Engelmann’s 

specimens carried no location at all. We have so far found this 

plant in only one location, as given above. Typical variety macrorhiza, 

with seeds 41/2 to 5 millimeters in diameter was grow- 

ing nearby. 

Listing the variety microsperma as a separate form on the 

basis of only one population would not ordinarily have been 

justified, but this is a form which we know existed somewhere a 

hundred years ago. Whether the unique, small seeds are an environmentally 

induced or a genetically stable character, which 

has occurred only in this location or, as seems more likely, crops 

up here and there, no one knows. By listing the form instead of 

ignoring it and appropriating the name for one of its relatives, 

we hope that we may prevent its again being lost, with no one 

ever knowing more about it, and that we may alert collectors to 

be on the watch for it. Thus we may someday learn what its 

true significance is. 

Opuntia compressa var. fusco-atra (Eng.) 


roots: Either fibrous or about half of the time with small 

tubers upon the fibrous roots. 

stems: Prostrate, usually resting at least one edge of each pad 

on the ground, only to 6 or 8 inches high. The pads are almost 

round to broadly club-shaped with some constriction at the 

base, usually 2 to 4 inches long and 2 to 3 inches wide, but 

rarely to at least 6 inches long and 4 inches wide. They are 

thin or of medium thickness, noticeably tuberculate by elevations 

of the areoles. The surfaces of the pads are shiny and 

bright green to deep green or sometimes rather blue-green. 

areoles: Small and elongated when young, becoming round 

and larger to about 1/4 of an inch in diameter on old pads. 

They are spaced 3/16 to 11/4 inches apart, varying with the 

size of the pads; both extremes have been observed on the 

same plant. 

spines: Usually having 1 to 3 spines on only upper areoles of 

the pad, but rarely having a total of 4 or 5 by the addition 

of one or two very small, bristle-like spines at the lower edge 

of the areole. There is 1 main spine porrect or nearly so, slender 

to medium thickness, round or practically so, 1/4 to 2 

inches long. There may be 1 or 2 upper spines above this and 

similar to it except only 3/8 to 1 inch long, and sometimes 1 

lower spine deflexed below and 3/8 to 5/8 of an inch long. 

Spreading below these are occasionally 1 or 2 very slender 

bristles 1/8 to 1/2 inch long. All spines are yellowish when 

growing, but when hardened become completely dark brown 

or gray with brownish bases. 

glochids: Many, in erect, compact clusters in all areoles, be- 

coming very many and to 1/4 of an inch long when old. In 

color they are very bright, shining red-brown when young, 

fading to dark, dirty brown when old. 

flowers: Completely sulphur yellow or yellow with red centers. 

They are very variable in size, depending upon environmental 

conditions, from 13/4 to 4 inches in diameter and 2 to 

3 inches tall, with very slender ovaries 11/8 to 13/8 inches long, 

having some brown glochids on them. There are very few but 

broad inner petals, usually only 4 or 5, the total number of 

perianth segments usually being only 9. The stigma has 3 to 5 

white lobes. 

fruits: Elongated club-shaped with constricted bases and 

deeply pitted tops. They are typically 1 to 11/2 inches long, 

but sometimes to 2 inches, and 5/8 to 7/8 of an inch in diameter 

at the thickest point. The seeds are about 3/16 of an inch 

(4–5 millimeters) in diameter, fairly thick, with narrow, acute 

rims. 

Range. The coastal plain, sandy areas near the beaches and on 

islands of the Texas coast from the western edge of present-day 

Houston to beyond Brownsville. The plant is never found more 

than a few miles from the Gulf, except in the valleys of the 

Colorado and Brazos rivers, where it occurs inland at least 75 

miles, its known range in this area running from Houston west 

to Sealy in Austin County, and to Altair in Colorado County. 

Remarks. This is almost certainly only an extreme form of the 

O. compressa complex, but, although it was noticed and described 

over 100 years ago by that amazingly thorough student, 

Engelmann, it has been so rarely collected since then that little


has been known about it. It is very close to O. compressa var. 

macrorhiza, which is found occasionally in most of its range 

and sometimes, as just west of Houston, grows side by side with 

it. Still, the two are rather distinct, and there is no reason to 

confuse them. Variety fusco-atra can be recognized at once by 

its combination of numerous brilliant red-brown glochids, very 

marked elevation of the areoles, and extreme reduction in num- 

ber of flower segments. 

In the type locality, stated to be the “sterile prairies west of 

Houston,” which begin approximately where the pine trees leave 

off, at about the present western city limits of Houston in the 

vicinity of U. S. Route 90, and extend past Addicks and Katy, 

the plant is very common. However, this very flat territory 

gives all the appearance of being very arid, in spite of the high 

rainfall of the area, and here the plants appear stunted, the pads 

usually only 2 to 3 inches long. This no doubt accounts for the 

tiny size given in the original description. Where growing near 

the beaches the cactus becomes much larger. 

Although the cactus is to be encountered here and there along 

most of the Texas coast south of the type locality, it is never 

common anywhere else except around Copano Bay in the Rockport 

area. At Fulton Beach, particularly, it grows in profusion 

right down to the water’s edge. And here it appears to develop 

a remarkable environmental form, which has of course been 

called a separate species. 

In their monumental work, The Cactaceae, Britton and Rose 

described a new cactus, Opuntia macateei. It was collected at 

Rockport, Texas, in 1910. It was described as a small, prostrate 

plant with orbicular to obovate, glabrous, dull green joints which 

were small and somewhat tuberculate, and as having 1 to 3 

brownish spines up to 1 inch long. Nothing was said about the 

root form. The distinctive and really remarkable characteristic 

of this cactus was its production of flowers 3 to 4 inches long, 

including slender, subcylindric ovaries 2 to 23/8 inches long. 

These ovaries were said to bear leaves up to 1/2 inch long. We 

spent much time attempting to find and study this form. 

It soon became evident that very little was known about the 

cactus. We studied the type specimen. It consists of one small 

pad with one flower, the flower being typical for the O. compressa 

complex, except that it possessed an extremely elongated, 

practically cylindric ovary slightly over 2 inches long but only 

about 1/2 inch in diameter, bearing several long leaves upon it. 

No evidence of any more recent collections of the plant was 

found. Later writers, even including Backeberg, have merely 

repeated the original description for the species, apparently 

without seeing further specimens. No one has even known 

enough about the cactus to propose relating it to any other 

form. 

We then attempted to collect the living plant, making repeated 

trips to the type locality at Rockport, Texas, for this purpose. 

We found numerous specimens of variety fusco-atra, which 

is very common throughout that area, and of variety macrorhiza, 

which is less common there but occurs occasionally. We studied 

variety fusco-atra especially, as it was early noted that the descriptions 

of this plant and of O. macateei were identical as regards 

all features mentioned except the structure of the ovary, 

that of variety fusco-atra being described as leafless and only 

about 1 inch long, less than half as long as the minimum for the 

ovary of O. macateei. Britton and Rose used this difference as 

the sole means to distinguish these two forms. 

For several years we found only the usual forms with typical 

short ovaries in the area. Then, in May, 1963, we discovered 

some plants producing elongated fruits. These made up a population 

of only a few dozen plants growing in almost pure sand 

inside a motte of live oak trees. The location was 41/2 miles north 

of Rockport, Texas, and about 1/5 mile back from the waterfront 

known as Fulton Beach. 

The fruits on these specimens were 11/2 to 3 inches long, markedly 

clavate from very narrow bases, often widening near the 

ends to 1 inch in diameter. They were often curved, and the 

younger examples possessed several leaves up to 1/2 inch long. It 

was too late in the season to observe the flowers of these plants. 

These specimens were identical to the numerous stands of variety 

fusco-atra common in the area, but the fruits certainly 

were different. No description has ever been given of the fruits 

of O. macateei, but we could easily visualize these greatly elongated 

fruits developing from the markedly elongated ovaries of 

that form, so we felt rather certain that we had found that 

cactus. 

But almost immediately we noticed that the elongated fruits 

of our specimens remained green instead of coloring, and actually 

turned whitish with the passing of time. Soon one of them 

split open with one longitudinal furrow running the length of 

the upper, broadened part of the fruit. This furrow exposed a 

mass of black fungus growth resembling smut. Other fruits ruptured 

the same way. When we opened some of the fruits before 

they ruptured, we found them all to be sterile, the aborted 

ovules being much enlarged. 

It was impossible to make further studies that season, but the 

area was watched closely at blooming time the next year. All 

cacti observed in the vicinity of Rockport bloomed and fruited 

normally with short, fertile ovaries, except those in the same 

motte of live oaks observed to have been atypical the previous 

year. Within this particular motte, which comprises probably 

two acres of dense tree growth, there are several dozen specimens 

of prostrate cacti. When they bloomed, many of their flowers 

produced the long ovaries described for O. macateei; these 

flowers were then followed by the large, clavate, sterile fruits 

observed the previous year. However, this year we noted that 

in some cases the same plant produced both elongated flowers 

and fruits and the normal flowers and fruits of variety fuscoatra, 

sometimes both on the same pad. There were also some 

specimens within the population which produced only entirely 

typical flowers and fruits. 

It seems obvious that we have here an abnormal growth of 

ovary and fruit resulting in sterility, rather than a separate


taxonomic form. Since some plants are found with both normal 

and abnormal ovaries, these sometimes side by side on the same 

joint, it does not seem that there could be a genetic basis for the 

difference. In vegetative characters and also in unaffected flowers 

and fruits the plants are clearly variety fusco-atra, and we 

feel that O. macateei must be regarded as merely a diseased form 

of that species. 

The cause of the diseased condition has not proved easy to 

isolate. While the determination of the causative agent does not 

have to be made in order to understand the plants, we have been 

working with specialists in order to try to locate it. A fungus 

was at once suspected, but so far it has been possible to culture 

no organism from the abnormal fruit tissues except some common 

Aspergillis and Penicillium forms. It seems hard to imagine 

that such common fungi could have such drastic effects upon 

the most common cactus of the area in only one such localized 

habitat. Yet the fungi are in the abnormal fruits. But might they 

not be merely taking advantage of a breakdown of the tissues 

due to something else? 

A new factor appeared in the affected plants the next year 

which we must have overlooked the previous year. Many of the 

plants with abnormal fruits were found to be the hosts of a species 

of Lepidoptera. At fruiting time larvae approximately 3/4 of 

an inch long were found in the hollowed-out centers of some of 

the enlarged fruits, one per fruit. While these fruits were under 

observation the larvae became ready for the pupal stage and 

burrowed out through the sides of the fruits, left the cacti, and 

climbed nearby perennial stems, where they pupated. The insects 

entered the winter in the pupal stage, but we were unable 

to rear any adults from the pupae we had collected, as all of 

our specimens died during the winter. These larvae left round 

holes in the sides of the fruits as they burrowed out of them, 

and holes of this type were found in some of the pads as well. 

Dissection showed that each larva had entered its fruit by tunneling 

into it from the pad, through the narrow base of the fruit. 

Some of the tunnels were traced through two pads before en- 

tering the fruits. 

This Lepidoptera has not been encountered by us in any other 

instance in the cacti of Texas, and we find no record of it. It is 

impossible to find it in the cacti on any side of this thicket. 

It was thought that this Lepidoptera might be the cause of 

the abnormality in the cactus, since the larvae were observed 

only in the pads and the elongated fruits of these abnormal 

specimens, but exactly how this may be is not clear, since only 

a small per cent of the elongated fruits contained any larvae. 

Many of them showed no sign of the insect. Furthermore, the 

unusual growth originates at least as early as the flower stage, 

affecting the ovary when still in the bud stage, and the larvae 

were not observed to enter any fruit until much later than that. 

The presence of the larvae in the lower parts of the plant causing 

the abnormal growth of ovary is however a possibility, and the 

fungi may enter the plants with the insects. 

Be that as it may, O. macateei seems clearly only a diseased 

form of variety fusco-atra, representing one of the few cases 

where such a diseased form in cacti has been called a species. 

Opuntia compressa var. grandiflora (Eng.) 

“Large-Flowered Opuntia” 


roots: Entirely fibrous in all specimens observed, with no 

tubers present, but in a few specimens the main roots were 

found to 3/8 of an inch in diameter and somewhat fleshy before 

branching. 

stems: The plant is spreading and semiprostrate, but with new 

pads standing perfectly erect their first year or sometimes 

until there are two pads upright, before falling over, giving 

a maximum height of sometimes 12 inches. The pads are eggshaped 

to rather spindle-shaped, narrowing at the base or 

both above and below, 4 to 6 inches long by 21/2 to 4 inches 

wide. They are medium in thickness, the surface conspicuously 

tubercled by elevated areoles, and except in very wet seasons 

usually markedly wrinkled. In color the surface is bright 

green. 

areoles: Small and elongated, to only 1/8 of an inch long 

on young pads, becoming round and to 1/4 of an inch on old 

pads. In position they are 1/2 to 1 inch apart. 

spines None. 

glochids: Straw-colored, many and conspicuous, although 

short and in a tight bunch at first, becoming to 1/4 of an inch 

long in a spreading cluster on old pads. 

flowers: Normally very large and beautiful, 4 to 5 inches in 

diameter and 3 to 31/2 inches tall, but they can be stunted 

and reduced to 2 inches in diameter when denied good growing 

conditions. In color they are yellow streaked at random 

with reddish markings or yellow with reddish centers. The inner 

petals are about 8 in number and 2 inches long by 11/2 

inches wide on normal sized flowers. The ovary is 2 inches or 

more long and slender clubshaped. The stigma has 5 white, 

thick, grooved lobes. 

fruits: About 21/2 inches long, very elongated club-shaped, 

being only 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch wide at the thickest upper part, 

with a prolonged constriction below. The top is somewhat 

pitted. 

range. Given originally as “on the Brazos” in Texas. The only 

specific location known seems to be that of our collection in 

Bastrop State Park, Bastrop County. This is on the Colorado 

River about 30 miles southeast of Austin, Texas. This is about 

60 miles southwest of the Brazos River where it passes near 

Bryan, Texas, and, although we have not been able to collect it 

on the Brazos River, the range could be assumed to be from the 

Colorado River at Bastrop to the Brazos near Bryan. If the 

speading -> spreading


debatable assumption is followed that Engelmann’s O. intermedia 

from Industry, Texas, is the same plant, this would extend 

the range only slightly farther southwest between the two 

rivers. 

Remarks. This is a truly beautiful cactus when its huge blooms 

appear. It has the largest flowers of any Opuntia in the south- 

west except O. compressa var. allairei, which sometimes equals 

it in cultivation but seems always to have much smaller flowers 

in the wild. It would seem it would be better known than it is. 

However, except for that week or two when it flowers each 

spring, it is an uninteresting, sprawling prickly pear and so is 

usually overlooked or even avoided. It is also far from wide- 

spread, and no doubt few people have ever seen its flowers. 

We have been able to discover it growing only in the Bastrop 

State Park, where there are, however, numerous specimens. Accepting 

all we can of the early, general statements about its 

locations, we come up with a total range for it consisting of a 

triangle about 60 miles or less on each side between the Colorado 

and Brazos Rivers just east of Austin, Texas. 

This is, no doubt, a very local form of the O. compressa complex, 

more robust in size of pads and flowers, but totally without 

spines. It is interesting to note that no description has been 

given by anyone of the seeds of this plant, although several have 

described the fruits. In 5 years of cultivation in my garden, 

during which time it has bloomed repeatedly, no fruit has 

ripened and no seed has been set. We wonder if it may be some 

sort of sterile hybrid propagated entirely by separated pads. 

Engelmann’s O. intermedia was very incompletely described, 

but had similar flowers and fruits, and everyone since his time 

has assumed it to be the same plant as his O. grandiflora. However, 

he said that O. intermedia was erect and ascending to several 

feet high, which has always cast a doubt upon the combination. 

No erect plant with this flower and fruit is known in 

the area. However, noticing that Engelmann says he thinks he 

saw his O. intermedia also near Natchitoches, which is in western 

Louisiana, in the area of the larger and more ascending O. 

compressa var. allairei, and finding that that plant can produce 

flowers and fruits identical to those of variety grandiflora, I 

would advance the theory that Engelmann’s O. intermedia from 

Industry, Texas, was variety grandiflora, but that he tempered 

the description of it from his memory of the similar but larger 

and more ascending plant which grows in western Louisiana 

and which was named much later by Griffiths as O. allairei. 

Opuntia compressa var. allairei (Gr.) 


roots: Tuberous, with clusters of spindle-shaped enlargements 

on the fibrous roots of all specimens we have examined. 

stems: A spreading plant, the joints of which only recline on 

one edge when very old and send up sprawling branches of 

2 to 4 pads to a height of 12 or even 18 inches. Pads elongated 

egg-shaped or spindle-shaped, thick and firm, not becoming 

flabby or wrinkled even when desiccated, the surface 

often somewhat tuberculate when growing but when older 

always becoming smooth and flat. The color is blue-green to 

sometimes rather yellow-green. The size of the pads is 4 to 

sometimes 8 inches long by 2 to 33/4 inches wide. 

areoles: Small and oval to round on young pads, increasing 

to round and 1/4 of an inch across on old pads. They are 

spaced 1/2 to 11/4 inches apart. 

spines: Often spineless, but some specimens having 1 spine 

each on perhaps half a dozen of the uppermost edge areoles. 

This spine is straight, 1/2 to 11/4 inches long, medium in thickness, 

round or slightly flattened, gray or whitish, and some- 

times slightly annulate above, with a brownish base. 

glochids: Yellow, many, and conspicuous, to 1/4 of an inch 

long, in a compact tuft, as is typical in this complex. 

flowers: Entirely yellow, yellow irregularly streaked with 

red, or yellow with red centers. Plants blooming in the field 

presented flowers about 3 inches across by 21/2 inches tall, but 

the same plants after 2 years of cultivation produced identical 

flowers except 41/2 to 5 inches in diameter and 3 inches 

tall. There were always 9 inner petals up to 21/2 inches long 

and 11/2 inches wide. The ovary was slender and elongated 

to 2 inches on the larger flowers. Stigma lobes varied from 4 

to 7 in number, and were white or cream in color. 

fruits: 1/4 to 21/2 inches long by 3/4 to 7/8 of an inch thick, 

elongated club-shaped, constricted at both top and bottom. 

At first they have some glochids on them, but these soon 

drop off. When ripe they are bright rose-plum in color, the 

pulp light red. The seeds are about 3/16 of an inch (4–5 millimeters) 

in diameter, thick, with narrow rims. 

Range. The extreme southeast corner of Texas and southwest 

corner of Louisiana. Specifically, along the east side of the Trinity 

River from the mouth of that stream to near Livingston, 

Texas, and east into Louisiana, perhaps, if Engelmann’s remark 

is taken to indicate this plant, as far north as Natchitoches, and 

known to grow as far east as Marksville, Louisiana. 

Remarks. It is obvious that this cactus is closely related to variety 

grandiflora, but I was greatly surprised to find the flow- 

ers, which have never been described before, becoming identical 

with those huge flowers of that form when the plant was grown 

in the most favorable conditions in my garden. It is different 

from variety grandiflora only in details of the pads and in 

sometimes having a few spines, and for the fact that it grows 

more robust and more upright and does not have the same difficulty 

with its fruits, these ripening and forming seeds in profusion. 

But the two forms respond differently to the same 

growing conditions in my garden in San Antonio. While variety 

allairei prospers and sprawls all over the place, variety grandi-


flora in the same bed does not grow well and only the most 

careful treatment will keep it alive here. 

I consider variety allairei to be the largest, most robust form 

of the O. compressa complex, at least in our area. It is very 

much like a large edition of the small eastern form in nearly 

every character, although its pads are always elongated and 

never so broad as the eastern form shows. 

Variety allairei grows in that unique and beautiful southeast 

corner of Texas called the Big Thicket. Most people are very 

surprised to find a cactus growing in this densely wooded and 

humid area, but this cactus thrives there. It accomplishes this 

by growing in alkali spots which occur naturally in that area, 

where the trees and brush are held back by the alkaline, almost 

sterile soil. Here, in these natural clearings, one will often find 

this cactus happily growing among the coarse grasses which 

share these special habitats. While these special natural situations 

are usually widely scattered, the oil fields of the area are 

among the oldest in existence and have for many years poured 

out salty water upon the ground. The cactus has quickly taken 

advantage of the alkali tracts so produced by man, and among 

the ancient oil tools and rusting pipes of these old fields, as 

for instance around Batson, Texas, in Hardin County, one can 

find variety allairei growing in some profusion. 

Going east into Louisiana there are few records of the cactus, 

but it has been seen near Leesville. McAtee’s collection of it near 

Marksville is by far the most easterly, and establishes the presently 

known eastern limit of its range. As has been mentioned 

in the remarks on variety grandiflora, if we explain Engelmann’s 

statement about remembering having seen his O. intermedia 

at Natchitoches, Louisiana, by assuming that he saw this 

plant, that would push variety allairei’s known range some 60 

miles or so north of any other record. 

Rose and McAtee both collected plants on the lower Texas 

coast which they called O. allairei, Rose’s from Brownsville and 

McAtee’s from Matagorda Island, but having examined their 

herbarium specimens of these plants, I do not believe we can 

consider them this variety. They seem rather to be robust specimens 

of variety fusco-atra as are found all along the lower 

Texas coast. There is still no record of variety allairei west of 

the Trinity River. 

Opuntia compressa var. stenochila (Eng.) 


roots: Usually entirely fibrous, but sometimes with some 

spindle-shaped to oval tuberous thickenings on them. 

stems: Low and prostrate, with older pads usually resting on 

the ground, but young pads temporarily ascending. In the 

spring this often results in a small clump of the young, ascending 

pads standing to 8 or even 10 inches tall, but during 

the winter these pads become flaccid and the whole thing is 

entirely prostrate. The pads are usually 21/2 to 4 but sometimes 

to 6 inches long, nearly round with only a slight constriction 

below to elongated oval or egg-shaped with very 

pronounced constriction below. These pads are of medium 

thickness to very thick, often 5/8 of an inch thick, tuberculate 

when growing but then nearly smooth, except often very 

shrunken and wrinkled from lack of water or from winter 

cold. The color is a light grayish-green or yellowish-green 

with a dull surface. 

areoles: Small and inconspicuous on young pads, becoming 

to almost 1/4 of an inch in diameter on old pads. They are 

spaced 1/2 to 1 inch apart. 

spines: 1 to 4 in number in the areoles on the upper edge to 

the upper one-half of the pad only. There is in these upper, 

armed areoles one main central spine which is porrect or 

deflexed a little, 1 to 21/4 inches long, slender to medium 

thickness, and round to somewhat flattened. Besides this there 

are usually 1 or 2 upper spines porrect or spreading upward, 

3/4 to 21/4 inches long, of medium thickness, and always round, 

plus rarely 1 lower spine 3/8 to 11/8 inches long, deflexed, 

slender, and flattened. All spines are entirely white or gray, 

or sometimes gray with bases light brown or yellowish. Rarely 

the upper spines have darker brown bases or brown mot- 

tling. 

glochids: Yellow, greenish-yellow, or straw-colored, few to 

medium in number and short at first, increasing somewhat in 

number and length until rather conspicuous and to 3/8 of an 

inch long on old pads. 

flowers: Light sulphur or greenish-yellow in color, 21/2 to 4 

inches in diameter. The ovary is a slender club about 11/4 to 

2 inches long. There are 10 inner petals. The stigma has 6 

small white lobes. 

fruits: Club-shaped with constricted and more or less elongated 

bases. The umbilicus is deeply pitted. In size they measure 

11/2 to 21/2 inches long. They seeds are approximately 3/16 

of an inch (4–5 millimeters) in diameter, thick to very thick, 

with narrow rims. 

Range. Common only in northwestern New Mexico and adjacent 

Arizona, but found in very scattered locations over most 

of the northern two-thirds of New Mexico and also collected 

a few times in the upper Texas Panhandle. 

Remarks. I have found in all herbarium collections I have examined 

some small, prostrate New Mexico Opuntias which do 

not quite fit the descriptions of O. cymochila or O. compressa 

var. macrorhiza, but which are usually placed in the folder of 

one or the other of these species that everyone expects to find 

in New Mexico. Many of these specimens are so incomplete that 

there is little way to prove what they are, but taking those 

which present fruits and seeds as well as pads, and lumping 

them together, one gets a rather homogeneous group of speci- 

mens. In living collections I have found the same plants grow-


ing, and finally, we have collected specimens with the same 

characters in a number of places in New Mexico, Arizona, and 

Texas. 

I soon noticed that when I compiled the description of this 

body of plants I had thus brought together, it paralleled remarkably 

well Engelmann’s old description of O. stenochila. 

The only aspects in which it exceeds the limits of that description 

are in the maximum length of spines found on some of my 

specimens and in the slightly smaller seeds on some than he gave 

for the species. When it is noticed that the majority of these 

maverick plants are from northwestern New Mexico, including 

some from just east of Zuni, which must be from very near the 

type locality of O. stenochila (it having been given as “canyon 

of Zuni, western New Mexico”), it becomes very convincing 

that here we have a collection of that long-lost cactus. 

But if so, then why has the cactus been so long overlooked, 

and why are there no specimens called by this name in any collection 

except the type specimens? I think this goes back to 

Wooton and Standley. These men were the acknowledged authorities 

on New Mexico plants in the next generation after 

Coulter, and somehow they misunderstood this plant so much 

that they dismissed it by saying, “Known only from the original 

collection by Bigelow. We have seen no material of this species.” 

And almost everyone since has been all too quick to take them 

at their word; so, since we see what we expect to see, whatever 

specimens of this cactus have been found since that time have 

been quickly assigned to O. cymochila or O. compressa var. 

macrorhiza, where they almost, but not quite, fit. Being more 

careful, Peebles erected a new species, O. loomisii, to take care 

of the Arizona specimens of this same cactus, and so the more 

western examples of it were dispersed in other folders. 

But perhaps this is one place where we should pay attention 

to Britton and Rose. After and in spite of Wooton and Standley’s 

statement about O. stenochila, they said, “It is the common 

low, spreading Opuntia of northwestern New Mexico and 

Arizona.” I agree with them, and think that many herbarium 

specimens would be shifted out of folders where they don’t quite 

look comfortable into the folder of this form if we regarded it 

as a plant we might expect to find and if the specimens collected 

were complete enough and well-enough preserved to show its 

differences from the other forms. 

The cactus is obviously one of the O. compressa complex. Engelmann 

himself reduced it in a later writing from a separate 

species to a variety, and Coulter followed him. Its fruits are 

almost exactly like those of variety macrorhiza, both in shape 

and in the limits of their sizes. The seeds of the two forms are 

very nearly alike, and both may have either fibrous or tuberous 

roots. But variety stenochila presents yellow glochids and longer 

spines than are typical of variety macrorhiza, and its pads are 

gray or yellowish-green and dull, while those of variety macrorhiza 

are deep and shining green. The flowers are also dif- 

ferent. 

When the fruits are considered, it is immediately obvious that 

variety stenochila is not just a poorly armed O. cymochila, as 

its pads have led many to believe. Its long fruits with constricted 

bases and its thick, narrow-margined seeds show that it 

belongs with the O. compressa group. 

If this is truly variety stenochila, then it is, as originally 

stated, a plant of northwest New Mexico. One may actually 

find it fairly easily in that area. It is my opinion that it spreads 

into Arizona, where it was described as O. loomisii by Peebles. 

He states that that plant comes into New Mexico, and I know 

of nothing else in this state to equal his description. However, 

the eastern limit of its range is very hard to define. I have the 

cactus collected in the Mescalero Sands. This is east of Roswell, 

and getting near the southeastern corner of New Mexico. I have 

also collected what must be this plant in Gray County, east of 

Pampa in the Texas Panhandle, which marks by far the easternmost 

known record of it. 

Opuntia pottsii SD 


roots: Always having a large central taproot 3/4 to 11/2 

inches in diameter and 6 inches to more than a foot long. This 

may be smooth and carrot-like or, in rocky ground, is often 

contorted and constricted here and there by the edges of 

rocks. Sometimes it subdivides into 2 or 3 fleshy branches, but 

it is not ever a tuberous, spherical, or spindle-shaped, potato- 

like enlargement on otherwise fibrous roots. When damaged 

this root slowly exudes a milky sap. 

stems: Although small, this is basically an ascending plant 

with pads only touching the ground when extremely dehydrated 

or in their winter-shrunken condition. It appears not 

to root from the pads, so it is not mat-forming, but stands as 

a small clump of upright pads 6 to 12 inches tall from a central 

base which is often a short, cylindrical trunklet. The pads 

are 11/2 to 5 inches long by 1 to 4 inches wide, almost round 

to elongated egg-shaped, with some constriction at the bases. 

They are thin or medium thickness, the surface flat without 

raised areoles. In color it is glaucous blue-green, often purplish 

around the areoles when young and healthy, but fading 

to yellow-green when old or unhealthy. The leaves of this 

plant are extremely tiny, being around 1/8 of an inch long. 

areoles: To only 1/8 of an inch long on young pads, but becoming 

to 1/4 of an inch in diameter on old pads. They are 

spaced 3/8 to 1 inch apart. 

spines: Having spines on only the upper edge or at most the 

upper one-third of the pad. These upper areoles have 1 to 3 

spines which are straight although usually twisted and rather 

slender. They may be round or flattened or sometimes ridged, 

and are whitish, gray, or sometimes gray mottled with tan, 

or brownish. There will be 1 or 2 upper spines 1 to 21/2 inches


long, deflexed or spreading, plus sometimes 1 lower, very 

deflexed spine 1/2 to 1 inch long. The plant has been said to 

be occasionally spineless, but I have not seen such a speci- 

men. 

glochids: Greenish-yellow to dirty straw-colored, usually 

rather numerous in compact clusters, 1/8 to sometimes 1/4 of 

an inch long on old pads. 

flowers: Brilliant purplish or rose-red and very beautiful. 2 

to 23/4 inches in diameter and 21/2 to 3 inches tall. The ovary 

is very slender and 1 to 2 inches long, with some glochids on 

it. There are about 7 or 8 inner petals. The filaments are green 

below and yellowish above, the anthers bright yellow. The 

style is pinkish and the stigma lobes cream-colored, fat and 

velvety, and 5 to 7 in number. 

fruits: 11/2 to 2 inches long, slender club-shaped, being only 

3/4 of an inch in diameter at the upper, widest part above the 

slender, attenuated base. The apex is deeply pitted. When 

ripening, they become light red. The seeds are about 3/16 of an 

inch or a little larger (4–51/2 millimeters) in diameter in my 

observation, although Coulter says 31/2 to 4 millimeters. These 

seeds are thick—Engelmann says they are the thickest of the 

Opuntias. The rims are of medium width, blunt instead of 

acute, and irregular. 

Range. From Chihuahua, Mexico, north past El Paso and 

through the western part of the Big Bend into the Davis Mountains 

of Texas and on into southeastern New Mexico. Known 

to be found in the southern Guadalupe Mountains and to extend 

in New Mexico at least as far north as Caprock and Roswell. 

Remarks. This cactus is very close to the O. compressa group 

and more study may show that it should be included in it, but 

the step seems premature with no more than our present knowledge. 

At any rate, it has very distinct differences from any of 

the varieties of that group. It was first described from Chihuahua 

specimens by Prince Salm-Dyck. Engelmann redescribed 

it from Texas collections, calling it O. filipendula. Once it was 

determined by Britton and Rose that these two were the same, 

there has been little confusion over this species. 

The cactus appears at a glance much like O. compressa var. 

macrorhiza, until one notices the more blue-green, glaucous 

coloring and the fact that, although it is no taller than the other 

plant, O. pottsii is not a fully prostrate, diffuse thing rooting 

and spreading from chains of pads on the ground, but a compact 

plant ascending from one center by many upright or 

sprawling pads. The spination is similar, each plant having either 

round or flattened spines on only the upper areoles, but O. 

pottsii has more slender and usually longer spines, although never 

reaching the maximum number found in some specimens of va- 

riety macrorhiza and always lacking the lower bristles often 

found on that other cactus. If one digs up the plants, he will 

find there an obvious difference between the two forms. The 

root of O. pottsii is always a central taproot extension of the 

thick, trunklike stem which often goes without interruption and 

with very little taper up to a foot into the ground. It is basically 

different from the globular to spindle-shaped tubers often found 

on the fibrous roots of the O. compressa forms. There is also a 

striking difference in the leaves of this plant, those of O. pottsii 

being very tiny, while those of all forms of O. compressa examined 

in this study are 3 or 4 times as large. But when the 

beautiful purplish or rose-red flowers of O. pottsii appear one 

really appreciates the difference between the two plants. These 

are certainly some of the most beautiful flowers found among 

the Opuntias. 

O. pottsii was reported by Anthony from western Brewster 

County in the Big Bend, although I have been unable to recollect 

it there. Dr. Rose collected it “in the valley of the Rio 

Grande below El Paso, Texas,” and Engelmann’s specimens were 

from near Dona Ana and San Elizario in the El Paso area, but I 

have seen no recent specimens from that locality. Engelmann 

said it was growing there on alluvial prairies, and in looking 

for likely spots, I found that almost everything there which 

might be described at all by the term of alluvial prairies is now 

a part of the city, in cultivation and irrigation, or otherwise 

developed, so I wonder if the cactus may not have been elimi- 

nated around El Paso by the developments. 

The cactus does seem to be strictly a resident of alluvial flats. 

It still grows along stream beds in the Davis Mountains of 

Texas. Engelmann’s statement that the eastern boundary of its 

range was the Limpia was correct. This is a creek in the eastern 

part of the Davis Mountains, and the plant has not been recorded 

from east of it in Texas. Nor does his additional statement 

of “El Paso and eastward on the Pecos,” contradict this. 

It does not mean on the lower Pecos, as many have thought. 

Limpia Creek runs north out of the mountains into the Pecos 

River just below the town of Pecos, Texas, and the cactus occurs 

to the Pecos only above this point. Farther north it enters 

New Mexico, to be found in the creek valleys of the southeasternmost 

part of the Guadalupe Mountains and east across the 

Pecos to at least as far north and east as Caprock, New Mexico. 

If the New Mexico herbarium material usually labeled O. ballii 

were considered as this plant, as some think it should be, then 

the range would extend over all of the southeastern corner of 

New Mexico and along the eastern boundary of that state to 

Logan on the Canadian River. 

Besides certain morphological differences, there is an ecological 

reason why I hesitate to lump these northern specimens 

with the Texas O. pottsii. There has been, in the past few years, 

a marked die-off of the O. pottsii population in the Davis 

Mountains, which has become so bad that in our old collecting 

spot north of Alpine, Texas (where a few years ago we could 

count dozens of healthy specimens), in 1966 I failed to find one 

remaining example. The preceding few winters had been very 

severe, setting new low temperature records for the area. Dr. 

Warnock, botanist at Sul Ross State College in Alpine, states 

that most specimens of this cactus in the area were killed by this 

unusual cold. Remembering that this is a Chihuahuan species


restricted to alluvial bottoms in the south of its range and noting 

this evidence of tenderness in the plant, I wonder if it can be 

the same plant which grows rather profusely in the very severe 

conditions of the eastern New Mexico mountains and plains. 

Statements by those who have observed many of the plants 

growing far up in eastern New Mexico that they bloom yellow 

as well as red and often have tuberous roots instead of the typical 

taproot add to my doubts about them. Further study of 

these plants is needed to determine whether we have in them a 

transitional form bridging the gap between O. pottsii and the 

O. compressa complex or whether they are something entirely 

different. 

The specimens definitely known to be O. pottsii show us a 

rather strange little Opuntia with beautiful flowers. While it 

grows over a rather good-sized area, it seems always to be far 

from common anywhere. It is an easy cactus to grow, in my 

experience, not being harmed by moisture as easily as are some 

others. Perhaps this is because it grows naturally in valleys in- 

stead of upon the more dry hills and ledges. 

Opuntia ballii Rose 


roots: According to Rose, “somewhat tuberous.” In our observation 

a large specimen had small, spindle-shaped tubers 

upon the fibrous roots, but plants started as cuttings from the 

original had not developed tubers upon their roots in several 

years’ growth. 

stems: Prostrate and spreading. The pads are 23/8 to 4 inches 

long, almost circular to broadly egg-shaped, very thick for 

their size, pale yellowish-green and glaucous, the surface entirely 

smooth without raised areoles. 

areoles: Small, nearly round. 

spines: 2 to 4 in number on most or all areoles. There are 1 

to 3 main spines spreading upward or erect, 11/2 to 23/4 inches 

long, plus 1 lower, deflexed, and much shorter spine. All 

spines are straw or pale brownish in color, heavy, very rigid, 

straight, and a little flattened. 

glochids: Very conspicuous, each areole having a great, compact 

mass of bright yellow glochids 1/4 to 1/2 inch long. 

flowers: Small, 11/4 to about 2 inches across and about 2 

inches tall, deep rose-red. The ovary is about 11/4 inches long 

and very narrow club-shaped or almost linear, with very few 

yellow glochids in the areoles. The outer perianth segments 

have green midlines, the smaller ones shading to flesh-colored 

on the edges, the larger ones to burnt-orange pinkish on the 

edges. There are about 6 inner segments about 1 inch long and 

wide, with blunt ends notched at the apex. The base and 

most of each inner segment shade from old red through deep 

rose-red, the edges and tips cerise. The filaments are green at 

the base, then cream-colored, the anthers cream. The style is 

short and whitish. The stigma has 5 cream-colored, fat, and 

thick lobes. 

fruits: Small and very slender, 3/4 to 11/4 inches long, very 

narrow club-shaped, being only 1/4 of an inch thick at the 

center of the widest part, with greatly constricted bases and 

rather narrowed, pitted umbilici. They are spineless. The seeds 

are slightly over 1/8 of an inch (about 31/2 millimeters) broad, 

and thick for their size. 

Range. According to Dr. Rose, “the dry mesa beyond Pecos, 

Texas.” 

Remarks. This remarkable little cactus was found and described 

by Dr. Rose in 1911. He gave for its type location Pecos, Reeves 

County, Texas. 

Almost immediately after Rose described the species, Wooton 

said it was common in New Mexico, and later Wooton and 

Standley referred it to O. filipendula (O. pottsii) as a synonym. 

Dr. Rose had opportunity to publish a rebuttal and did so, 

stressing that O. ballii grows in a different habitat, has smaller 

fruits, stouter and more erect spines, and different areoles than 

that plant. 

There thus arose a disagreement about this cactus which has 

continued until this day. Some students, influenced by Wooton, 

have expected to find it in New Mexico. We often convince our- 

selves that we have found what we expect to find, at least to 

our own satisfaction, and the New Mexico herbarium contains 

a whole series of plants labeled O. ballii, specifically from 

Eunice, Tatum, Caprock, Texico, near Tucumcari, and near Logan, 

New Mexico. If these are correctly assigned, the cactus 

extends its range all up along the eastern edge of the state. 

I have studied the cacti growing in all of these areas as much 

as possible during a long search for the true O. ballii, collecting 

most of them in the field rather than relying on the herbarium 

specimens. The plants growing west of Tucumcari seem 

clearly to be O. compressa var. macrorhiza, which might be expected 

there, since I have collected it within less than one hundred 

miles both southeast and northwest of this location. The 

Logan specimens are too incomplete to identify certainly, and I 

was unable to find the plant growing in that area today. The 

Texico plants are quite certainly O. cymochila, which grows in 

profusion there. The Caprock specimens appear to be O. pottsii, 

which I have collected myself near Caprock. In short, I have 

found no New Mexican specimens under this name which 

seemed to me to be actually O. ballii, and most of them seemed 

clearly other forms. 

But the plant was originally described from Texas, and Britton 

and Rose long ago denied New Mexico the plant in restating 

its range to be west Texas. What was the plant they actually 

collected near Pecos? 

When I examined Rose’s own specimens it immediately seemed 

clear to me that his was a different cactus, not only from 

O. pottsii, but from all those collected and labeled O. ballii in


New Mexico. His specimens are easy to recognize by their long, 

heavy spines, their yellow glochids mostly to 1/2 inch long, and 

very nearly the longest found on any Opuntia, as well as by 

their very small fruits. None of these characters are shared by 

O. pottsii or by any New Mexico plants I have seen, to say 

nothing of the difference in roots between O. pottsii and this 

plant. I became persuaded that we have here a unique small 

cactus perhaps not found outside of the Pecos area of west 

Texas. And there is only one sign of its ever having been seen 

again since Rose’s original collection. ‘There is in the Southern 

Methodist University herbarium a single unlabeled specimen 

which seems clearly to be this plant. It was collected by Warnock 

22 miles northwest of Pecos, Texas. What was needed was the 

rediscovery of the thing itself so we could know more about it. 

I made repeated trips to Reeves County and spent days 

scouring all of the region I could, but perhaps the most frustrating 

experience of this study has been the failure to relocate 

O. ballii. There is a large amount of dry mesa, and it must still 

be there, but also much of the area is now irrigated and farmed, 

and it may have been largely eradicated. 

I had given up hope of ever seeing the cactus alive, when one 

day I was looking over the very interesting cactus gardens of 

Mr. Clark Champie, the widely known cactus student and dealer 

of Anthony, New Mexico-Texas. Mr. Champie began showing 

me some plants he could not identify, and there it was! Its small, 

thick, very light green pads with their very heavy spines often 

as long as the pads themselves and the brilliant yellow glochids 

so profuse and so long in each areole were unlike anything I 

had seen before. The tiny fruits less than an inch long in many 

cases and no thicker than a lead pencil were complete confirmation. 

Each fruit contained a dozen or so seeds hardly over 

1/8 of an inch in diameter, but very thick. 

So I have seen O. ballii alive, have my own cutting of it, and, 

thanks to Mr. Champie, am able to present a photograph of it, 

but still I can tell no more about where it grows than Rose’s 

statement. Mr. Champie says that this plant was given to him 

some 8 or 10 years ago by a fellow cactophile who didn’t remember 

where it was collected beyond the fact that it was in 

west Texas. This may very well be the only specimen of this interesting 

species living today. To those who might be intrigued 

and want to try to find it, I can say nothing more than for them 

to try the dry mesa beyond Pecos, Texas, and good luck! It must 

be there somewhere. 

Opuntia plumbea Rose 


roots: Having a very unusual underground structure consisting 

of what appears to be a fleshy rhizome rather than a 

root. This structure is 1/2 inch or a little more in diameter, 

and runs horizontally just under the ground, giving off pads 

at intervals of 4 to 8 inches along its length. It has been observed 

with a total length of about 4 feet. Fibrous roots are 

produced from this apparent rhizome. 

stems: Plants ascending at the point of each sprouting from 

the underground stem, but not standing over 1 or 2 pads high. 

These pads are almost circular to broadly egg-shaped and 11/4 

to 21/2 inches long. They soon develop into a cluster of small 

pads standing to only 4 inches or so high but in time becoming 

to 8 or 12 inches across at each growing point. These 

separate clusters finally meet at their edges to form a more 

or less solid mat of pads up to several feet across. The pads 

are rather thin and the surface somewhat tuberculate by 

raised areoles. The color of the surface is very glaucous, dull 

blue-gray, sometimes described as lead-colored. 

areoles: Large for the size of the pads, being oval and 3/16 of 

an inch or so long, spaced 3/8 to 1/2 inch apart. 

spines: 1 to 4, but usually 2 in number, found in upper areoles 

of the pads only. They are gray in color, more or less mottled 

with pale brown. There is one main spine porrect or slightly 

deflexed, which is 1 to 17/8 inches long, slender, straight, and 

round, or nearly so, although sometimes slightly flattened at 

the base. Sometimes also present will be 1 or 2 upper spines 

standing porrect, or practically so, 1 to 2 inches long, slender, 

straight, and round. There may be also 1 lower deflexed spine 

1/2 to 11/4 inches long. 

glochids: There are conspicuous, bright, red-brown glochids 

in all areoles. They are in compact clusters and are 1/8 to 3/16 

of an inch long. 

flowers: Small, being 11/2 inches or so long and wide, purplish 

in color. The ovary is less than 1 inch long, but fairly 

broad. The stigmas are white. 

fruits: Small, being 5/8 to 7/8 of an inch long and broadly 

pear-shaped with pitted umbilici. The seeds are slightly over 

1/8 of an inch (31/2–4 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. The San Carlos Indian Reservation in Arizona and the 

edge of New Mexico west of Silver City. 

Remarks. Dr. Rose described this strange little cactus from a 

collection made on the San Carlos Indian Reservation of Arizona 

in 1904. The plant must be very rare, as there is no record 

of its ever having been seen again in Arizona. More recent 

works have generally ignored it or else submerged it as a synonym 

of O. compressa var. macrorhiza. It has never been con- 

sidered a New Mexico plant. 

Mr. Clark Champie of Anthony, New Mexico-Texas, who has 

a fine cactus collection, has a strange Opuntia which he has kept 

because of its uniqueness. He had had it for about 5 years when 

I first saw it, during which time it had spread in a most unusual, 

linear manner. When he transplanted it he was surprised to find 

that it had in this time developed a long, rhizome-like structure 

which, growing horizontally, was at that time nearly 3 feet 

long. It was observed that this structure had sprouted a series


of pads at intervals of about 6 inches all along its length, each 

of these points in time forming a new growing center with numerous 

pads in a cluster. Since planted in the ground this cactus 

has continued the elongation of this underground structure, with 

new growth centers from it. 

The manner of growth which results is rather well described 

by Rose’s word, “creeping,” in his description of O. plumbea. 

This is a term which Rose used concerning no other prostrate 

cactus and which I take to mean specifically the creeping, 

spreading growth outward which results in this cactus from 

these peculiar underground growths. I know of only one other 

cactus in the U. S. Southwest with a similar creeping and sprouting 

underground structure. This is O. arenaria, whose underground 

part has areoles with many glochids all over it. These 

are lacking on this plant, and the two cacti are different in al- 

most all other respects. 

Mr. Champie’s strange cactus has small pads of a dull, bluish- 

gray color, long slender spines, and conspicuous, bright, red- 

brown glochids. It blooms with a small purplish flower and has 

small though broad fruits less than 1 inch long. It fits perfectly 

Rose’s description of O. plumbea, and we are certain it is that 

long-lost plant. The specimen in Mr. Champie’s garden was presented 

to him by a collector who gave little detail of the location 

of its collection, saying only that he found it in New Mex- 

ico somewhere west of Silver City. Although we have been unsuccessful 

in collecting it ourselves, I feel obliged to list it here as 

a species probably growing in New Mexico. Since I cannot give 

the exact location of it, I realize that this does not constitute an 

actual record in the strict scientific sense; however, I feel it 

is important to tell of this apparent instance of the plant in our 

area in the hope that it will stimulate someone to re-collect it 

and give us an exact location for it. 

Opuntia drummondii Graham 

“Crow-Foot Prickly Pear,” “Cock-Spur Cactus,” “Cockle- 

Burr Cactus,” “Sand-Burr Cactus” 


roots: Either entirely fibrous or often having several oval 

tubers up to 21/2 inches long and 11/2 inches thick upon these 

roots. 

stems: A very prostrate and diffuse cactus, forming mats 

from 1 to sometimes at least 15 feet across, but hardly over 

4 or 5 inches high, as all older pads lie on the ground. The 

pads are broadly oblong to elongated club-shaped, 1 to 41/2 

inches long by 1 to 21/4 inches wide. They are often 3/4 of an 

inch and sometimes even 1 inch thick, young joints being almost 

globular. The surface is smooth, without raised areoles 

when well-watered. They shrink and wrinkle when dry, but 

can never be described as tuberculate. They are deep green 

with darker, bluish coloring around the areoles, becoming 

lighter green when old. These pads are very loosely articulat- 

ed, coming off the plant at a touch. 

areoles: Round or oval, 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch in diameter, 3/8 

to 3/4 of an inch apart. 

spines: There are 1 to 4 straight spines on almost all areoles 

or often on upper edge areoles only. There is 1 porrect spine 

1/2 to 11/2 inches long, flattened, twisted, and of medium 

thickness. There may be 1 or 2 upper spines 1 to 15/8 inches 

long and round in shape. Sometimes there is 1 lower spine 1/4 

to 3/4 of an inch long, slender, round or flattened, deflexed 

or porrect. At first these spines are light brown, but they soon 

fade to gray with the tips remaining clear yellow or else becoming 

blackish. 

glochids: Greenish-yellow or bright straw-colored, 1/8 to 1/4 

of an inch long, average number to many, in compact clusters. 

flowers: Clear lemon to greenish-yellow, sometimes with a 

slightly deeper yellow coloring in the center. They are 21/2 to 

3 inches in diameter. The ovary is 7/8 to 1 inch long, with a 

few short, red glochids on it. There are 8 inner petals. The 

filaments are orange, the anthers yellow. The stamens are very 

sensitive, moving at a touch. The stigma has 5 or 6 thick, yel- 

low or slightly greenish-yellow lobes. 

fruits: Light red when ripe, club-shaped, with some constriction 

below and a shallow to rather deeply pitted umbilicus at 

the top. These fruits are 1 to 11/2 inches long by 1/2 to 5/8 of an 

inch thick at the thickest point. The seeds are not quite 3/16 of 

an inch (about 4 millimeters) in diameter, regular, and rather 

thick, with rather narrow and blunt rims. 

Range. Previously known from the beach areas of North Carolina 

through Florida to Alabama. It is known to grow in our 

area only in a strip a mile or so long near the tip of Bolivar 

Peninsula, in front of Galveston Bay. Perhaps it also grows in 

Louisiana. 

Remarks. I had been told by Mr. H. C. Lawson, the San Antonio 

cactus dealer so well known during more than 30 years of business, 

about the strange little prickly pear which grew on the 

Bolivar Peninsula directly across the pass from Galveston. I had 

repeatedly failed to locate it myself, and had about concluded 

that it had been eliminated by the developments which that area 

has undergone through the years. Then Mr. Glenn Spraker, a 

collector in Houston, told me of such a cactus which his father- 

in-law, Mr. Herman McGowan, had noticed during fishing trips 

on the peninsula. These men were so kind as to take me to the 

cactus, and it turned out to be O. drummondii, previously unknown 

in Texas. 

The reason I had not found it earlier is that it grows only on 

the bay side of the peninsula from about Baffle Point toward the 

tip of the peninsula. This narrow strip is perhaps the highest part 

of the peninsula, but since the Intracoastal Canal was dredged 

down the length of the peninsula, it is entirely separated by this 

canal from the major part of the peninsula. It now forms a long,


slender island not over 1/4 mile wide and totally uninhabited 

except by cattle, so anyone going to hunt this cactus has to have 

the interesting experience of hunting cactus by boat, since there 

is no other way to get to this island. 

Once having gotten there, the collector will find the highest 

part of this strip to be almost covered by mats of O. drummondii. 

The small pads are flat on the very sandy ground or 

even partly covered by blowing sand. With the sparse grass 

growing up even higher through the cactus mats, they are almost 

impossible to see until one is within a few feet. And if a 

person fails entirely to notice them and makes the mistake of 

stepping into the mat of them, his foot comes up with sometimes 

half a dozen pads pulled loose and firmly stuck by their spines 

into his shoes, his trousers and, if he is little less fortunate, into 

his ankles. With its pads so loosely held, this cactus must be a 

constant hitchhiker on the legs of animals. It is well named 

the sand-burr cactus. Its adaptation for animal dispersal is probably 

even more cruel than that of the sand-burr or cockle-burr. 

However, no doubt the pads are broken off and distributed 

wholesale by storm tides as well, as there were unmistakable 

signs that the last hurricane had swept large logs across this 

ridge. 

Although very common on and near beaches of the southeastern 

part of the U. S., O. drummondii has not been reported 

before in Texas. It is interesting, but probably fruitless to speculate 

upon how it happens to be growing here, so far west of 

Alabama, its previous definitely known western limit. This location 

in Texas is at the point where ships enter Galveston Bay 

and where more recently barges and boats come by constantly 

after having traveled west along the Intracoastal Waterway. It 

is not hard to imagine pads of this cactus moving west with 

them, but there is no evidence of this, and if it happened, it was 

long ago, as a large area is covered with this cactus now. 

A specimen which appears to be O. drummondii is in the U. S. 

National Museum, collected, according to the almost illegible 

label, in 1910, by McAtee at Caudwerdee (?), Louisiana. I have 

not been able to find this location, but this raises the possibility 

that the plant grows somewhere along the coast of Louisiana. 

This cactus was regarded by Coulter as very close to the eastern, 

typical form of Opuntia compressa, and it does have similarities, 

particularly of flower, fruit, and seed to that cactus. It 

is like the O. compressa group also in often having tuberous 

roots, but in thickness of pads it surpasses all of those forms. 

Britton and Rose, on the other hand, in devising their series 

within the genus Opuntia, set up the series Curassavicae, made 

up of a number of small cacti from the West Indies characterized 

by fragile branches which separate at a touch, and naturally put 

this cactus into that series, thus separating it entirely from the 

O. compressa complex, whose pads have to be twisted off. However, 

this character seems a doubtful one upon which to erect a 

series. The looseness of joints is shared by a number of other 

cacti described for the U. S. One is O. tracyi Britt., which grows 

on the coast from Florida to Mississippi, and which seems very 

close to O. drummondii. Another is O. nemoralis Gr., from northeast 

Texas, which would seem to be a typical O. compressa var. 

humifusa except for this feature. It has not been seen since its 

first description and nothing appears today in its area except 

variety humifusa, which makes it, in our estimation, of doubtful 

validity. A third is O. fragilis of northwest Texas and New 

Mexico and far into the north. However, even though this cactus 

has similar loose pads, it has dry fruits, and so Britton and 

Rose place it into another series entirely. O. schottii, a Corynopuntia 

of south Texas has this character, and of course there 

are various of the large chollas, such as O. tunicata and O. fulgida 

featuring this. It seems to be a feature running through 

many major segments of the genus and not one upon which any 

major divisions of the group should be made. 

Opuntia fragilis (Nutt.) Haw. 

“Brittle Cactus,” “Fragile Prickly Pear” 



stems: A low-growing cactus almost completely prostrate or 

with spreading branches rising to only 6 or 8 inches high, but 

forming very dense mats up to a foot or two in diameter. The 

joints begin as almost globular outgrowths up to 1/2 or even 

5/8 of an inch in diameter. In growing, they first elongate, 

reaching to 1 or 11/2 inches long without broadening, so they 

are at this stage almost cylindrical. If the plant is not robust 

its whole growth may remain like this, but if it is situated so 

that it can proceed fully, these joints then begin broadening 

until they become small, very thick pads 11/2 to 2 inches long 

by 3/4 to 11/4 inches wide by about 5/8 of an inch thick. These 

joints are very loosely attached and separate at a touch. They 

are often very wrinkled and flaccid. 

areoles: Small to medium size, with some white wool when 

young, situated about 3/8 to 1/2 inch apart. 

spines: 1 to sometimes at least 7, spreading, fairly stout, round 

or nearly so, and 1/4 to 1 inch long. They are whitish with 

darker tips or straw-colored when matured, but dark brown 

when growing. 

glochids: Very few and short, and yellowish in color. 

flowers: Clear yellow, sometimes with orange centers. They 

are up to about 2 inches in diameter. The stamens are yellowish. 

The stigma has 4 to 6 green stigma lobes. The ovary is 

small and almost spherical. 

fruits: Oval or egg-shaped, 1/2 to 1 inch long, with pitted 

flower scars. They have some short spines on the upper areoles 

and become dry when ripe. The seeds are large, around 1/4 of 

an inch (5–7 millimeters) in diameter, flat, with broad, ir- 

regular rims. 

Range. Extreme northern New Mexico into Colorado and Utah, 

Corny- -> Coryn-


and extreme northwestern Texas across the Oklahoma Pan- 

handle and on into Kansas. It is found at various scattered locations 

throughout the northwestern U. S. from Wisconsin to Washington 

and on far into Canada. 

Remarks. O. fragilis is the first of our dry-fruited Opuntias— 

that is, those in which the fruits become dry and their walls 

papery instead of juicy and pulpy when ripe—for us to study. 

These cacti have another character in common, the possession of 

green stigma lobes in the flowers. If one is fortunate enough to 

see both their flowers and fruits these two characters make them 

easy to know, but as some of them bloom and fruit very sparingly, 

most people see their vegetative parts only, and some of 

them are rather hard to recognize from just these parts. 

O. fragilis grows in very sandy soil, and anyone who has tried 

to treat it to the same soil and extreme heat as he does most 

other cacti will find it is fragile indeed. It just will not grow in 

the typical hot desert situation or in heavy soil. But it is not 

fragile in regard to cold. It is one of our most northern cacti, 

said to grow in Canada almost to the arctic circle. Of course, its 

name comes from its loosely articulated joints, which are dislodged 

by a touch and which some say can even be loosened and 

distributed by the wind. A person or an animal, not seeing the 

low mat of these little pads, often steps away with pads securely 

stuck to clothing or fur—or flesh—to be shaken off later and to 

root wherever they fall. 

One seeing the cactus only in the form it takes when less than 

robust might never think of it as a prickly pear, but as some sort 

of tiny cylindrical jointed cactus. However, when growing well, 

the joints broaden into thick, but definitely flattened little pads 

up to 2 inches long. The flowers and fruits are not well known 

because it does not flower at all unless very well situated, often 

relying upon the scattering of the little joints to propagate it for 

years at a time before every factor of season and soil pleases it 

and it blooms. For this reason it rarely blooms in cultivation. 

This strange little northern cactus just enters the edge of our 

southwestern area, living only in extreme northern New Mexico 

and the panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas. Here its locations 

are not numerous and are very scattered. In Texas it can occasionally 

be found in the sandy breaks along the Canadian River 

north of Amarillo. There once was a good population of it along 

the railroad right-of-way northeast of Amarillo, but this is apparently 

all gone now, wiped out in the last few years, perhaps 

by the herbicides now used on such right-of-ways. Although I 

lived two years in the Oklahoma Panhandle and was in the field 

over much of that area, I know of no place where it grows there 

except on the Black Mesa, that remarkable formation in the extreme 

northwest corner of the state. It appears from old accounts 

that the cactus may have been more widespread in the 

past in the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles, but it is my theory 

that it has been practically eliminated by the farming which has 

been practiced on almost all of that area, or where there has not 

been farming, by the drifting sand of the dust-bowl days. It 

would have been limited to the most sandy areas, the very areas 

where drifts sometimes covered automobiles and reached the 

eaves of buildings, and these would surely have covered and 

smothered this tiny cactus. Wherever we find this northern cactus 

in our area it is just the extreme southern extension of its 

range, and we get the feeling that it is not really one of ours, but 

merely one whose little pads have been carried in on who knows 

what animal’s pelt and which is at best just hanging on with us. 

As treacherous as it is, we are not sure whether we wish it luck 

or not. 

Engelmann received specimens from near Inscription Rock in 

northwestern New Mexico which he thought a different plant 

and named O. brachyarthra. Coulter made this a variety of the 

species, although saying that whether it should even stand as a 

distinct variety seemed doubtful to him. Britton and Rose considered 

it merely a synonym of the species. Boissevain, in his 

study of Colorado cacti, says that all of the specimens on the 

western slopes of the Continental Divide are more robust than 

those on the eastern side and that these western plants fit the 

description of Engelmann’s plant, so he calls the whole western 

population O. fragilis var. brachyarthra. But upon examining 

specimens from Inscription Rock, we do not find constant 

enough differences from the more eastern specimens, in our opinion, 

to justify the variety. 

Opuntia Sphaerocarpa Eng. 


roots: Mostly tuberous, with small, oblong or spindle-shaped 

tubers on the fibrous roots, but sometimes lacking these and 

remaining entirely fibrous. 

stems: A low, diffuse, and mostly prostrate plant with only 

the new pads temporarily upright. The pads are round or even 

wider than they are long to sometimes very broadly egg- 

shaped, 21/2 to 4 inches long and 21/2 to 31/2 inches wide. These 

pads are average thickness to thick, tuberculate by raised 

areoles, Soft, shrinking to become very wrinkled when water 

is scarce or especially in the winter. They are bright green 

when young, fading to a somewhat lighter green when old, 

and often suffused with purplish coloring in the winter. 

areoles: Elongated in shape, tiny or very small, 1/8 of an inch 

or less long on the sides of the pads, becoming oval, but hard- 

ly larger on the edges. They are 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch apart. 

spines: Only upper edge areoles are armed. These have typically 

1 to 3 spines consisting of 1 central which is deflexed, 

1/4 to 11/2 inches long, slender to medium thickness, and flattened; 

sometimes 1 upper spine which is porrect, 1/2 to 11/2 

inches long, slender to medium thickness, and round; plus oc-


casionally 1 or 2 lower, much deflexed, slender spines, 3/16 to 

1/2 inch long. The larger spines are brown or reddish-brown 

mottled above with tan or whitish. The lower, slender spines 

are gray with dark tips. 

glochids: Very few and short in a compact clump in each 

areole on the sides of the pads, becoming somewhat more 

numerous and longer to 3/16 of an inch on the edges. They are 

yellow to dirty straw-colored. 

flowers: Greenish-yellow, sometimes with some brownish 

coloring in their centers, 2 inches in diameter by 11/2 to 21/4 

inches tall. The ovary is very broad club-shaped, 3/4 to 11/2 

inches long, with some tan glochids on it. There are 7 or 8 

inner petals. The stamens are cream or yellowish. The style is 

long and greenish, with 5 fat, bright green lobes making up 

the stigma. 

fruits: Perfectly spherical to somewhat oval, 3/4 to 13/8 inches 

long and wide. The umbilicus is very broad and either flat or 

only very shallowly pitted. Having short white wool and 

many tan glochids up to 1/8 of an inch long in the areoles, but 

spineless. This fruit becomes dry, brown, and papery when 

ripe, but does this very slowly. It typically remains yellowish- 

green all summer and only dries the following winter. The 

seeds are just over 3/16 of an inch (5 millimeters) in diameter, 

irregular in shape, rather thick with narrow, acute rims. 

Range. The Sandia Mountains east of Albuquerque, New Mex- 

ico, through the Jicarilla Mountains west of Capitan, New 

Mexico, to the Sierra Blanca Mountains north of Ruidosa, New 

Mexico. 

Remarks. This seems to have been one of the most sadly misunderstood 

of all cacti, and as a result it is almost unknown today. 

Being impressed by the fact that it is supposed to have dry, 

spherical fruits, many have seized upon any plant from the Sandia 

Mountains with such fruits as representing this species. But 

they forget that O. polyacantha is specifically stated by the 

original description to sometimes have spherical fruits, and that 

these can sometimes be almost spineless. As a result I have seen 

numerous herbarium specimens of O. polyacantha with round 

fruits called O. sphaerocarpa. Taking this one step farther, there 

have even been attempts to call this a variety of O. polyacantha. 

Such a mistake should not have been made, in view of Engelmann’s 

very specific statement to forestall the confusion of these 

two. In his original description of O. sphaerocarpa he states that 

this form lacks the numerous small, bristle-like spines of O. polyacantha, 

which distinction will swiftly cull out the examples of 

O. polyacantha erroneously called this species. We have here a 

cactus with 1 to at most 4 spines, while O. polyacantha has al- 

ways a total of 5 to 18 spines per fully armed areole. 

The above error has so completely persuaded most students to 

regard O. sphaerocarpa as some sort of variation of O. polyacantha 

that Britton and Rose, for instance, describe it as light 

green in color like that other species. This has blinded most to the 

idea that there might be another cactus in the Sandias and nearby 

mountains having round, dry fruits, but being by comparison 

almost spineless and bright green when in healthy color. Add to 

this the lamentable tendency to call any bright green, prostrate, 

sparsely spined, tuberous-rooted cactus found anywhere O. com- 

pressa var. macrorhiza, and the true O. sphaerocarpa has remained 

unknown for most of the time since its original description. 

Nor is it any wonder that it is often mistaken for O. compressa 

var. macrorhiza, which is also found within its range. 

Stumbling upon a cactus in central New Mexico having prostrate, 

bright green, fleshy, tuberculate, and often wrinkled pads, 

1 to 4 spines more or less flattened on upper areoles only, and 

usually tuberous roots, almost anyone would call it that cactus. 

It keys out to that in any key I have seen that uses vegetative 

characters only. I called it that myself when I first collected it. 

But then I saw it bloom, and I got a distinct surprise, for it 

had too short an ovary, and standing there in plain sight were 

bright green stigma lobes! No O. compressa var. macrorhiza of 

the hundreds I had seen flower ever had other than yellowish 

or whitish stigmas. So I watched this cactus closely, and when 

the fruits formed they were as round as marbles or at least very 

broadly oval with no constriction below and with the umbilici 

very broad and flat. I now knew that this could not be variety 

macrorhiza, which always has extremely elongated, club-shaped, 

constricted fruits, with deeply pitted umbilici. 

What could this cactus be? All summer, as its fruits remained 

greenish way past the usual ripening time, I couldn’t place it, 

but when, in the following winter, they dried to become brittle 

balls, I first thought of it as a dry-fruited species, and once I 

did that, it fell into place perfectly as O. sphaerocarpa. 

Because this is apparently the first description of the flowers 

or the roots, and because I find no herbarium specimens since 

the type with the spineless, round fruits included, it is my opinion 

that any previously collected specimens, showing only vegetative 

parts, are buried in the O. compressa var. macrorhiza 

folders, from which they cannot be separated without reproductive 

parts. Nor do I think any collector will be able to tell 

when he has O. sphaerocarpa unless he is willing to wait in the 

New Mexico mountains until his specimens bloom and fruit, or 

unless he goes to the trouble to grow his specimens to these stages 

after he collects them. 

As far as relationships are concerned, this plant is a remarkable 

intermediate between the dry-fruited species and the fleshy- 

fruited O. compressa group. It has the green stigmas of the dry- 

fruited, but its fruits dry tardily. By character of pads, spines, 

roots, and seeds it is much more closely related to the O. com- 

pressa group than to O. polyacantha. 

I have collected this cactus from several locations in the Sandia 

Mountains, the type locality. I also have it from locations 

west of Capitan and from near Ruidosa, which enlarges its 

known range to include the mountains almost continuous with 

the Sandias on their southeast. It has been found only at com-


paratively high altitudes and usually in association with the 

forests of these mountains. 

Opuntia rhodantha Schumann 

“’Wide Cactus,” “Cliff Prickly Pear” 


roots: Fibrous in all specimens seen. 

stems: Low-growing and spreading, only 6 inches to rarely 

18 inches high, with the pads upright at first, later reclining 

and rooting. These pads are almost circular, egg-shaped, or 

oblong, 2 to 9 inches long by 2 to 6 inches wide, 1/2 to 1 inch 

thick, and often slightly tuberculate. In color they are deep 

green or glaucous and gray-green. 

areoles: Oval and small to medium in size, being only about 

1/8 to 3/16 of an inch long. They are spaced 1/2 to 7/8 of an 

inch apart. 

spines: Usually 1 to 6 per areole in number, on only the upper 

one-half or less of the pad, except in one variety on which 

there may be up to 10 on most areoles. There are 1 to 4 main, 

spreading spines 3/4 to 2 inches long, medium to heavy, and 

somewhat to much flattened. These spines are whitish, yellowish, 

or variegated with brown. There are also 1 to 6 slender, 

round to slightly flattened, deflexed, whitish spines 1/4 to 

3/4 of an inch long. 

glochids: Brown in color, very few in one variety, quite 

numerous in another. 

flowers: Yellow or pink or reddish in color, and 2 to 3 

inches in diameter and 2 to 23/4 inches tall. The ovary is about 

11/2 inches long, tuberculate, with white wool and often some 

glochids, but with no spines on it. There are about 12 inner 

petals which are to 1 inch wide at the top. The filaments are 

greenish, yellowish, or reddish; the anthers cream. There are 

8 to 12 long, slender, deep green stigma lobes. 

fruits: Broadly club-shaped, tapering below, 11/2 to 13/4 

inches long. They usually have from a few areoles at the top 

to sometimes all areoles with clusters of short, whitish spines, 

but are occasionally spineless. They become dry and brittle 

when ripe. The seeds are between 3/16 and 1/4 of an inch (5–6 

millimeters), flat, with wide rims. 

Range. Southwestern Colorado and southern Utah into northern 

New Mexico and Arizona. In New Mexico found northwest 

of a line approximately from Taos to Albuquerque to Gallup. 

Remarks. This is perhaps the most beautiful of the small, dryfruited 

Opuntias. Although not very big, it is the largest of 

them, with thick, fleshy, deep-colored pads having not too many 

spines but those it has being very rigid and heavy. Its beauty, 

however, lies in its flowers. Although many specimens have clear 

yellow blooms, others have the only definitely pink blossoms 

I have seen in this genus. There are also specimens presenting 

shades intermediate between these colors, these often turning 

out to be salmon or reddish hues. The New Mexican plants tend 

to be mostly yellow, while in Colorado pink flowers are more 

commonly encountered. 

O. rhodantha is a cactus of the higher elevations, usually 

found at 5,000 or more feet above sea level. Within our area it 

is limited to the mountains of northwestern New Mexico. While 

it is immune to cold, I find that it does not grow well or bloom 

very successfully in the extremes of heat that most of our south- 

western cacti thrive in. In growing it, one should remember to 

provide all he can of the conditions of high altitudes. 

Opuntia rhodantha var. rhodantha (Schumann) 

Description 


stems: As the species, except pads to only 7 inches long by 4 

inches wide. 

areoles: As the species, except to only 7/8 of an inch apart. 

spines: As the species, except to only 6 per areole, with the 

lower half or more of the areoles on each pad spineless, with 

the largest spines to only 15/8 inches long, and with only 1 to 

4 smaller, bristle-like spines per areole. 

glochids: Very few and inconspicuous. 




Remarks. Originally, in describing this cactus, K. Schumann 

thought the red-flowered and the yellow-flowered specimens 

were different species, and he called them O. rhodantha and O. 

xanthostemma [sic] respectively. All students since then have 

realized that these two are one, and combined them under the 

name of O. rhodantha, with the exception of L. Benson, who has 

chosen to consider this a variety of the more westerly grizzly 

bear cactus, O. erinacea Eng., and so calls it O. erinacea var. xanthostema. 

This combination of our moderately spined cactus with 

the extremely spiny and hairy Mojave cactus does not seem too 

logical to us, and is not followed even by Earle in the most recent 

cactus book out of Arizona, so I continue with the original 

name for the plant. 

There have been numerous names given to various garden varieties 

of this cactus by horticulturists, particularly in Europe. 

Examples of some of them are variety pisciformis and variety 

schumanniana Spath; variety pallida, variety salmonea, variety 

rosea, variety rubra, variety gracilis, variety elegans, variety 

fulgens, variety orbicularis, variety brevispina, variety flavispina, 

etc. Hort. These refer to the various flower colors and 

other characters which have appeared in cultivation, and have


no significance except to show the extent to which this cactus 

has been grown and the degree of its popularity among col- 

lectors. 

Opuntia rhodantha var. spinosior Boissevain 



stems: As the species, except pads averaging larger. When 

growing wild the pads are 4 to 8 inches long and typical in 

shape, but cultivated plants produced pads more spindleshaped 

and to 9 inches long by 6 inches wide, the plants then 

standing to 18 inches tall in the most robust cases. 

areoles: As the species, except a little larger and to 1 inch 

apart. 

spines: 1 to 10 on almost all areoles of each pad. ‘There are 

the same 3 or 4 main spines as on the species, except they are 

here up to 2 inches long. ‘There are 1 to 6 smaller, bristle-like 

spines below these. 

glochids: As the species, except quite numerous and sometimes 

to 1/4 of an inch long. 


fruits: As the species, except not so spiny. About half of the 

specimens observed had spineless fruits and the rest had spines 

on only the upper edges of the fruits. 

Range. From southwestern Colorado to near Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. 

Remarks. Boissevain and Davidson described this variety from 

the arid southwestern corner of Colorado. It has seldom been 

studied since, but in re-evaluating the Species in 1944, Croizat 

concluded that this was a “geographic well established form peculiar 

of the species in the southwestern Colorado desert,” and 

that it therefore deserves a position much higher than all of the 

garden varieties, which have been mentioned for the species. No 

one has reported it outside of Colorado until this time, however. 

We were very surprised to find this plant growing in the 

yard of friends who live in one of the new subdivisions across 

the Rio Grande northwest of downtown Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. They had a whole row of the plants grown very large 

and beautiful with the care they had given them. There were 

both yellow and pink-flowering individuals in the row, and 

when they put on their fruits, the identification was unmistakable. 

I visited the location where they had gathered their plants, 

only a few miles away on the flat, sandy mesa below the lava 

outcrops on the west and above the river valley a short distance 

to the east. The location is beside state road 448, in an area fast 

being developed, and the wild population is in real danger. I 

could not find the form growing anywhere else in the area. O. 

polyacantha, O. hystricina, and O. phaeacantha var. camanchica 

grew in profusion on the hills just to the west of this, but 

variety spinosior did not seem to be up there with them. 

On the basis of this collection, and after observing the variety 

growing in Colorado, I feel it necessary to include this variety 

as another New Mexico cactus. One would assume that the form 

must exist in similar situations between this point and south- 

western Colorado, and it will be interesting to see whether this 

supposition is borne out. 

I have included in my description of the variety the larger 

measurements which the cactus has achieved in the abovementioned 

garden. Although the specimens seen growing wild 

were somewhat smaller, they still averaged larger than the typical 

O. rhodantha, and since this garden was not over 4 miles 

or so from the collection point in the same soil and the larger 

growth could be the result only of some extra feeding and 

watering, I feel that the plant might attain the size in a favored 

natural situation also. 

The cactus is clearly very close to O. rhodantha, and should 

probably be left as a variety of this species. Other relationships 

have not been worked Out. I find that plants sent me from 

Arizona for O. nicholii are rather similar, and this similarity 

should be studied. 

Opuntia polyacantha Haw. 

“Hunger Cactus,” “Starvation Cactus” 



stems: A prostrate, spreading cactus rarely rising over 6 

inches high, preferring to string out its joints along the 

ground, rooting on the edges of them, and thus often forming 

dense mats of growth. The pads are circular to oval, spindle- 

shaped, or broadly egg-shaped, but without any real constriction 

at the bases. They are average thickness to thick 

for their size, tuberculate by raised areoles, and also usually 

wrinkled. In color they are pale green or yellow-green, becoming 

reddish when suffering from extreme heat or cold. 

They vary from 11/2 to 5 inches long and from 11/2 to 4 

inches wide. 

areoles: Oval or elongated and small, 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch 

long on young pads, sometimes increasing in size on old pads 

and sometimes not. They contain much white wool when 

young. They are spaced 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch apart. 

spines: Very variable. On typical specimens there are 1 to 15 

spines present on all or almost all areoles. The main, interior 

spines may be missing or up to 5 in number. When present 

they consist of 1 main spine 1/4 to 2 inches long, very slender 

to medium in thickness, round to somewhat flattened, porrect


or deflexed; plus 0 to 2 upper spines 1/4 to 3 inches long, upright 

or spreading, slender to medium thickness, and round; 

and 0 to 2 laterals 1/4 to 11/4 inches long, slender, and round 

or slightly flattened. These spines may be white, yellowish, 

brownish, red-brown, or variegated. Besides this there are 

from 1 to at least 10 outer, radiating spines 1/8 to 3/4 of an 

inch long, slender to very slender and bristle-like, white or 

gray, often with darker tips. On some forms of the species the 

larger, main spines may be missing on all but the upper edge 

areoles, the spination of the pad thus being made up almost 

entirely of just the lower, bristle-like spines radiating downward. 

On the other hand, specimens are occasionally seen on 

which only the upper areoles have spines and these only 1 to 

3 of the main upper spines, with the lower bristles only 1 or 

2 in number and very short. Quite often the radial spines of 

old pads increase greatly in number, especially toward the 

bases of the pads, and become flexible, hairlike, and elon- 

gated to 2 to 8 inches. 

glochids: Few and short on young pads, being a very compact 

cluster only 1/16 of an inch or so long, but becoming 

sometimes to 3/16, of an inch long and fairly numerous on old 

pads. In color, yellow to bright brown. 

flowers: 2 to 31/2 inches in diameter, 11/2 to 21/2 inches tall. 

They are almost always—if not always—yellow in our area, 

but often pink, rose, or even reddish in color in Colorado and 

on north. The ovary is broad club-shaped to almost spherical, 

3/4 to 15/8 inches long and 3/4 of an inch or so wide. It is tuberculate 

by many elevated areoles containing much white 

wool and many yellow glochids plus some very slender spines 

sometimes up to 1/2 inch long. There are 5 to 10 bright green 

stigma lobes. 

fruits: Very variable. They are spherical to oval or eggshaped, 

more or less tuberculate when growing, but without 

tubercles when ripe and dry. They measure 3/4 to 2 inches 

long by 1/2 to 2 inches thick. The top is usually somewhat 

pitted, but may be entirely flat. When completely ripe the 

fruit becomes dry with a thin, papery skin over the tightly 

packed mass of seeds. On typical specimens there are 2 to 12 

slender spines 3/16 to 5/8 of an inch long on each areole of the 

upper third to three-fourths of the fruit, but fruits wholly 

spiny to wholly spineless may be found. The seeds are also 

extremely variable, ranging in size from 1/8 to more than 1/4 

of an inch (3–7 millimeters), being however over 3/16 of an 

inch (5–7 millimeters) in diameter on typical plants. The rim 

of the seed can be from narrow to very wide, this giving most 

of the variation in diameter which occurs. 

Range. The northwestern United States far into Canada, and 

south through western Nebraska and Kansas across the western 

tip of the Oklahoma Panhandle into the upper part of the 

Texas Panhandle, as well as through Colorado, over all of New 

Mexico, south into the Hueco and Davis mountains of southwestern 

Texas, and west into Arizona. 

remarks. This is one of the widest ranging of all cacti. It is 

probably the most northern cactus, growing practically up to 

the Arctic Circle, and followed north only by Opuntia fragilis. 

It is, however, not a conspicuous plant, perhaps surviving so 

successfully because it lies half buried in the sand or lost in the 

grass. The mats it forms effectively hold the soil from erosion 

and even stabilize the sand which drifts into them on the wind. 

As a result there is usually grass growing up through these carpets 

of cacti, and the very pale coloring of the pads plus the 

many spines which blend with the dead grass and trash caught 

in them render the plant so nearly invisible that it is much 

easier to walk into a stand of it before seeing it than it is to get 

out again. It is an aid to soil conservation by this holding action 

against erosion, but it is an ally few people can appreciate prop- 

erly. 

The cactus was apparently first referred to by Nuttall as 

Cactus ferox, but his description was so inadequate that authorities 

take as the first valid name Haworth’s Opuntia polyacantha. 

For a long period it was known by the name, O. missouriensis 

DC, but there is agreement now that this is merely 

a synonym. 

Having such a huge range and living in such different climates, 

this cactus shows many variations—witness the spines 

numbering from only a few to 15 and the color from white to 

red-brown, the fruit from spherical to egg-shaped and its size 

from 3/4 to 2 inches long, and most obvious of all, the seed size 

from about 1/8 to more than 1/4 of an inch in diameter. It has 

always been difficult to understand these differences. Engelmann 

found it necessary to list 5 varieties in the species, and 

Coulter increased that. More recently most of these have been 

ignored as mere growth forms, as for instance, variety rufispina 

Eng., and variety albispina Eng., based on spine color almost 

entirely, but some of them have, on the other hand, been elevated 

by various students to separate species, as O. trichophora 

(Eng.) B. & R. Then, some new species have been described, as 

for example O. juniperina Rose and O. schweriniana Schumann. 

Other students think these should hardly be carried even as 

separate varieties of the species. 

Here is a place where classical taxonomy based on discernible 

structural characters has as bad a time and gives us as little hope 

of constructing a logical order of relationships as anywhere. 

Here is where we need help. And right here is about the first place 

in the study of cacti where the results of modern biosystematics 

comes forward with some very limited but suggestive data for 

us. 

Chromosome counts have been made so far on only a few 

cacti, and most results published have been numbers from only 

single plants or plants from a single location. It happens, however, 

that chromosome counts of specimens of O. polyacantha 

from widely separate locations have been made and the results 

published by Stockwell. Here we find that there is variation in 

the chromosome number within the species. Where the typical 

2N chromosome number for cacti is 22, specimens of this cactus


checked by Stockwell had either 44 or 66 chromosomes, with 

the specimens having 44 chromosomes appearing typical and 

those with 66 chromosomes being Canadian specimens which 

were smaller plants with smoother pads, fewer spines, and the 

small-sized seeds. 

What the modern technique seems to have given us thus far is 

a possible physical basis in the variation of chromosome numbers 

and a mechanism in the process of ploidy for some of the 

wide variation we have already seen in structural characters in 

the species. The only pattern we can see so far is that the chromosome 

number rises as we go north, which is as we would expect, 

ploidy often enhancing vigor and resistance to environmental 

extremes. All of the 66 chromosome counts reported 

were in the tiny-seeded Canadian form once described by Engelmann 

as O. missouriensis var. microsperma, which hardly 

enters the United States at all. This would seem to establish it as a 

definite variety based upon ploidy. But we are left with little 

aid in trying to logically separate the forms in our own area, 

since no variation in chromosome numbers among them has so 

far been shown. Therefore, we will leave the species as it stands, 

with our description wide enough to cover the usual forms, and 

deal individually with the most often separated of them. 

A list of the named varieties which we do not see as distinct 

and consistent enough to be regarded separately is included 

here in order to try to eliminate as much confusion as possible. 

While we have seen specimens which fit the description of each 

one of these, we have not been able to find them making up 

any separate populations in any definite geographical range. 

Always we have found them existing as the extremes within a 

population of varying individuals on the same hillside with 

typical individuals, and more often than not 2 or 3 different 

ones of these variations have been found side by side with the 

typical. This is how they differ from what we consider the defi- 

nite varieties of, for instance, O. engelmannii. 

Variety rufispina Eng. is only the typical plant as it sometimes 

appears with its main spines brown instead of the more 

common white. 

Variety albispina Eng. is the more common, pure white-spined 

form. 

Variety platycarpa (Eng.) Coult. is the form as it often appears 

at high altitudes in the northern New Mexico mountains 

and on into Colorado. One will often find plants fitting this 

description growing under the rather dense shade of junipers, 

while typical specimens are usually only a few feet away in the 

open. Nor is this form distinct for having the fruits globose with 

broad, flat umbilici, as some have supposed. In Taos Canyon 

and in several other high mountain locations in northern New 

Mexico, I have seen O. polyacantha fruits from almost club- 

shaped to perfectly spherical and from 3/4 to 2 inches long, as 

well as from very spiny to spineless, all on the same mountain- 

side. Many of them fitted Engelmann’s description of this supposed 

variety, but they were only part of the one large, greatly 

varying population. It was noted that all of those fruits over 

about 11/4 inches long were spherical or nearly so and spineless. 

Every one of these very large fruits which was opened was found 

to be sterile and apparently parasitized. We feel these exaggerated 

round fruits may be this species’ reaction to fruit parasites 

just as the extreme enlargement by elongation is the response of 

O. compressa var. fusco-atra to something similar on the Texas 

coast. These abnormal fruits we have heard called both variety 

platycarpa and O. sphaerocarpa, as we have those more normal 

and smaller fruits which happen to be round and nearly spineless. 

Many otherwise typical O. polyacantha specimens have 

normally round fruits, and to separate those with fewer than 

typical spines on the pads from a mixed population and call 

them another species or even another variety does not seem 

proper. 

Variety subinermis Eng. is yet another supposed variety. 

Plants fitting its description are occasionally found in the large, 

mixed populations of northern New Mexico. They have more 

elongated pads with areoles a little farther apart and only a 

very few short and slender spines on the upper edges. ‘These 

plants often make up part of the same large population, with 2 

or 3 others of these supposed varieties present as well as typical 

specimens. In each observed case, however, all of the specimens 

of this description were the result of environment, all of them 

growing far under junipers in deep accumulations of leaf mold. 

The elongated pads and poor armament are clear signs of etiolation. 

This form is very similar to O. schweriniana Schumann, 

which is not treated here because it is a Colorado form, but the 

relation between the two should be given careful study. I have 

seen a series of specimens from one location in Colorado which 

seemed to run all the way from fairly typical O. polyacantha 

through something like this form and on to something very close 

to O. schweriniana. 

O. juniperina Rose has been considered a separate species. 

Early in this study, on a trip through the northern mountains 

of New Mexico during the dead of winter, I hurriedly dug out 

of the snow some specimens which exactly fitted Rose’s description 

of this form. When I also saw similar specimens in the University 

of Colorado herbarium under this name, I was very sure 

of the species, and held out for it in some arguments with friends 

who said this was merely another form occurring in its type 

locality as part of the same sort of widely varying O. polyacantha 

population. More recently, when I studied the locality 

of my original collection of these specimens during the summer, 

I found the same thing there. There are typical O. polyacantha 

and all gradations between that and this supposed species wherever 

I have seen this form, including in its type locality at Cedar 

Hill, New Mexico. I therefore find it impossible to maintain it 

as even a consistent variety of the species. 

Variety trichophora (Eng.) Coult. has been one of the most 

persistent varieties. This is the form of the species in which the 

radial spines of at least the lower areoles and sometimes of all 

areoles on older pads elongate greatly and become flexible and 

hairlike. They often grow to 4 inches long, and Boissevain says


they sometimes reach 8 inches. At the same time they often increase 

in number to 25 or 30 per areole. Such a plant is surely 

a remarkable sight. This is naturally the most commonly noticed 

variant from the typical form of the species. Engelmann and 

Coulter called it a variety, Britton and Rose elevated it to a 

separate species, but most authors since have left it a variety. 

We started out considering it as separate from the typical 

form, but we soon ran into the same trouble as with the rest of 

these forms. We found all degrees of this hairiness, sometimes in 

the same population. Where could we draw the line in separating 

them? We have wearied at trying to be consistent about this, 

and tired of reading the contradictory explanations of the variety 

by various authors. The condition intergrades all the way 

with the typical forms which fail to elongate and proliferate the 

spines. In our northern New Mexico locations mentioned above 

we have found this hairy form growing only yards away from 

very good variety platycarpa, variety subinermis, and O. juniperina 

specimens having their less than typical armaments. In 

Taos Canyon I once collected a specimen fitting the description 

of O. juniperina in all pads except one, this one aberrant pad 

having 20 to 30 hairlike, flexible spines to 3 inches long in each 

areole of its surface. It was literally a pad of variety tricho- 

phora growing from an O. juniperina specimen. I grew this specimen 

carefully for 4 years, and was very disappointed to find 

the two pads which sprouted from the hairy pad developing 

into typical O. juniperina, sparsely spined pads in the greenhouse. 

So we have begun disappointing all those who constantly 

ask, “Which do I have, O. polyacantha or O. trichophora?” by 

refusing to separate them. In this we claim the support of Wooton, 

who said long ago that variety trichophora may not be dis- 

tinct from O. polyacantha. 

The species, O. polyacantha, blankets all of the state of New 

Mexico. There are records from within 50 miles of each of the 

four corners of that state. However, it does not go far east or 

south beyond that. In Oklahoma it has been recorded only from 

Cimarron County, the end county of the Panhandle, and rarely 

seen east of the Black Mesa, which is the extreme corner of that 

county. It enters Texas in two separate areas, coming into the 

Texas Panhandle where it seems to grow only as far as the south 

breaks of the Canadian River. Not being seen in all of the Texas 

high plains south of that, it enters the state again from southeastern 

New Mexico along the Hueco and Guadalupe mountains, 

growing as far south as the Davis Mountains, but appar- 

ently no farther into the lower Big Bend. It is definitely a north- 

ern cactus. 

Opuntia hystricina Eng. 

“Porcupine Prickly Pear” 



stems: Low, diffuse, and spreading, but not prostrate. They 

form small clumps of upright pads standing 6 inches to sometimes 

1 foot high. The pads are nearly circular to more often 

elongated obovate or even oblong, 3 to 5 inches long and 21/2 

to 3 inches wide, medium thickness, not tuberculate, and not 

becoming noticeably wrinkled from lack of water. They are 

medium or bright green in color. 

areoles: Large and conspicuous, oval, and about 3/16 of an 

inch long on young pads, becoming round and 1/4 of an inch 

or more in diameter on old pads. They are situated 1/4 to 1/2 

inch apart. 

spines: A total of 6 to 15 spines in each areole of the pad. 

There are in each areole 1 to 8, and in fully armed upper 

areoles always 5 to 8, main spines which are 11/2 to 4 inches 

long. These spines are irregularly arranged and spread in all 

directions, including upward. They are brownish or gray or 

variegated in color. They are of slender to average thickness, 

somewhat flattened, often twisted or bent, and somewhat 

flexible. There are also up to 7 lower, very slender, white, 

radiating spines 3/4 to 1 inch long in each areole. There is 

sometimes a tendency for a few very slender, white, hairlike 

spines 2 to 3 inches long to grow at the bases of the pads. 

glochids: Straw-colored or brown, often both in the same 

areole due to the existence of an outer ring of older, longer, 

darkened glochids and an inner cluster of younger, shorter, 

brighter, straw-colored ones. 

flowers: Ordinarily clear, pale yellow, but said to sometimes 

have various hues such as orange, rose, red, or even purplish. 

They are 2 to 3 inches in diameter. The ovary has white 

wool and bristle-like spines. The stigma lobes number 8 to 10 

and are green in color. 

fruits: Egg-shaped to broadly club-shaped and 7/8 to 11/4 

inches long by about 1/2 inch thick. The areoles of the upper 

half of the fruit possess 4 to 12 bristly spines 1/2 to 3/4 of an 

inch long per areole. The umbilicus is flat, or nearly so. The 

seeds are very large, between 1/4 and 5/16 of an inch (7 millimeters 

or more) in diameter, with broad rims. 

range. From the Rio Grande in New Mexico west to Nevada 

and California. 

remarks. Over 100 years ago Engelmann felt it necessary to 

distinguish a cactus closely allied to O. polyacantha from that 

species, calling it O. hystricina. He admitted that he himself had 

difficulty in keeping the two separate, and even conjectured 

that one might be only a form of the other. Everyone since then 

has had trouble with these two, but no one has actually combined 

them. When a combination involving this cactus did 

finally come, it was Benson’s attempt to combine it instead with 

erinaceae -> 

an entirely different California cactus, O. erinacea Eng., giving erinacea 

us O. erinacea var. hystricina (Eng.) Benson. 

Let us see first how we distinguish O. hystricina from O. polyacantha 

and what characters keep it from being united with that 

cactus. We find that it differs from O. polyacantha as follows:


it is diffuse and spreading with more upright growth than that 

cactus; its pads are darker green; it lacks distinct tubercles by 

raised areoles or marked wrinkling; it has more and longer and 

more erect main spines, which are also usually bent and somewhat 

flexible; and it has many more and longer glochids. I 

should state emphatically that it cannot be told from O. polyacantha 

by having flattened spines, as some have argued, since 

some specimens of that cactus have more definitely flattened 

spines than this does; nor by having more stout spines, since 

specimens could be matched with this character just reversed; 

nor larger pads; nor more widely spaced areoles. It is not just 

a robust version of the hunger cactus, as some articles about it 

would lead one to believe. Its whole manner of growth is different. 

But in many collections, both herbarium collections and 

fanciers’ gardens, I see smaller specimens of O. polyacantha 

labeled correctly, but plants of that species merely more robust 

in size or spines wrongly called O. hystricina. This has made the 

tracing of this species very difficult. 

Part of the trouble may be that although Engelmann says correctly 

that it grows all the way east to the Rio Grande, it is not 

at all common in New Mexico. It should be noticed that his 

descriptions were all compiled from specimens of Arizona and 

Nevada, and the only examples he actually mentions having 

seen from New Mexico were Fendler’s specimens from near 

Santa Fe—these Engelmann says, “seem to be intermediate [between 

O. hystricina and O. polyacantha] and may make it necessary 

to combine them.” These may have actually been only 

robust O. polyacantha specimens. If so, Engelmann himself 

would have been the first to make this often repeated mistake. 

It is interesting that Coulter found no New Mexico records of 

O. hystricina as late as 1896, and that in 1915, Wooton and 

Standley, those very complete students of New Mexico plants, 

said, “We have seen only one doubtful specimen [of O. hystridna]. 

It is reported here… on the authority of the first collector, 

Dr. Bigelow.” So we should get over the idea which I find 

in some collectors that every New Mexico hill west of the Rio 

Grande can be expected to have this cactus on it, and stop call- 

ing all of our big specimens of O. polyacantha this. 

This is not to say that it does not exist in New Mexico, but 

I believe it is rare anywhere in that state. I have seen only two 

definite specimens from New Mexico, and the one which I have 

growing before me is from only a short distance west of Las 

Cruces, so far southeast that it confirms nicely the fact that, although 

it is rare, it must range the whole state west of the Rio 

Grande. 

These plants also show clearly why Benson combined this 

form with the more western form he calls O. erinacea. They are 

upright in growth, with ovate or oblong pads, having spreading, 

often erect spines up to 4 inches long and only moderately rigid, 

and with many conspicuous glochids. All of these are characters in 

common with the more western plant. In fact, it is easy to agree 

with Backeberg, who maintains that the two are actually the 

same. But Backeberg also points out that Engelmann himself 

withdrew his name, O. erinacea, and so it would not be technically 

correct to combine anything under that name. We therefore 

follow him in leaving the name of our rare New Mexico 

plant O. hystricina. Whether it is the same as the California 

plant is outside the scope of our study. It is the same plant that 

grows at least to the Colorado River and Nevada, and it is 

more closely related to the equally upright O. ursina Weber, the 

extremely hairy grizzly bear cactus of the Mojave, than it is to 

O. polyacantha. 

Opuntia arenaria Eng. 


roots: Unique among Opuntias in our area. The roots are 

not tuberous, but have large, rhizome-like structures up to 1/2 

inch thick which sometimes run 3 to 6 feet horizontally just 

under the surface of the almost pure sand in which this plant 

grows. These underground structures are covered with many 

large areoles and long glochids like old stems, and they give 

off pads and fibrous roots all along them. 

stems: If these underground structures are considered as rhizomes 

or stem structures, the main stems of the plant are prostrate 

strings up to 6 feet long of old pads which are buried in 

the drifting sand. However, if these underground structures 

are made up from old pads, the separate joints are not clearly 

observable; therefore some students have interpreted them as 

roots. But the presence of areoles and glochids upon them 

makes it difficult for us to consider them roots. From these 

structures there are ascending and spreading young pads which 

stand 6 inches or rarely a little higher. The pads are 11/4 to 4 

inches long by 3/4 to 2 inches wide, and often are 3/4 of an 

inch thick. When small these pads are almost cylindrical, but 

as they grow larger they widen and flatten to become elongated 

oval to very elongated egg-shaped or even clavate. 

Young pads are light, shiny green in color, tuberculate, but 

not becoming wrinkled when dehydrated. Old pads, on the 

prostrate, more or less covered stems become brown and 

woody. 

areoles: Small, with a little white wool when young, enlarging 

somewhat on old stems. They are spaced 3/16 to 3/8 of 


spines: Almost all areoles are armed with 3 to 10 spines white 

or brownish or white with brownish bases and tips. There are 

1 to 4 main spines. The central one of these is 3/4 to 2 inches 

long, rigid, of average thickness, flattened slightly, and standing 

porrect or turned upward. There are besides this 0 to 3 

others 3/8 to 1 inch long, round or slightly flattened, and 

spreading downward. Below these there are 2 to 6 bristle-like 

spines 1/8 to 1/2 inch long, radiating downward. 

glochids: Straw or brownish in color, few in number but


rather long on young pads, becoming very many and to 1/4 of 

an inch long in large, spreading clusters which almost completely 

cover old pads. 

flowers: Yellow, 2 to 23/4 inches in diameter. The ovary is 

egg-shaped and 7/8 to 11/4 inches long. There are about 8 inner 

petals and 5 green stigma lobes. 

fruits: Oblong or club-shaped, usually constricted at both 

the bottom and the top, and deeply pitted above. They are 1 

to 11/2 inches long by 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch thick. They have 1 

to 5 slender spines 1/4 to 1/2 inch long on each areole of the 

broader central zone. The seeds are from nearly 3/16 to almost 

5/16 of an inch (5–7 millimeters) in diameter, very thin, irreg- 

ular, and rather elongated in shape, with broad margins. 

Range. Known only from sandy areas along the Rio Grande 

just a few miles above El Paso, Texas. Those on the east side of 

the river would be in Texas and those on the west side in New 

Mexico. 

Remarks. This is a unique little cactus equipped with the extremely 

long, stolon-like root or stem structure of a plant adapted 

to survive in deep and shifting sand. And it is found only in 

such sand, where often three-fourths of the plant is entirely 

buried, with only the current year’s new pads standing upright 

out of the ground. 

This is an almost vanished species. Engelmann said it grew in 

the sandy bottoms of the Rio Grande near El Paso. Most of 

these have long since had buildings or irrigated farming upon 

them. Dr. Rose said he found the plant about 8 miles above El 

Paso on the New Mexico side of the river. I had spent some time 

slogging through the sand over there to no avail, and would no 

doubt never have seen the cactus but for Mr. Clark Champie, 

well-known cactus grower and dealer of the area. When I told 

him of my problem, I told the right person, for he has a definite 

corner on this cactus. He immediately took me to one of the 

two known living stands just a few hundred yards from his own 

cactus farm on the outskirts of Anthony, east of the river at the 

Texas-New Mexico border. The stand is only a few dozen yards 

in extent, and a road is now bull-dozed through the center of it, 

so let us hope Mr. Champie is a good custodian of the cactus, or 

it may be completely extinct very soon. 

Coulter’s opinion was that O. arenaria was allied to O. fragilis, 

because of the almost cylindrical form of its early joints, but 

O. arenaria’s pads are tightly joined to each other instead of 

loose, and there are other differences. 

Britton and Rose say that its flowers are red, which is definitely 

not true of the stand near Anthony. The blooms are very 

yellow there. However, Britton and Rose had plants from another 

location on the west side of the river, and knowing the 

tendency to variability of flower color in this whole group, we 

must admit that their plants might have bloomed with a differ- 

ent color. 

In cultivation this cactus does not usually do well. It will not 

grow successfully in regular soil, and it is hard to provide a big 

enough and deep enough plot of sand containing the proper elements 

so that it can spread out and feel at home. While I have 

succeeded in keeping it alive for 4 years now, and in getting 

some growth, it has never flowered for me. So far as I know, to 

see it growing successfully one must make a pilgrimage to Mr. 

Champie’s natural stand. We wish such a rare stand as this could 

have some sort of official protection. 

Opuntia grahamii Eng. 

“Mounded Dwarf Cholla” 


stems: Joints elongated oblong, club-shaped, or sometimes 

spindle-shaped, 11/2 to 21/2 inches long, covered with low, oblong 

tubercles 1/2 inch or slightly more in length. Sometimes 

these tubercles are very indistinct. These joints form very 

dense mats up to about a foot across, those on the edges often 

lying prostrate, but those in the center ascending. The plant 

may round up into quite a mound, but this is due to sand 

blowing into it. The joints only branch once above the surface, 

and, so stand to only 4 inches or so above the accumulated 

level of the sand. The joints are firmly attached. 

areoles: Round, 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch across, with much white 

wool in them at first. They are located on the ends of the 

tubercles, and are about 1/2 inch apart. 

spines: 8 to 14 per areole. There are 4 to 8 main inner spines 

spreading in all directions. They are 11/4 to 21/2 inches long, 

straight, medium in thickness, round or nearly so, brown or 

red-brown and smooth at first, becoming grayish and rough 

when old. They are not cross-striated or edged. Besides these 

there are 4 to 6 Outer spines spreading below, slender, round, 

whitish, 1/2 to 1 inch long. 

glochids: Few at first, becoming quite numerous and to 1/4 

of an inch long on old joints. They are brown in color. 

flowers: Yellow, 2 to 21/2 inches across. The stigmas are 

whitish. 

fruits: Elongated egg-shaped or oblong, 11/4 to 1/4 inches 

long, and yellow when ripe. They are tuberculate, with many 

areoles, each having white wool and several slender white 

spines, as well as 20 to 30 white glochids. The seeds are slightly 

over 3/16 of an inch (5–51/2 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. As far as is definitely known, a rather small area of 

west Texas consisting of parts of El Paso and Hudspeth counties 

from the foothills of the Franklin Mountains through the Hueco 

Mountains and hills east and southeast of El Paso to near Sierra 

Blanca, Texas. It is known to grow in adjacent Chihuahua and 

is assumed to enter slightly into adjacent New Mexico, but I 

have not been able to confirm this. It is reported by Anthony 

from the Texas Big Bend, but this we also failed to confirm. 

Remarks. This species introduces us to the cylindrical-stemmed


Corynopuntia 


Opuntias, sometimes called Cylindropuntia in technical language, 

and also almost universally known by the common name 

of chollas. It is also one of the low-growing chollas whose stems 

are more or less club-shaped, and so it is part of the group 

sometimes separated out of the Cylindropuntia as Clavat- 

opuntia or Corynopuntia. 

O. grahamii is an interesting small cactus of the sand hills 

east of El Paso, Texas. It is very common on some of those 

hills, particularly near the Hueco Mountains. It grows more 

compactly and with its joints more ascending than those of any 

of its relatives except O. clavata. A typical specimen usually 

forms a little mound 3 to 6 inches high and up to about a foot or 

so in diameter. But the sand drifts with the wind into this compact 

mass, and soon covers the lower stems. As this happens, 

new ones grow above, and although no joint is over 4 inches or 

so above the surface, the accumulation often results in a mound 

a number of inches high. Covered as it is by its very many long, 

rather slender spines, the appearance from a distance is exactly 

that of a clump of short grass partly filled with sand, and the 

cactus is very hard to see. 

O. grahamii can be told from all of its close relatives by the 

fact that its main spines are comparatively slender, smooth and 

round, or practically so, while all of the others have their main 

spines very heavy, very rough, cross-striated, and greatly flattened. 

Noticing this difference will enable anyone to distinguish 

it from O. schottii, with which it is most often confused. 

Opuntia schottii Eng. 

“Devil Cactus,” “Dog Cholla,” “Clavellina” 


stems: Joints elongated, cylindrical, or more often clubshaped, 

lying prostrate or sometimes with the upper ends 

turned upward. The bases of these joints are constricted and 

around 1/4 of an inch thick, from which they gradually broaden 

to almost 1 inch thick at the upper end. The over-all 

length of a joint is 1 to 3 inches. The joint is covered by 

broad, elongated tubercles about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch long. 

These joints are rather loosely attached, coming off the plant 

with only a small tug. 

areoles: Round, or nearly so, located on the upper ends of 

the tubercles, small below to over 1/4 of an inch in diameter 

toward the end of the joint. 

spines: There are 8 to 14 spines per areole. Of these, 1 main 

central, which is very heavy and very flat, stands porrect or 

a little deflexed. It is 1 to 21/2 inches long and 1/16 to 1/8 of 

an inch wide for most of its length. Its surface is very rough 

and usually distinctly cross-striated. In color it is at first 

straw to light brown with the tip translucent yellow and 

edged with light yellow or whitish the length of the spine. It 

fades to rough gray when old. There are two lower centrals 

spreading downward, to 11/2 inches long and as the main central 

in character. There are 1 to 4 centrals spreading upward, 

1/4 to 11/2 inches long, heavy but triangular or completely 

round, darker brown or sometimes red-brown in color with 

the tips translucent yellow. Besides these there are 5 to 7 

small, slender, round, whitish radial spines 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch 

long spreading below. There are no sheaths on matured spines 

of this plant. 

glochids: Few. In the upper areoles there will be up to a 

dozen straw-colored bristles to 3/16 of an inch long at the top 

of the areole. 

flowers: Yellow, about 2 to 21/2 inches across and 2 inches 

tall. The stamens are whitish. The stigmas are whitish or very 

pale greenish. 

fruits: 1 to 11/2 inches long by 3/8 to 1/2 inch thick, elongated 

club-shaped, with perianth persistent upon it, and very light 

yellow when ripe. It is covered with narrow tubercles 1/4 to 

3/8 of an inch long, each ending in an areole above. These 

areoles are small, each containing white wool, 4 main central 

spines which are slender, round, 3/16 to 5/16 of an inch long, 

and arranged cross-wise, plus 25 to 35 radial spines which 

are very slender and bristle-like. The seeds are not quite 3/16 

of an inch (about 4 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. Along the Rio Grande from near Brownsville, Texas, 

to Lajitas in the Big Bend. Becoming common from the area of 

Zapata, Texas, to the Big Bend, but never seen over 10 miles or 

so north of the river. 

Remarks. This is a very low, inconspicuous little cactus growing 

practically invisibly in the grass, but if stepped upon, it can become 

very painfully evident. The spines are strong enough to 

penetrate shoe leather sometimes, and being very barbed, they 

stick to shoes or clothing. The next step often pulls joints loose, 

and one has unwanted riders which it is a major chore to disengage 

without injury to oneself. 

O. schottii grows on the gravelly hillsides overlooking the Rio 

Grande and the last few miles of its tributaries such as the 

Devil’s River and the Pecos. Below the Pecos the plant usually 

grows as single chains of prostrate joints blooming and fruiting 

sparingly and apparently propagated mostly by separated pads. 

These can be pulled apart rather easily, but are not nearly so 

loosely attached as those of O. fragilis or O. drummondii. From 

the Pecos west the cactus grows more often in low, compact 

mats up to 2 feet or so across, and in season these are covered 

with very many flowers and fruits. 

O. schottii is a Texas cactus, growing along an immense length 

of the Rio Grande, but never leaving the hills overlooking the 

river. Its westernmost range does not seem to quite reach the 

range of its nearest relatives, but it apparently has grown, at 

least in the past, almost to the mouth of the Rio Grande. Runyon’s 

record of it, “near Brownsville,” attests to that. We have


not been able to find it below Zapata, and surmise that the great 

development of the area below there may have reduced its range 

considerably. 

Opuntia stanlyi Eng. 

“Stanley’s Cholla,” “Devil Cholla,” “Creeping Cholla” 


stems: Consisting of cylindrical, club-shaped joints, 31/2 to 6 

inches long, slender at the base, but enlarging to from 1 to 2 

inches in diameter at the outer end. The plant consists of many 

of these joints lying prostrate or with the ends curving upward, 

or sometimes with the whole joint ascending, thus 

forming dense mats standing from 6 to sometimes 12 inches 

high and extending from several feet to sometimes 15 or 20 

feet in diameter. The joints are covered with tubercles appearing 

as ridges 1 to 13/4 inches long by 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch 

tall by 1/4 to 1/2 inch wide. 

areoles: Round, or nearly so, located on the upper slopes of 

the tubercles, 1/4 of an inch or slightly more in diameter, with 

some white wool at first. 

spines: 10 to at least 20 in number. There are 5 to 9 large inner 

spines 11/8 to 23/8 inches long, spreading, with the largest 

one porrect or deflexed, very flat, and 1/16 to sometimes 1/8 

of an inch wide, with the upper surface roughened by tiny 

pits and irregular cross-striation. The other main spines are 

not so heavy nor so flattened. All these are yellowish or reddish-brown 

at first, becoming ashy gray when old. There are 

also 7 to at least 15 outer spines 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch long, 

whitish, round to flattened. 

glochids: Few in number, but to 1/4 of an inch long and ro- 

bust. They are yellow in color. 

flowers: Pale yellow, 11/2 to 23/4 inches in diameter. The 

stigma lobes are white. 

fruits: Broadly club-shaped or egg-shaped, 2 to 23/4 inches 

long, and very spiny. The seeds are about 3/16 of an inch 

(about 5 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. Entering our area from Arizona and Mexico, and ranging 

over southwestern New Mexico at least as far as the upper 

edge of Grant County, and east to Socorro and near El Paso. It 

is found in Texas along the Rio Grande from near El Paso to 

near Candelaria in Presidio County. 

Remarks. This is one of the worst cactus pests in existence, earning 

the common name, devil cholla. Fortunately it is not common 

in our area, but where it is met with it often renders whole 

hillsides impassible not only to men but even to goats, by covering 

many square feet with thickets only a foot or less high but 

so compact as to be impenetrable by all except small creeping 

things. Such stands are to be seen in western Grant County, 

New Mexico, and along the Rio Grande in western Presidio 

County in Texas. Other than in these two locations in our area, 

we are not at all sorry to Say, we encounter only isolated small 

stands of the cactus in widely scattered places. These locations 

are so scattered that it is hard to delimit the eastern edge of its 

range in New Mexico. The most northeastern record of it is an 

old one of Vasey’s given as Socorro, New Mexico. There are old 

records from near El Paso as well, but the plant does not seem 

to have been collected nearly so far east in recent times. 

O. stanlyi has had several other similar forms attached to it 

as varieties, but these occur only in Arizona, California, and 

Nevada. The cactus as we find it in our area is the typical form. 

It is most closely related to O. schottii. The main characters of 

the two are almost all the same, O. schottii presenting most of 

the features of the other in miniature. However, the joints of 

O. stanlyi are not easily separated, as are those of the smaller 

cactus. The ranges of the two are separated by only a short distance 

along the Rio Grande in Texas, and the Candelaria population 

of O. stanlyi has individuals averaging a little smaller 

than those farther west, but there is no actual intergrading in 

size between the two. Hester, who studied them both in the Big 

Bend, did not consider any combination of them, but a fair case 

could be made perhaps for considering one a variety of the 

other. 

Engelmann apparently described this cactus under two names, 

first as O. stanlyi, and then later as O. emoryi. The two names 

are, therefore, considered synonyms. 

Opuntia clavata Eng. 

“Club Cholla,” “Dagger Cholla” 


stems: Each plant forming a low mat often 3 to at least 6 

feet across but only 3 to 6 inches high. The joints are upright 

or nearly so, short club-shaped to egg-shaped, with some narrowing 

below but not markedly constricted below, 1 to 21/2 

inches long and to 1 inch thick above. These joints are covered 

with low, broad, rather indistinct tubercles about 1/4 to 1/2 

inch long. 

areoles: Large, usually 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch across, and 

round. 

spines: There are 10 to 20 spines, all white and rough when 

mature, but bright pink when growing. 4 to 7 of these are 

main inner spines 1/2 to 11/4 inches long. The upper ones of 

these are more slender, shorter, only somewhat flattened, and 

stand erect. The lower 3 or 4 of them are spreading downward, 

larger, and flatter. The main central spine is deflexed 

and conspicuous for its flatness and thickness, to only 11/4 

inches long, but about 1/8 of an inch thick at its base and 

tapering evenly to the point. The upper surface of this spine 

is conspicuously cross-striated and the lower surface is keeled.


There are also 6 to 13 outer spines radiating in every direction. 

They are only 3/16 to 5/8 of an inch long, slender, and 

round. 

glochids: Few to rather many, white or straw-colored, about 

1/8 to 3/16 of an inch long. 

flowers: Yellow and small, to only 2 inches in diameter and 

even less in length. 

fruits: Elongated club-shaped or almost spindle-shaped, with 

a deep umbilicus. They are 11/4 to 2 inches long and to 1 

inch thick. The light yellow surface of the ripe fruit is almost 

completely covered with a large number of very slender, 

white or straw-colored bristles which grow from the many 

areoles. The seeds are slightly over 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch (5–6 

millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. Central and a portion of northwestern New Mexico, 

sometimes said to extend into Arizona. From Tularosa and near 

Truth-or-Consequences, New Mexico, on the south to near Las 

Vegas on the northeast, to El Rito on the north, then back 

southwest to near Cubero. Said to enter Arizona north of the 

Zuni River, but I find no New Mexico record of it west of a 

line from El Rito to Cubero to Socorro to Truth-or-Consequences. 

Remarks. On all sides of Albuquerque, New Mexico, one can 

find large areas of almost barren flats and slopes where the 

short grass alternates with the often huge mats of O. clavata. 

At first glance the cactus appears much like grass, but one had 

better learn to distinguish the one from the other before he 

walks in the area. While some point out that it is a great pest 

to livestock, an unprejudiced observation reveals that it doesn’t 

often compete with the grass, but usually occupies otherwise 

barren ground. The soil is usually bare and eroded away on all 

sides of these thick mats of cactus, leaving the stand elevated 

several inches on the soil it has held and showing clearly how 

valuable a soil holder it is where little else seems able to do the 

job. It is thus another “pest” which we should consider carefully 

before condemning entirely, and we should know very 

certainly what can be introduced to hold the soil in its place 

before the herbicide gunners are turned loose on it. 

The cactus is well named the dagger cholla. The name comes 

from the shape and appearance of the largest spine, which is so 

short, but so broad and flattened that it does resemble a tiny 

dagger. The other common name sometimes applied to it, the 

club cholla, is probably not so apt, since the joints are at most 

only very broadly club-shaped without much constriction at the 

base and usually better described as egg-shaped. Although they 

stand upright, they rarely give off new joints except near their 

bases, and so the plant is seldom over 3 or 4 inches tall. 

This is a cactus of central New Mexico. While it ranges most 

of the length of that state, it does not reach either the north or 

south border, and there are no known records of it near either 

the eastern or western boundaries. Records of it place it in a 

strip only up to 100 or so miles wide. If it does in fact enter 

Arizona, as has been said, it must be very rare in the intervening 

western part of New Mexico. 

This cactus is most closely related to O. stanlyi var. parishii 

Benson, which, however, does not seem to come east of western 

Arizona. 

Opuntia imbricata var. arborescens (Eng.) 

“Tree Cactus,” “Cane Cactus,” “Candelabrum Cactus,” 

“Cholla,” “Velas de Coyote (Coyote Candles)” 


stems: Growing as an upright, bushy, or treelike plant, 3 to 

at least 8 feet tall. There is a round trunk quite often becoming 

up to 3 or 4 inches in diameter and said to have been 

seen 5 to 10 inches thick. This trunk is more or less covered 

with rough bark and enlarged areoles. The current year’s 

joints are cylindrical, usually 2 to 6 inches, but occasionally 

to 8 inches long, and to about 1 inch in diameter. They are 

covered with elongated tubercles 3/4 to 11/4 inches long and 

to about 1/4 of an inch high, their upper and lower slopes 

about equal. The old stems have a woody skeleton. 

areoles: Oval or oblong, about 1/4 of an inch long, enlarging 

somewhat with age. They possess some short, whitish, or yellowish 

wool. 

spines: Very variable in number, from 2 to 10 on the current 

year’s growth, increasing with age to 20 or 30. There are 1 to 

8 central spines spreading in all directions. These are 1/2 to 11/4 

inches in length, slender to medium strength, round, yellow, 

brownish, or variegated in color. They are covered by loose 

sheaths. The remainder of the spines are radiating exterior 

spines, 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long, slender, white to brownish, 

at least partly covered with tight, whitish sheaths. 

glochids: Very few, sometimes apparently missing. Those 

present are found in the upper part of the areole and are so 

short as to be inconspicuous in the wool. 

flowers: To 3 inches in diameter, 11/2 to 2 inches tall, purplish, 

lavender, or rose-pink in color. The ovary is 1 inch long 

or slightly more, and nearly as thick. It is very tuberculate 

and often has perianth segments and 2 or 3 long, white bristles 

1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long on its upper areoles. The fila- 

ments are reddish toward their bases, becoming greenish-pink 

above. The anthers are cream-colored. The style is reddish and 

slightly longer than the stamens. There are 6 to 8 long, fat, 

pinkish-white or tan stigma lobes. 

fruits: Spherical or even hemispherical in shape, about 1 inch 

long, but often a little wider than they are long. They are unarmed, 

whatever bristles were upon the ovary being early 

deciduous, and have very deeply pitted umbilici, and the rest 

of the surface covered with pronounced tubercles around 1/2


inch long and 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch high. They become yellow 

when ripe, but not juicy. The fruits usually remain on the 

branches for at least a year, and sometimes even turn yellow 

and then turn brown and dry on the branches, but all this 

without ever losing their conspicuous tubercles. The seeds are 

regular, smooth, and 1/8 of an inch or a little more (3–4 millimeters) 

in diameter. 

Range. From southeastern Colorado into New Mexico east of a 

line approximately from the upper Rio Grande to the vicinity 

of Grants, New Mexico, to Silver City, and on into Chihuahua. 

The eastern boundary of its range runs from the extreme southwestern 

corner of Kansas across the western part of the Oklahoma 

and Texas panhandles, then southeast to near Abilene, 

Texas, then back southwest to near Fort Stockton, and into 

Mexico between Sanderson and the Big Bend. It is encountered 

in northwestern Coahuila. 

Remarks. This is the large cholla common over so much of the 

western part of our area, and seen almost anywhere else reduced 

to the canes, lamp bases, and other trinkets made of reticulated 

cactus wood and brought home from western trips. However, 

the larger and more firm cholla wood comes from other species 

growing even farther west than this one. 

On the high plains of northwest Texas and at the tip of the 

Oklahoma Panhandle one may see proud old individuals of this 

cactus standing defiant of all the extreme elements, often miles 

apart, but clearly visible where no trees grow on the vacant 

prairies. Then again, some 20 miles northwest of Amarillo, the 

tree cactus somehow manages to take over whole stretches of 

the prairie and there are forests of individuals often 6 to 8 

feet tall. And farther southeast toward Big Spring, Texas, this 

cactus alternates with the mesquite to make a spiny mixed forest. 

The cactus also grows on mountain slopes farther south and 

west, into Mexico and almost to the Arizona border. Sometimes 

in the mountains it becomes very numerous, but the individuals 

rarely seem to become as robust and proud as on the prairies, 

usually remaining low bushes 3 or 4 feet high and showing signs 

of dying back almost as fast as they grow. The best stands of 

robust, healthy individuals I have seen in a mountain habitat 

are in the southwestern parts of the Davis Mountains. 

There is some variation in the color of the flowers of this cactus—the 

exact extent being hard to discover. Typically in Texas, 

the flowers are pale purple to lavender, with the outside of the 

segments often distinctly green and the center of the flower 

greenish. Almost everyone in the area of the Davis Mountains 

insists that occasional plants are seen there with white flowers, 

and that very rarely there have been seen flowers which were 

pale yellowish. These reports are so numerous as to be intriguing 

and, remembering the same sort of reports which, when finally 

investigated by an organized hunt during flowering season in 

the Arbuckle Mountains of Oklahoma, actually produced these 

flower colors in the also purple-flowered Echinocereus caespitosus, 

I have spent some time trying to substantiate them. So far, 

however, I have not seen these flower colors myself. On the 

other hand, the flowers on the cactus as it grows in the mountains 

of northern New Mexico, as for instance in Taos Canyon, 

are a very bright rose-purple or almost red, with no green at all. 

This is unlike anything I have seen on this cactus elsewhere. 

Boissevain gives purple to rose-pink for the Colorado specimens. 

The fruits of variety arborescens are entirely spherical or even 

broader than they are long, but always covered with large tubercles 

and having very large, very deep umbilici caving in the 

whole top of each. They ripen slowly, but by late summer are 

turning bright yellow. They remain on the plants most or all of 

the winter, usually falling in the spring. They do not change 

shape, however, remaining extremely tuberculate and pitted to 

the end. This shape distinguishes this plant most clearly from the 

following cactus which is probably another variety of the species. 

I am using Engelmann’s name, arborescens, for this cactus because 

we know this is exactly the form he was describing under 

that name. I have examined his types for his cactus, and this is 

his form. 

An admittedly older name, O. imbricata (Haw.) DC, exists, 

but this was the name given for a cactus whose type specimens 

or even whose type locality are unknown (beyond that it was 

from Mexico) and whose original description is so vague that it 

would fit almost any large cholla we have. Many people have 

thought that our U.S. cholla is the same as the Mexican one, 

and so have used the name, O. imbricata for our cactus. Why, 

then, am I returning to the use of Engelmann’s later name? 

In studying this cactus, I have followed Engelmann’s cactus 

which he called O. arborescens down from its southernmost U.S. 

range in the Big Bend of Texas into the mountains of north- 

western Coahuila, Mexico. All along I saw the same plant with 

its greatly tuberculate, but small fruits, and no other, until it 

reached the end of its range and disappeared near Monclova, 

Coahuila. 

Somewhat farther on, in the hills north of Saltillo, I came 

upon a similar but surely different cholla. This one grows with 

joints larger in both diameter and maximum length, and with its 

more or less ovate fruits becoming twice as big as those of the 

U.S. form, as well as becoming perfectly smooth as they ripen, 

all tubercles vanishing and the umbilici becoming flat. The resulting 

ripe fruit is quite like the shape of a fig. This cactus begins 

to appear near Saltillo, and is very common, becoming one 

of the dominants in much of the brush country all the way 

through San Luis Potosi, while our northern form does not ap- 

pear anywhere at all in this whole area. 

Both Coulter and Griffiths state clearly the differences between 

these two forms, as well as their proper ranges. Both use 

Engelmann’s name O. arborescens, for the northern one, while 

assuming that the southern one is the original O. imbricata (as 

did Engelmann) and using that name for it. 

Most later writers, following Schumann and Weber, ignored 

the differences between these two forms and united the two 

names as synonyms. While we feel that they may be too close


to each other to be considered entirely separate species, we do 

not believe they are identical. They even show differing chromatograph 

maps, as we discovered in our own laboratory, which 

is added evidence for keeping them separate. While there is no 

certainty possible from only the very poor early descriptions of 

Haworth and De Candolle as to what the typical form of O. imbricata 

was, it is clear that it was a Mexican form, and that the 

much later discovered northern form Engelmann described was 

not for many years considered to be the same, although Engelmann 

himself speculated that his might not be a totally different 

species. We believe that, all evidence considered, our northern 

form can best be regarded as a variety of the larger species 

which all agree now must bear the original name, O. imbricata, 

and so we call it O. imbricata var. arborescens. 

Opuntia imbricata var. viridiflora (B. & R.) 


stems: Growing as an upright bush 1 to 3 feet tall. It is much 

branched and with no enlarging trunk, but the old stems are 

more or less bark-covered and with a woody support. The 

current year’s joints are usually 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch in diameter, 

but occasionally in cultivated examples reach 1 inch 

thick. The surface is covered with prominent tubercles 3/4 of 

an inch or a little longer. 

areoles: Circular or oval, with short gray or yellowish wool. 

spines: 2 to 8 per areole on current year’s growth, not increasing 

much with age. They are 3/4 to 1 inch long, dark 

brown, with brownish sheaths. 

glochids: Fairly numerous, but short. 

flowers: 1 to 2 inches in diameter, not opening widely. They 

are coral-pink within, yellowish to pale green on the outside. 

The filaments are green, the anthers yellow. The pistil is long 

and reddish, and the stigma has 8 or 9 reddish lobes. 

fruits: 1 inch or less in diameter, as those of variety arborescens 

in shape, with very prominent, persisting tubercles and 

deep umbilici. They have long, deciduous bristles at first, but 

are usually naked when ripe. 

Range. Known only from the type locality, which is the hills 

just north of Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Remarks. Although described by Britton and Rose as a separate 

species, I find it only possible to think of this form as at best a 

doubtful variety of the O. imbricata complex very close to the 

other northern form, variety arborescens. Growing wild, it appears 

in no essential character different from a small, stunted 

version of that cactus, all its elements present but reduced quantitatively. 

Many of the weaker specimens of variety arborescens 

found in the mountains of northern New Mexico which I have 

examined I could not distinguish from this form by their vege- 

tative characters. Only when they bloomed with their bright 

purplish flowers could I be Sure they weren’t this form, and 

only when my specimens bloomed with their pale greenish flow- 

ers could I be Sure that they were variety viridiflora. 

It does not seem that flower color can be a basis in the cacti, 

at least, for separating species, and anyway, most of the very 

large, robust variety arborescens specimens in northwest Texas 

bloom with pale lavender flowers having traces of green in 

them. So if there were no other factors I would think the two 

should be combined. However, the cactus described as O. viridiflora, 

even in cultivation in New Mexico where it has the best 

situation, does not seem to grow large like the other forms of 

the species. The quantitative difference remains. Yet this is still 

little basis for separating the forms. Figuring even more importantly 

in our evaluation, the chromatograph map of the cactus 

is quite essentially different from that of variety arborescens. 

For those reasons mentioned, I continue to keep this form 

separate, but I definitely do not feel that the differences are 

enough to warrant considering this more than a local variety 

within the O. imbricata complex. 

Opuntia imbricata var. vexans (Gr.) 


stems: A treelike cholla with cylindrical branches from an 

upright, bark-covered trunk. Old specimens stand 6 to 12 feet 

tall with a compact crown of many branches from a cylindrical 

trunk becoming at least 8 inches in diameter. The current 

years’s branches are 4 to 16 inches long, the typical length 

being 6 to 12 inches. They are cylindrical, 3/4 to 1/4 inches 

thick, usually narrowing gradually at their bases. They are 

tuberculate, the tubercles about 11/4 inches long and 3/16 to 3/8 

of an inch tall, with the upper slope abrupt and the lower 

slope much longer and more gradual. 

areoles: Oval, 1/4 of an inch or slightly more in length, with 

gray wool at first, later enlarging and bulging outward. 

spines: 1 to 10 in the areoles of current growth, increasing to 

20 or 30 on old stems. Spreading in all directions, short, being 

only 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch long, and very slender to medium in 

thickness. They are brown, more or less annulate, with lighter 

tips, and are covered with rather tight, yellowish, gray, or 

whitish sheaths. 

glochids: Yellowish in color. They grow from the upper part 

of the areole, and are always very few, and from 1/16 to 3/8 

of an inch long. 

flowers: 2 to 23/4 inches in diameter by 11/2 to 2 inches tall. 

The ovary is 1 to 11/8 inches long by about 1/4 of an inch thick, 

very tuberculate, with a number of long perianth segments 

upon it. The outside of the flower is greenish, the inside light 

pinkish-purple. The filaments are pink suffused with green or


brown. The anthers are yellow or cream; the style is short; 

and the stigma lobes number 6 to 9 and are brownish, tan, or 

whitish. This form tends to bloom repeatedly during the summer, 

whenever there is moisture. 

fruits: When young, egg-shaped, about 13/4 inches long by 1 

inch wide, very tuberculate with tubercles 5/8 to 3/4 of an inch 

long and about 1/8 of an inch tall, and with the umbilici deeply 

pitted. At this stage they have some short glochids and around 

the upper edge half a dozen or so very slender, white spines 

3/8 to 13/8 inches long. When ripening later in the summer, 

they become yellowish-green, egg-shaped to almost spherical 

or sometimes even wider than they are long, being then 11/4 

to 2 inches long and 11/2 to 2 inches wide. These ripe fruits 

are spineless, wholly smooth, or with only the traces of a few 

tubercles at the base, and with the umbilici practically or completely 

flattened. 

Range. Said in the original description to be Webb County, 

Texas. It has not been seen growing wild since, but is found as a 

cultivated plant in gardens in Laredo and Del Rio, Texas. 

Remarks. Dr. Griffiths described O. vexans as a new species in 

1911. He said then: “The type specimen is… prepared… from 

plants cultivated from cuttings collected… in Webb County, 

Texas, March 13, 1908. Mature plants have not been seen elsewhere, 

but the species is frequently cultivated. The description 

is a compilation of several sets of notes taken from native and 

cultivated plants.” 

We carried on a long search for a cholla native to Webb County, 

covering as much of the area as possible ourselves, and asking 

everyone we could find who had reason to be abroad in the 

open, from ranch owners to cowboys, and particularly oldtimers, 

where the cholla grew wild in Webb County. Everywhere we 

met with complete surprise that anyone thought a cholla ever 

grew wild anywhere in that county. We were stymied entirely 

in trying to locate Griffiths’ cholla this way. 

But Laredo, in Webb County, is the site of one of the oldest 

and most famous cactus dealerships. In business continually for 

well over 30 years, first as the Shiner Cactus Nursery, and more 

recently as the Cactus Garden and Cafe, this establishment has 

sold literally millions of cacti from the local region, as well as 

imported cacti from all over Mexico. It still has a large garden 

with hundreds of huge old specimen plants which have stood 

there for decades. Mrs. Jones, the present proprietor, has been 

involved with the business almost since the beginning. 

Naturally, since I believe that she knows the most about the 

cacti of Webb County of anyone living, I asked her about Griffiths’ 

cholla. She says that she has never known of any such 

native plant. She has had crews of men in the field at various 

times during the years, digging cacti for her business, and says 

she was never shown a cholla from the region. 

Although one hates to write off the statements of one so eminent 

as Dr. Griffiths, I was faced with having to do this, since 

I couldn’t even find a clue to his plant. Then one day I walked 

out behind the Cactus Garden Cafe in Laredo, and there on the 

edge of Mrs. Jones’s garden, fully 12 feet tall and vying successfully 

with the retama trees, stood a giant specimen of Griffiths’ 

cholla. It had a trunk more than 6 inches in diameter, with its 

first branches 4 feet or more above the ground, and with a 

crown spreading 10 or 12 feet. On the branches were young, 

tubercled, spiny fruits, and also large, spherical, perfectly smooth 

and spineless, ripe fruits of the season’s several blooming periods. 

When I told Mrs. Jones that this was the cholla from Webb 

County, she disagreed, saying that it was instead an import from 

Mexico which had stood in that spot for very many years. There 

is a chance that this very specimen was growing there when Dr. 

Griffiths was collecting in Webb County, and it is entirely possible 

that he used it in writing his description. I have since seen 

several other specimens of this cactus in Laredo, but there are 

not many, and they are all in very old yards. 

There was another old business dealing in rocks, cacti, and 

curios along the highway in Del Rio, Texas. This was run for 

many years by Mr. and Mrs. Basket. In the yard around this 

establishment was to be seen a whole grove of 20 or more specimens 

of this cholla 8 to 12 feet tall. I was privileged to know 

Mrs. Basket, and she said these cacti were not native to Texas, 

but had their source somewhere in Mexico. Mrs. Basket sold her 

property recently, and within the past year all of these giant 

specimens were grubbed out and destroyed. I do not know that 

the form exists any more in Del Rio. 

There were also two fine specimens of this cholla beside a 

small roadside cafe and station some few miles west of Del Rio 

on U. S. 90, but this business has been razed and the plants went 

with it. So far as I know, the few Laredo specimens and some 

starts in my own collection are all that survive of the form. 

It is impossible with only the present knowledge of this cholla 

group to know what to do with this cactus. It seems doubtful, 

from all accounts, that the plant ever grew wild in the U.S., 

and more likely that Dr. Griffiths saw examples escaped from 

very early cultivation, if he did see the cactus growing outside 

of yards. Neither is there any sign of the cactus growing wild 

anywhere near the Rio Grande in north Mexico. The nearest 

location to Webb County where I find chollas with fruits becoming 

smooth like this is in the hills around Saltillo, Coahuila, 

Mexico, and this might be a location from which it was introduced 

into Texas long ago; but the form with smooth fruits 

growing from Saltillo down through San Luis Potosi does not 

seem to be entirely identical with the form in Webb County. It 

does not grow so large anywhere that I have observed it, and 

there are differences of tubercle shape, spine development, and 

fruit details, which do not seem that they could be environmen- 

tal. 

What does seem very clear is that the cactus called O. vexans 

by Griffiths is different from the U. S. cholla which we are calling 

O. imbricata var. arborescens, having a different growth 

form when large, thicker joints, shorter spines, and different 

fruits. Since it is going to be noticed by some observant cacto-


philes in Laredo yards, if nowhere else, I feel we must list it 

here if we are to have a complete account. That it is definitely 

one of the O. imbricata group is also clear. But the problem of 

how it relates to the typical O. imbricata is a hard one, mainly 

because, the early descriptions of that cactus being in only the 

most general terms and no type or type locality being given, we 

do not really know the exact form of the typical species type. 

It is assumed by all that the original collection was in Mexico, 

and a logical choice for the typical species form would be the 

form which is so common as to be one of the dominant plants 

from southern Coahuila at least to San Luis Potosi. Griffiths 

himself flatly calls this form O. imbricata, and yet he never 

seems to have thought of the plant he saw in Webb County as 

this one. I have studied this cactus widely in Mexico, and Griffiths’ 

O. vexans is very close to it, but I can see differences also. 

Yet even if I were to conclude that they are the same, I would 

still hesitate to state that the form was the typical O. imbricata, 

since Griffiths also describes an O. spinotecta from Durango, 

which I have seen, and which is still different from any of the 

above, with only 3 to 6 spines, even on old stems, but with these 

much longer than on the other Mexican forms. This form is the 

one which fits Coulter’s description for O. imbricata, and could 

just as easily be the one which should bear the name. 

With nothing more definitely known than all this, it seems 

most prudent to leave our cactus growing, probably as a visitor, 

in Webb County, Texas, as a variety of this complex under the 

name O. imbricata var. vexans. With all the lack of certainty 

about it, the name is certainly well enough chosen. 

Opuntia spinosior (Eng.) Toumey 

“Cane Cholla” 


stems: A large, open-branching shrub or treelike plant 3 to 8 

feet, and said to sometimes reach 12 feet tall. When large it 

produces a black, scaly trunk 2 to 4 inches in diameter, although 

smaller, shrubby examples will lack this. The young 

joints are 4 to 12 inches long, cylindrical, 5/8 to 11/4 inches in 

diameter, covered with conspicuous tubercles 1/4 to 3/4 of an 

inch long. The surface is grayish-green, often becoming pur- 

plish in the winter. 

areoles: Oval or nearly so, 1/8 of an inch in diameter when 

young, becoming larger and bulging outward with age. 

spines: There are 6 to 12 Spines per areole on the current 

year’s growth, the number increasing to at least 20 or 30 when 

very old. They are short, mostly 1/4 to 1/2 inch long, but rarely 

to 3/4 of an inch, and spread in all directions. They are white, 

gray, or brownish, all fading to gray. At first they are covered 

entirely, or the smaller ones on only the upper parts, 

with thin, comparatively inconspicuous sheaths which usually 

fall off after a year. The sheaths are gray, sometimes with a 

pinkish tinge. 

glochids: There are a few short, inconspicuous, white or yellowish 

glochids at the top of the areole. 

flowers: 1/2 to 21/4 inches in diameter, very beautiful, but 

also variable in color. The most common color seems to be 

purplish, but it is not uncommon to find various shades of 

red, more or less yellowish, or even white blossoms. The ovary 

is tubercled and with very slender white spines on it. The 

stigma lobes are cream-colored or yellowish. 

fruits: Yellow when ripe, 1 to 11/2 inches long, almost spherical 

to oblong or rather egg-shaped. They are very tuberculate, 

with also deeply pitted apexes. At first the fruits have 

the very slender white spines of the ovary upon them, but 

these fall off long before they ripen. The seeds are a little over 

1/8 of an inch (about 4 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. Southwestern New Mexico from about Silver City to 

Hermanas and the Carrizalillo Hills, and on into adjacent Ari- 

zona and Mexico. 

Remarks. This is thought by many to be the most beautiful 

cholla of our area. Its treelike, open branching, and tidy manner 

of growth, its even covering of short, whitish spines, and its 

brilliant flowers make it a favorite. It is so often featured in the 

bright color photos of the southwestern desert which have become 

a fad these days that one might think he could find it anywhere 

he would look in that desert. The cactus really has a comparatively 

small range in the U.S., however, being found only 

in the southwest corner of New Mexico and over about the 

southeast quarter of Arizona. Other large chollas take its place 

farther west, and the casual traveler doesn’t stop to notice the 

difference. 

This cactus does have superficial similarities to the more 

northern and much smaller O. whipplei, and Engelmann confused 

them in all of his accounts, calling this cactus O. whipplei 

var. spinosior. There are various differences between the two, 

however, which will be noted in the following account of that 

other species. 

O. spinosior is another of the large chollas having a woody 

skeleton of beautiful open pattern from which everything from 

canes to lamp bases has been made, hence the common name. It 

is a favorite especially for cane work, because of the straight- 

ness of its stems. 

Opuntia whipplei Eng. & Big. 

“Whipple’s Cholla,” “Rat-Tail Cactus,” “Sticker Cactus” 


stems: Ordinarily, and apparently always in our area, an 

erect but low-growing cholla 6 to about 24 inches tall. Plants


may stand alone and be rather openly branched bushes, the 

joints 6 to 10 inches long, but more often they are very 

crowded with their branches extremely numerous and their 

joints only 2 or 3 inches long, these forming very compact, 

matlike thickets of sometimes up to 8 feet across while still 

only a foot or so high. In some locations in Arizona the plant 

is reported to grow much taller, but this has not been demonstrated 

elsewhere. The current year’s joints are usually 3/8 

to 3/4 of an inch in diameter, but occasionally to 1 inch. They 

are covered with conspicuous, broad, short tubercles 3/8 to 5/8 

of an inch long. The surface is light or yellowish-green. The 

joints are rather easily detached. 

areoles: Egg-shaped or elliptical, about 3/16 of an inch long 

when young. They have some white wool at first, but very 

soon lose it. 

spines: There are 3 to 12 spines per areole. 1 to 4 of these are 

main spines spreading from the center of the areole. The 

lower, rather deflexed one is usually the longer of these, and 

is often somewhat flattened. The uppermost one is flattened 

and the heaviest, but while all of these are rigid, none of 

them are very stout. They are from 1/4 to 11/4 inches long. 

They are whitish to brown and covered with conspicuous, 

loose, straw-colored or whitish sheaths. There are 2 to 8 smaller, 

very slender, unsheathed spines 1/16 to 3/8 of an inch long, 

radiating or often recurving against the surface of the plant 

around the areole. 

glochids: There are several white or pale yellowish glochids 

up to 1/8 of an inch long near the upper edge of the areole. 

flowers: Pale yellow, not opening widely. They usually stand 

3/4 to 11/4 inches wide. The ovary tube is very tuberculate, 

with large white areoles and a few slender, white, soon-falling 

spines upon it. The filaments are greenish. The anthers are yel- 

lowish. The stigma lobes are about 5 or 6 in number and 

greenish or white in color. 

fruits: Almost round to somewhat obovate, 3/4 to 11/4 inches 

long. They are very tuberculate, with deep umbilici, and without 

spines. They remain green a long time, and then become 

yellowish when ripe. The seeds are 1/8 of an inch or slightly 

more (3–4 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. Northwestern New Mexico from south of Ojo Caliente 

in Valencia County to western Socorro County around Puertecito, 

to near Farmington. Extending into southwestern Colorado 

and over almost the whole upper half of Arizona. 

Remarks. There has been much misinformation about this cactus 

because it has from the first been confused with two other chollas. 

Engelmann apparently never did distinguish clearly between 

this and O. spinosior. He began by having a species, O. 

whipplei, which encompassed both of these forms, and then 

describing under this species a variety laevior, which sounded 

much like this cactus, but for which he described the flowers as 

being red, and a variety spinosior, which was the larger plant. 

Later, in his Whipple’s Report, he stated his earlier described 

red flowers were actually those of variety spinosior, but he did 

not redescribe the flowers of the smaller plant. 

Coulter restricted the name of the species to the small northern 

cholla, and it has been called O. whipplei constantly since 

that time, but he repeated the error of stating that it had red 

flowers, and still called the larger southern cactus O. whipplei 

var. spinosior. 

The two cacti are so close to each other in many respects of 

stems and spines that it would be very easy to think of them as 

a large growth form in the south and a smaller one in the north 

due to more severe climate there, especially if one were thinking 

that the flowers were identical on both. Only later did Tourney 

separate the two as different species, and by Wooton’s time it 

was clear that in New Mexico at least, which is the type locality 

of O. whipplei, the flowers of the smaller northern form are always 

yellow, and the ranges of the two are separated by a band 

of at least 100 miles where neither grows. Since then the two 

have always been considered separate species, although Arizona 

students have mentioned what they think may be intermediates 

in their state. These have not been demonstrated in New Mexico. 

After all this had been pretty well settled, a new confusion 

arose between O. whipplei and another cholla of northeastern 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, O. davisii. Here is another 

form surely very close to O. whipplei. It was only incompletely 

described by either Engelmann or Coulter, and Wooton seems 

the first one actually to try to distinguish between these two 

forms. Unfortunately, the only character he could find with 

which to try to tell them apart was the spine color. He said that 

O. whipplei has “spine sheaths pale yellowish to white,” while 

O. davisii has “spine sheaths yellowish brown,” or, as he put it 

again, “O. whipplei always looks whitish or very pale yellow, 

while O. davisii is a golden brown, the colors being due to the 

sheaths.” 

Now this distinction pointed out by Wooton is essentially accurate, 

but few things are more relative with us than color, both 

in the naming of the various shades and no doubt in the perception 

of them. The result was that other characteristics in 

which these two differed were not properly considered while 

people began to call their specimens whichever one of these they 

were more familiar with. Due to this confusion we have reports 

of O. whipplei in northeastern New Mexico and even in Oklahoma. 

All of these specimens collected outside of the above given 

range of O. whipplei which I have been able to investigate personally 

have proved to be O. davisii. A typical example is a 

collection made by Lahman in Greer County, Oklahoma, on the 

basis of which O. whipplei is often included in Oklahoma plant 

lists. I have examined Lahman’s preserved specimen, and it is 

clearly O. davisii. 

We need much more reliable characters with which to distinguish 

these two species, and I would mention that the length


of spines of O. whipplei is usually no more than 3/4 of an inch 

and never over 11/4 inches, and the length of its tubercles is 3/8 

to 5/8 of an inch, while the spines of O. davisii are to 2 inches 

long and its tubercles 5/8 to 1 inch long. The flowers of the former 

are yellow and it produces seeds, while the latter has green 

flowers and is apparently sterile. 

O. whipplei, when definitely recognized, is the small pest 

cholla of northwestern New Mexico and northern Arizona. It 

has little to commend it to us, and its impenetrable thickets, 

with its severe spines and joints which easily attach themselves 

to us and hate to let go again, make it less than appreciated by 

most who encounter it. Although it is one of the forms which 

give cacti little besides a bad name, we must acknowledge it as 

one of ours. 

Opuntia davisii Eng. 


stems: A low-growing, very much branched bush usually 

standing 12 to 18 inches tall, but occasionally reaching 30 

inches. The main stem is very short because of the immediate 

branching and it hardly increases in diameter, but it does become 

more or less covered with gray, scaly bark. The current 

year’s joints are cylindrical, often bordering upon being clubshaped 

because of the narrowing of their bases. They are 3 to 

6 inches long, 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch in diameter, very tuberculate, 

with the tubercles laterally compressed and 5/8 to at 

least 1 inch long. The color of the surface is light green. The 

joints are easily detached. 

areoles: Elliptical, about 3/16 is of an inch long, with some yellowish 

wool. 

spines: Producing 6 to 13 spines per areole. 4 to 7 of these are 

main spines spreading in all directions from the center of the 

areole. They are from 3/4 to 2 inches long, round, and heavy. 

They are bright brown or red-brown and somewhat annulate 

in color, but this coloring is not seen until their very large, 

very loose, bright, glistening, straw-colored, or light brown 

sheaths are removed. There are also 2 to 5 small radial spines 

which are 1/4 to 1/2 inch long, slender, brownish, and do not 

appear to be sheathed. 

glochids: There is a compact cluster of yellow glochids 1/16 

to 1/8 of an inch long at the top of the areole. 

flowers: About 2 inches tall, but not opening widely, and so 

only about 11/2 inches in diameter. They are deep green to 

pale green in color, the centers having yellowish coloring and 

the upper edges and outside surfaces of the petals tinted with 

brown or reddish. The filaments are greenish-red and very 

coarse, and the anthers yellow. The style is short, with 4 to 7 

very large, cream-white to sometimes pale purplish lobes. The 

ovary is conic, about 11/4 inches long by 1 inch wide, very 

tuberculate, with some yellow areoles and on the upper part 

some very slender, white, deciduous spines to 1 inch long. 

fruits: Egg-shaped to clavate, 1 to 11/2 inches long by 5/8 to 

3/4 of an inch thick at the top. They are very tuberculate, with 

deeply pitted umbilici. There are short yellow glochids upon 

them, but they are otherwise naked. They become greenish- 

yellow and then dry up. All examples examined were 

sterile. 

Range. From Greer and Harmon counties in extreme south- 

western Oklahoma, west across the Texas Panhandle and eastern 

New Mexico to near the mountains, also south across Texas 

to Gillespie County in the south-central part of that state, and 

to the Rio Grande in the Big Bend. 

Remarks. Opuntia davisii is the eastern counterpart of the more 

western O. whipplei. The two have many characters in common, 

and since, in most keys, as for instance those of Wooton and of 

Britton and Rose, the only way mentioned to distinguish them 

is by spine-sheath color, they have often been confused. Frequently 

this has worked to the advantage of O. davisii, in terms 

of the range given to it. In Coulter’s time, records were so confused 

between these two and even other small chollas that he 

gives the range of O. davisii as going all the way to California. 

Wooton seemed to be able to distinguish these plants well for 

himself, and put this cactus back in eastern New Mexico where 

it belonged, but his key led many others farther astray. There 

is just not enough difference between “sheaths pale yellowish to 

white—O. whipplei” and “sheaths yellowish brown—O. da- 

visii.” 

Perhaps the worst confusion was that of Boissevain and Davidson. 

Partly because of the above trouble with spine colors 

and partly because they repeat Engelmann’s erroneous statement 

that O. whipplei has red flowers, they call their small, yellow- 

flowered, whitish-spined cholla of southwestern Colorado O. 

davisii, when it is in reality O. whipplei. To date there are no 

actual records of O. davisii in Colorado, much less in extreme 

southwestern Colorado as they would have it. 

Conversely, Mrs. Lahman collected a cholla which she called 

O. whipplei in Green and Harmon counties, Oklahoma. Examination 

of her preserved specimens and re-collection of the living 

cacti show that they are clearly O. davisii. 

How can this sort of confusion between these two interesting 

plants be avoided? Only by noting that beyond the glistening 

straw or golden-brown sheaths and the more or less red-brown 

color of the main spines, O. davisii has 4 to 7 of these main 

spines 3/4 to 2 inches long, whereas O. whipplei shows no more 

than 1 to 4 main spines of which none are over 11/4 inches long. 

Also, O. davisii has tubercles compressed and 5/8 to 1 inch long 

instead of broader and shorter ones such as are found on the 

other cactus, and its flowers are at best yellowish-green while


the flowers of the other are clear yellow. With this sort of careful 

observation the two can be distinguished with certainty unless, 

of course, one is looking at stunted, abnormal growths, and 

in this condition one can hardly separate any of the Opuntias. 

In extremely stunted conditions, purposely induced in my garden, 

O. davisii takes on much of the aspect of O. kleiniae, with 

long, very slender joints, very indistinct tubercles and down to 

1 slender spine, while O. whipplei reacts in just the opposite 

manner, shortening its joints which remain very tuberculate and 

come to appear much like poorly armed, over-elongated exam- 

ples of O. grahamii. 

Hester reported O. davisii from the Big Bend of Texas, a very 

long way from any other report of it. Anthony later confirmed 

this, and I have re-collected it there myself. Some of Hester’s 

plants had very long roots with tuberous thickenings strung 

along them. I have not been able to find this sort of root forma- 

tion again. 

Not only is the occurrence of the cactus in the Big Bend, so 

far from any other report of it, not surprising, but such isolated 

records seem to be the rule with this species. It occurs over a 

very large range, but is found in most of this huge area at only 

widely scattered locations. The center of its range is clearly a 

strip extending about 50 miles either side of the Texas, New 

Mexico boundary from about Nara Visa, New Mexico, on the 

north to about Tatum, New Mexico, on the south. In this strip 

of territory one can find a small stand every 30 to 50 miles 

wherever he goes, and there are some expanses of the prairie 

where the individuals are up to a dozen or so to the square mile. 

But when one goes any direction from this strip, the occurrences 

are very widely spaced. Going west we find records from the 

Tucumcari Hills, and then no sign of it again until between 

Chimayo and Espanola, New Mexico, we again find a real 

stand. Going southwest or south there has been no known sign 

of it past Tatum, New Mexico, except Hester’s collections of it 

near Marfa, Texas, and at some unspecified place on the Rio 

Grande, and Anthony’s and my own collections of it, both a 

few miles from Marathon. Going east from the New Mexico- 

Texas border one can quickly list the known locations. They are 

Abernathy in Hale County, Texas, north of Lubbock; in Kent 

County, southeast of Lubbock some 60 miles; and then not again 

until a location in the southwest corner of Beckman County, 

one in Harmon County, and one in Greer County, all in Oklahoma; 

and yet one more at Seymour in Baylor County, Texas. 

Going southeast from the original area one finds it again around 

Colorado City, Texas, once again 60 miles or so from any other 

record, and then not again until a small population is found in 

northern Gillespie County, Texas, fully 160 miles from the near- 

est location and well down into the Texas hill country. 

This sort of widespread range with very scattered locations 

within it seems typical of many chollas. It may indicate, as some 

have conjectured, that these plants were previously much more 

common and that we have only islands of survival left, or it 

may be the result of the highly developed ability in these plants 

to reproduce themselves from detached joints. These joints cling 

tightly to flesh, fur, or clothing, and perhaps these plants were 

spread to their widely separated locations by the migrating ani- 

mals and wandering tribes of the prairies. 

The flower of O. davisii is among the most unusual and remarkable 

I have seen in the cacti. Its petals are very firm and 

waxy, unlike those of any other Opuntias I know, and similar 

to the stiff, persistent flower petals of the Echinocereus triglochidiatus 

group. It is the largest green flower with which I 

am acquainted, except for some orchids. 

Another peculiarity of this species is the fact that all fruits 

seem perfectly formed and developing normally, with many 

plants producing fruits in season, but seeds have never been described. 

While living in the Oklahoma Panhandle and traveling 

through the central range of this species in all seasons, I have 

opened many fruits, and all examples I have opened have been 

sterile. There did not seem to be any sign of parasites, and sterility 

appears to be a characteristic of the cactus, its reproduction 

apparently being solely by separated joints. What the sig- 

nificance of this is has not been determined. 

The sight of a large, healthy specimen of this cactus standing 

as a glistening, golden bush on the prairie makes one look 

around for the Midas responsible. Its spine sheaths in shining 

gold are only equaled in brilliance by those of the next species 

which glisten as brightly in silver. 

Opuntia tunicata (Lem.) Link & Otto in Pfeiffer, 1837 

“Abrojo,” “Clavelina” 


stems: Erect, with a more or less definite woody stem, but 

with very many crowded, lateral branches, and, therefore, low 

and spreading in aspect. It grows from less than 1 to about 

2 feet tall in our area, but is said to grow taller sometimes in 

Mexico. The current year’s joints are 2 to 6 inches long, narrowly 

oblong or somewhat club-shaped when short, but almost 

cylindrical when longer. They are covered with prominent 

tubercles 3/4 to 11/2 inches long. The color is medium to 

light green. All joints are very easily detached. 

areoles: Oblong in shape, 3/16 of an inch long at first, enlarging 

considerably with age. They bulge outward with very 

white wool. 

spines: There are 6 to 10 Spines, all white, yellow, or rarely 

reddish, but all covered with very loose, very thin and papery, 

translucent, silvery white sheaths. There are 3 to 6 

spreading central spines 1 to 21/2 inches long. Underneath 

their sheaths these are more or less angular, and very heavy 

spines. There are also 2 to 4 radial spines from the lower part


of the areole, these more slender and from bristle-like ones 

only 3/8 of an inch long to sometimes fairly stout ones, to 11/4 

inches long. 

glochids: There is a small cluster of very short whitish or 

pale yellow glochids in the upper edge of the areole. 

flowers: Pale greenish-yellow. About 2 inches in diameter. 

fruits: Spherical to broad club-shaped, tuberculate, yellow- 

ish-green. The seeds are apparently undescribed. 

Range. Found in the U. S. only on the southeast slopes of the 

Glass Mountains just within the southwest edge of Pecos County, 

Texas. Ranging throughout central Mexico, and reported also in 

Ecuador, Peru, and northern Chile. 

Remarks. Miss Anthony reported this species not many years 

ago from the Big Bend of Texas, this being the first knowledge 

that it grew in the United States. Dr. Warnock, of Sul Ross College 

in Alpine, Texas, kindly sent me some specimens collected 

on the Glass Mountains, the same location where Miss Anthony 

found it. We seem to have in that small area a very isolated 

population of the species, as it has never been reported from any 

of the Big Bend south of there to the Mexican border. This population 

must be the northernmost point it attains, a remarkable 

outpost since, although I have watched for it on several trips 

through the mountains of northwest Coahuila, the first place I 

have seen it again was at the latitude of Saltillo, hundreds of 

miles into Mexico. 

This gives the cactus ample reason to be considered for the 

title of the most widely ranging of all, since this means a range 

for it extending from the southern U. S. all the way into northern 

Chile. It is also said to have been found, probably as an 

escape, in Cuba. 

This immense range is all the more remarkable since this is 

probably the most difficult cholla to grow in cultivation. Even 

here in Texas, when trying one after another of the treatments 

which enable me to grow and flower most of the other cacti 

successfully, I find my specimens of O. tunicata, both from Texas 

and from Mexico, which were large and beautiful when I got 

them, refusing to bloom at all and reverting to the curious 

dwarf form, 8 to 10 inches high, with very short branches and 

less than typical spination, which one sees here and there even 

among the robust examples in the mountains of Mexico. The lack 

of published details about the flowers and fruits of this cactus 

makes me think that others have had the same trouble with it, 

and that perhaps it blooms and fruits sparingly even in the wild. 

At any rate, it has managed to survive in many places. However, 

the dwarf form of it is widespread even in the best loca- 

tions, as Britton and Rose mention. 

When growing robustly, O. tunicata is an amazingly beautiful 

plant. A good specimen is a small bush so compact in its branching 

and so covered with its shining silver-sheathed spines that it 

glistens, even from across a canyon, like an ice-covered bush in 

the sunlight of a northern winter, or like a globe of the finest 

Spanish silver filigree. But for all the magic of its appearance, 

it is a cactus which must be skirted by man or beast with the 

proper respect. 

Opuntia kleiniae DC 

“Klein Cholla,” “Candle Cholla” 


stems: Erect, shrubby stems 3 to 6 feet tall, openly but rather 

sparingly branching from woody trunks 1 to 11/2 inches in 

diameter and covered with brown, scaly bark. The current 

year’s joints are 4 to at least 12 inches long, cylindrical, 5/16 

to 1/2 inch in diameter. They have low, broad, more or less indistinct 

tubercles 1/2 to as much as 13/8 inches long. The lateral 

branches are fairly easily detached, but are not as loosely held 

as on some chollas. 

areoles: Round to egg-shaped or even practically triangular, 

and about 3/16 of an inch long. They have white wool in them. 

spines: 1 to 4 per areole, with most often only 1 present. This 

main spine is 1/2 to at least 11/2 inches long, and said to reach 

2 inches; reddish to gray, with a loose yellowish sheath which 

usually falls off soon after the spine matures. There may be 1 

to 3 additional shorter Spines. 

glochids: A small, compact cluster of yellowish or brown 

glochids about 1/16 of an inch long is found at the upper edge 

of the areole. 

flowers: 1 to 11/4 inches in diameter, pale greenish-purple, 

lavender, or pinkish in color. The ovary is egg-shaped, 1/2 to 

3/4 of an inch long, with woolly areoles on indistinct tubercles. 

The filaments are pinkish, the stigma with 6 or 7 small, whit- 

ish lobes. 

fruits: Egg-shaped or sometimes almost club-shaped, 3/4 to 

11/2 inches long, red or bright orange, naked or with clusters 

of brown glochids 1/8 of an inch long in the areoles when ripe. 

They are more or less tuberculate when growing, and sometimes 

remain strongly tuberculate but more often become almost 

completely smooth when ripe. The amount of growth 

influences the degree of smoothness attained, since smaller 

fruits are consistently more tuberculate. The seeds are between 

1/8 and 3/16 of an inch (about 4 millimeters) in diameter. 

Range. From deep in central Mexico far north into the United 

States, having been reported from Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, 

and Arizona. The most northerly records from within our 

area, going from west to east, are as follows: Columbus, in 

southwest New Mexico; the hills west of San Antonio, New 

Mexico; Santa Rosa, New Mexico; Clayton, in the extreme 

northeast corner of New Mexico; then back to the Davis Moun-


tains of Texas and the lower Big Bend, except for one remarkable 

report of its having been found growing wild near Kingfisher 

in north-central Oklahoma. 

Remarks. O. kleiniae, while a tall-growing cholla, is an inconspicuous 

one. Its branches and stems are so long and slender and 

so weakly spined that from a distance it looks more like some 

leafless bush than a cactus. Many collectors no doubt pass right 

by it, thinking it is just another of the assorted desert shrubs 

with which it usually mingles in thickets. Few of them would 

care to take this cactus home with them anyway, since by either 

form or flower it has little to offer to a garden. 

If it grew over large areas of our country, this would certainly 

be one of the worst of the pest cacti, as it is in parts of Mexico, 

since, where it is found, it often makes large thickets of tall 

bushes which man or beast must avoid. Some of the creek flats 

in the Davis Mountains of west Texas are fairly choked with the 

cactus, and a large thicket grew, when I was last there, in a 

ditch in almost the center of Fort Davis, Texas. Here it was obvious 

that it was scraped away with each cleaning of the ditch, 

but it returned immediately from the roots with stems reaching 

4 or 5 feet tall in one season. 

It is fortunate that in the U. S. this potentially dangerous cactus 

is like so many of the chollas in occurring only here and 

there within its wide range. Although its range includes about 

half of New Mexico, in this huge area it has been found at only 

a dozen or so places, all of these more or less localized populations 

covering small areas. In Texas the same is true, the population 

in the Davis Mountains being the largest, with occasional 

thickets being found down around Presidio and up in the foothills 

of the Guadalupe Mountains. 

It is hundreds of miles from any of these locations to the 

location mentioned for the plant near Kingfisher, Oklahoma. 

There have never been any other reports of this species from 

Oklahoma. Were it not that this collection was made by Mr. 

Charles Polaski, the well-known cactus collector of Oklahoma 

City, who is a very careful observer and who has provided most 

of the recent specimens for European studies of Oklahoma forms, 

and that I have seen specimens collected at that site growing 6 

feet and more tall in Mr. Polaski’s garden, I would be skeptical, 

but apparently there is this isolated colony of the cactus far in 

north-central Oklahoma. 

There has not been much confusion over this cactus. Engelmann, 

overlooking De Candolle’s earlier description of it, renamed 

the species O. wrightii—this not to be confused with O. 

wrightiana (Baxter) Peebles, which is a low-growing, club cholla 

closely related to or a variety of O. stanlyi. Almost immediately 

the earlier name was recognized as the correct one, and I believe 

no one else has used Engelmann’s unfortunate name for the plant 

since. 

O. kleiniae is probably most closely related to O. arbuscula 

Eng., a cholla with similar slender, though much shorter branches 

from a much thicker trunk, which is therefore a much more 

compact, bushy shape when grown. The two have similar spines, 

but, so far as I know, O. arbuscula, which has yellowish flowers 

and green fruits, is an Arizona plant which has never been found 

in New Mexico, so we should have no problem with the two in 

our area. 

It may be noticed that this description gives a longer maximum 

spine length and larger maximum fruit size than is stated 

for O. kleiniae in most of the major works on cacti. The first 

few descriptions of the cactus do not give us either the length of 

the spines or the size of the fruits. Coulter seems to have been the 

first to state sizes for these, and his maximums are the smallest 

given by anyone—3/4 inch for the spines and about 5/8 inch for 

the fruits. Most others have increased his figures only slightly. 

Most of them give the maximum spine length as between 3/4 and 

1 inch, and the largest fruit size is stated variously as from 5/8 to 

1 inch long. Only Borg differs from the rest in this, and he gives 

the spine length as to 2 inches—a startling maximum, double 

that of any other authority, which at first looks doubtful. 

It is our conviction that stopping the study of cacti which 

enter the U. S. from Mexico at the north bank of the Rio Grande 

and drawing up our descriptions of such species from only the 

U.S. segment of the population, which may be only a northern 

clone, as is so often done, is not good practice and may be the 

cause for some of our confusing problems in cactus study. Here, 

in this cactus which ranges hundreds of miles into Mexico and 

occurs widely there as huge, dominant populations rather than 

in scattered small numbers as in the U. S. seems to be one place 

where more attention should have been paid to the Mexican 

specimens. It is significant that Borg, who was much more a 

student of Central and South American cacti than of the U.S. 

forms, gives a spine length for the species double that given by 

our students. 

With this in mind, I have observed this cactus carefully on 

numerous trips throughout Coahuila and as far south as San Luis 

Potosi, where it grows in great profusion. In Mexico I find it 

identical to our northern specimens in all respects except that 

the spine length is quite commonly to 11/2 inches and the fruit 

size often to 11/2 inches also. I have never been able to measure a 

spine on it 2 inches long, as Borg must have done, but must presume 

that since he is right in that the usually stated limits are 

too short, he may well be right in his new maximum also. The 

value of considering the Mexican population is shown in that it 

made me return to the U. S. situation with new questions about 

our long-accepted limits. I measured plants wholesale, and in the 

Davis Mountains, where the cactus grows most profusely in the 

U. S., I finally found a few examples equaling the best Mexican 

specimens I had seen in both spine and fruit size. I have not been 

able to find equally developed plants in New Mexico, where it 

seems the cactus is less successful and, therefore, less robust. 

While these are small and technical points, their importance 

may be greater than at first appears. Engelmann described another 

slender-stemmed cholla from “in mountains near El Paso.” 

He said it had a main spine 1 to 21/2 inches long. He at first


thought it another new species and called it O. vaginata. In his 

earliest report of it he said it had pale yellowish flowers with a 

green tinge, which were 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch in diameter. Now 

these flowers would be exactly like those of O. leptocaulis, and 

perhaps because of this he said later that it might be a stout form 

of O. frutescens (his name for O. leptocaulis). Watson took him 

seriously on this and made the combination, O. leptocaulis var. 

vaginata. 

Whether or not Engelmann ever actually meant to submerge 

the form into the species O. leptocaulis is not clear, but seems 

unimportant in the light of later developments. What is important 

is that in later reports he retracts his description of the 

flower and says that the flower of O. vaginata is unknown. It is 

impossible to tell whether, without the earlier, erroneous concept 

of the yellow flower it would ever have occurred to him 

that there could be a stout form of O. leptocaulis, but what has 

happened is that all students since have either made this a variety 

of that species or considered it a synonym and ignored it. 

But what if the flower, which is unknown still, were purplish? 

Wouldn’t we then think of the cactus as a long-spined form of 

O. kleiniae instead? It is clear that while in several characters 

this cactus exceeds the usual limits of O. leptocaulis so that to 

include it in that species would require a redrawing of the species 

description, vegetatively, except for the spine length, the 

description of O. vaginata falls entirely within the limits of 

O. kleiniae. Even the longer spines, with our new knowledge of 

the length of spine sometimes attained in O. kleiniae, is no more 

of a problem here than it would be in combining this form with 

O. leptocaulis. The fruits were said to be small, yellowish, and 

strongly tuberculate, but they were within the range of size 

found easily on plants of both the other species. Both species 

sometimes have orange or yellow-orange fruits, but the smaller, 

less well developed fruits of O. kleiniae sometimes remain tuberculate, 

as was its ovary, while neither the fruits nor the ovaries 

of O. leptocaulis are ever seen distinctly tuberculate. 

This gives the idea of O. vaginata being an extra long-spined 

form of O. kleiniae somewhat the advantage, it seems to me. 

And here the fact that we now know O. kleiniae grows longer 

spines than before supposed becomes important. Now who can 

tell—may it not be that Engelmann merely had before him, 

from near El Paso, an O. kleiniae with spines yet a little longer 

than Borg’s? 

Attractive as this possibility is, it is impossible to know. It 

would seem to be essential to have living specimens to which to 

refer and from which especially to learn the characteristics of 

the flower, yet I know of no specimens which fit the description 

of this form collected since the type, and admit that it has eluded 

me. All of the herbarium specimens so labeled which I have examined, 

other than the type, have proved to be, like Lindheimer’s 

O. vaginata from New Braunfels, Texas, ordinary O. leptocaulis 

and have lacked the dimensions given for the species by Engelmann. 

In this situation it would be almost as great an assumption 

to call it a synonym or a variety of O. kleiniae as it has 

been on the part of Watson and others to place it in O. leptocaulis. 

Here is a place where there is real need of further work, 

and we hope by this discussion to clarify the problem which has 

been glossed over for too long and to stimulate someone to find 

the plant and place it properly. 

Opuntia leptocaulis DC 

“Desert Christmas Cactus,” “Slender Stem Cactus,” “Tasa- 

jillo,” “Aguijilla,” “Garrambullo” 


stems: A small, upright bush 2 to sometimes 5 feet tall. It is 

usually compactly and extensively branched from a main 

trunk which, on old plants, becomes covered with scaly bark 

and grows to 1 to 11/4 inches in diameter. The current year’s 

joints are cylindrical and 1 to 12 inches long, but only 1/8 to 

1/4 of an inch thick. The surface of these joints may have indistinct 

tubercles 1/4 to 1/2 inch long, but are more often completely 

smooth. The color is deep green, often with purplish 

spots around the areoles. The lateral joints detach very easily. 

areoles: Ovate or often almost diamond-shaped. They are 

about 1/8 of an inch long, with short, white wool. 

spines: 0 to 3 per areole, but most commonly 1. The main 

spine is porrect, gray, and very variable. It may be 1/8 to 2 

inches long. When short, it is usually very slender with a 

close-fitting sheath. When long and well-developed, it is stout, 

more or less flattened, and covered with a loose, papery, 

white, yellow, or tan sheath. There may be 1 or 2 additional 

short, slender, bristle-like spines. 

glochids: Few and very short in 1 to 3 small bunches in the 

upper part of the areole. They are yellowish to brown in color. 

flowers: 1/2 to 7/8 of an inch wide by 3/4 to 1 inch tall, opening 

very wide. They are greenish-yellow in color. The ovary 

is about 5/8 of an inch long, egg-shaped to conical, slightly if 

at all tuberculate, with brown glochids and elongated perianth 

segments upon it. The outer segments are greenish-yellow with 

soft green spines at their summits. The inner segments are oblong 

and pointed. The stamens are greenish-yellow. The style 

is long, with 3 to 6 short, thick, greenish-yellow stigma lobes. 

fruits: Bright scarlet, orange-red, or yellowish when ripe. 

Almost globular, pear-shaped, or club-shaped, and 3/8 to 1 

inch long. The surface is smooth, often with brown glochids in 

the areoles and with a deeply pitted umbilicus. These fruits 

are persistent on the plant and often proliferous, sometimes 

having shoots 2 or 3 inches long from them while still in place 

on the branch. There are usually a dozen or less seeds per 

fruit, these 1/8 of an inch or a little more (3–4 millimeters) in 

diameter. 

Range. From south-central Mexico north into Arizona, over all 

but approximately the northwestern quarter of New Mexico,


over all of Texas south of the Canadian River east to the Dallas 

area and the lower Brazos River, and entering Oklahoma as far 

as Harmon and Greer counties in the extreme southwestern corner 

and the Arbuckle Mountains in the south-central part of the 

state. 

Remarks. This, probably the most hated cactus of all in our 

area, and surely the one with the least to endear it to us, is a 

very wide-ranging species and one which unfortunately grows 

in great numbers in much of its territory. No one who has ever 

carelessly brushed up against what he ignored as just another 

scrubby little bush, but which was really this cactus, will ever 

forget it. Its nefariousness lies not in its being so spiny—many 

other cacti far surpass it in that—but in that it is so uncactus- 

like that we often fail to give it the proper respect and so it 

pricks us worst of all. It likes to grow within other bushes, and 

reaches out stray branches to snare us as we pass. The Spanish 

names for it, which anyone who understands them will realize 

are not exactly terms of endearment, are most appropriate. The 

person who had charity enough to coin the name, desert christmas 

cactus, for it, after the brilliant fruits which do remain on 

the bushes and beautify the otherwise dull brush all winter, was 

a rare soul or else only saw it from the highway and never tried 

to walk between plants of the garrambullo. 

The cactus varies greatly in size in different situations, being 

often only 2 feet high, but in the southern part of our area, in 

good alluvial soil it sometimes becomes 5 feet tall. However, 

robust as it may grow, it does not increase the diameter of its 

terminal branches over about 1/4 of an inch nor of its trunk over 

about 11/2 inches. I believe this distinguishes it from O. arbuscula, 

a close relative found in Arizona, upon which I have seen 

old trunks over 4 inches in diameter. Fruit color also distinguishes 

these two. Another close relative sometimes found in the 

same thicket with this species is O. kleiniae. Although the trunks 

of that species do not get much larger, its current year’s stems 

do, and it also has larger, purplish flowers. 

The garrambullo was noticed early and has had its share of 

names assigned to it. The first and valid one is O. leptocaulis, 

given it by De Candolle in 1828. Afterward there followed various 

others, among them O. ramulifera SD and O. virgata Link, 

but the ones causing the most confusion were the array of different 

names used for it by Engelmann. At first he thought it was 

a variety of another cactus we have recently looked at, and so 

called it O. fragilis var. frutescens. He himself later realized the 

error in this, and so raised it to a separate species, but at the 

time he apparently did not know of De Candolle’s previous 

name, and so he burdened us with O. frutescens as a species 

name, which is of course superseded by the earlier one. 

But then Engelmann thought he saw consistent varieties in the 

species. He therefore described variety longispina and variety 

brevispina, the former with its spines 1 to 2 inches long and with 

a loose sheath, and the latter with its spines short, slender, and 

tightly sheathed. Coulter, later, when trying to get the names 

correct, only compounded the confusion by rechristening the 

long-spined variety O. leptocaulis var. stipata because of a supposedly 

consistent difference from the other in joint shape. Still 

later, Britton and Rose described what seems to be nothing but 

this same long-spined form as a new species, Opuntia mortolensis. 

There was also commonly listed an O. leptocaulis var. vaginata. 

This supposed taxon and the almost complete uncertainty 

concerning it is discussed in the remarks upon O. kleiniae, to 

which it seems to us much more closely linked. There followed 

variety badia, variety robustior, and variety pluriseta, all by 

Berger, and all for minor differences of spines, joints, or areoles. 

Most authors have long since dropped any attempt to maintain 

these varieties, and I agree that they seem only minor 

growth forms, probably environmental or else mere phenotypes. 

They are often found growing together, although in some areas 

one form does predominate and often only the weak-spined 

type is present at all. In numerous cases where I have watched 

over a period of several years, long-spined specimens have reverted 

to the short-spined, making it appear that we have here 

again the robust versus the stunted forms of the same plant, as 

we have seen so commonly in the Opuntias. At least there seem 

no separate ranges for these forms. 

O. leptocaulis is placed last in our account of the cacti. This 

has no significance except to indicate that it is probably last in 

the interest of cactophiles. Many would say it should have been 

first in our account, since it seems probably the most primitive 

of the cacti in our area. Be that as it may, the cactus is a major 

pest cholla, and hardly the form to use in introducing the cacti 

to anyone. So we place it here at the end of our account. Whether 

it is thought of as the unpleasant thing from which others so 

beautiful and fascinating arose or as an example of how degenerate 

a cactus can become, it is the poor relation of all the beau- 

tiful ones, and it cannot be left out.

GLOSSARY 

The terms below are defined as they are used in this work 

to refer to the cacti described, and the definitions are not 

intended to be so broad as to cover their usage for all other 

plant groups. 

Anther. The enlarged, pollen-bearing sac at the tip of a stamen. 

Apex. The tip or summit of any structure. 

Apical. Referring to the apex. 

Areole. A spot in the form of a pit or a raised area marking an 

opening through the epidermis from which leaves, spines, or other 

structures grow. 

Ascending. Not standing perfectly upright, but growing upward. 

Axil. The angle between a leaf, branch, tubercle, or other outgrowth 

and the stem. 

Basal. At or referring to the base or lower part of any structure. 

Berry. A pulpy or fleshy fruit with numerous seeds embedded in the 

flesh. 

Bud. An unopened flower; a growing tip surrounded by its immature 

perianth segments or leaves. 

Caespitose. Forming a cluster or clump of stems by repeated branch- 

ing of the stem at or near the base. 

Calyx. The outer series of perianth segments, whenever these are distinct 

from the inner series. 

Central. Positioned at or near the center of an area, as opposed to 

being peripheral in position. A spine originating in the center of the 

areole as opposed to those growing around the edge of the areole. 

Character. A characteristic or feature unique enough to have value 

in distinguishing forms and setting up relationships. 

Cholla. Any cylindrical-stemmed member of the genus Opuntia. 

Cilium (pl.: cilia). Very fine, hairlike filaments sometimes forming 

fringes on the margins of perianth segments. 

Clone. A local population usually propagated from one individual by 

vegetative means and therefore uniform genetically and in appear- 

ance. 

Confluent. Running together or more or less coalescing. 

Corolla. The inner series of perianth segments, when these are distinct 

from the outer ones; the petals collectively. 

Decumbent. Lying prostrate on the ground with the tip turning upward. 

Deflexed. Curved or bent back, down upon itself, or toward the surface 

of the plant. Recurved. 

Dehiscent. Splitting open at maturity. 

Dimorphic. Having two forms. 

Distal. Situated opposite the point of attachment or origin. 

Divergent. Spreading apart so as to form opposites. 

Ecotype. A population which is recognizable by distinct morphological 

and physiological features and which is the result of, but kept 

separate from its near relatives by environmental barriers; an ecological 

“race.” 

Entire. Having the margin continuous and not toothed, lobed, indent- 

ed or interrupted. 

Epidermis. The outer layer of cells on a plant, forming a protective 

covering. In ordinary usage thought of as including the waxy non- 

living layer that overlies the living cells. 

Erose. Ragged, with irregular indentations, as though bits were randomly 

chewed away. 

Felt. A very thick covering of hairs, filaments, or fibers. 

Fibrous roots. Finely subdivided roots with no obvious thickening or 

enlarged central root beyond the base of the plant. 

Filament. The stalk of a stamen; the threadlike part of the stamen 

that supports the anther. 

Genotype. A group of organisms having a common genetic makeup. 

Genus. A grouping of species possessing common characters unique 

enough to be treated as a unit distinct from others. 

Glabrous. Smooth and shiny; not pubescent, rough, or hairy. 

Gland. A secreting structure, usually in the form of a protuberance or 

appendage, but sometimes a surface. 

Glaucescence. A thin layer of whitish substance, often called the 

“bloom” and usually made up of tiny particles of wax, which rub 

off.


Globose. Spherical or spheroidal in shape. 

Glochid. A sharp, hairlike or bristlelike outgrowth equipped with 

minute and usually invisible barbs so that it resists withdrawal from 

any tissue. 

Hilum. The scar on the seed that marks the point at which the seed 

was attached during growth. 

Inferior. Beneath or below; in the flower, descriptive of having the 

ovary appearing below such flower appendages as the perianth and 

stamens. 

Intergrade. Not separated by any division into sets, but merging by 

having an unbroken series of intermediate forms. 

Lanceolate. Lance-shaped; much longer than broad, widest just above 

the base, with a gradual taper from there to the tip. 

Lateral. Growing or positioned at the sides. 

Linear. Long and narrow, with sides parallel or nearly so, as a blade 

of grass. 

Meristem. A body of tissue with the power to divide and differentiate. 

Microgenus. A nonofficial term used here for genera that have been 

officially described, but seem distinguished by less obvious or significant 

characters than the major genera. 

Midrib. The main or center rib of a leaf or perianth segment. 

Monomorphic. Having but a single form and not subdividing. 

Mucro. A short, abrupt, and more or less sharp point on the tip of a 

leaf or flower structure. 

Oblanceolate. Reversed lanceolate in shape, with the widest part near 

the tip. 

Obovate. Reversed ovate; the outline of a hen’s egg with the broader 

part above the middle. 

Ovary. The enlarged lower part of the pistil containing the ovules. 

Ovate. Having the outline of a hen’s egg, and with the broader part 

below the middle. 

Pectinate. Comblike; used in referring to spines or other structures 

spread flat like the teeth of a comb. 

Perianth segment. One of the parts making up the perianth; a petal 

or sepal. 

Perianth tube. A tubelike arrangement of the perianth segments extending 

in some forms to some distance above the ovary. 

Petal. One of the inner set of perianth segments or corolla. 

Phenotype. A group of organisms recognized by their common visible 

characters irrespective of their genetic composition. 

Pistil. The central, female part of the flower, made up of the ovary, 

style, and stigma. 

Porrect. Positioned outward; standing perpendicular to the surface 

of the plant. 

Prostrate. Lying completely flat upon the ground. 

Pubescent. Covered with short, soft, fine, hairlike outgrowths; downy. 

Ramose. Branching or having branches. 

Radial. Positioned around the edges of an area; peripheral, as opposed 

to central. A spine positioned somewhere upon the periphery 

of an areole. 

Radiating. Positioned outward like radii. 

Reclining. Sprawling or leaning against something. 

Recurved. Curving back upon itself; deflexed. 

Rib. A ridge; a raised surface running vertically or sometimes spiraling, 

and bearing areoles in a row along its summit. Often 

thought of as being composed of more or less coalescent tubercles 

which may be evident as bulging masses along it. 

Rotate flower. Spreading widely rather than remaining bell-shaped 

or funnel-shaped; wheel-shaped. 

Scale. A small, scarcely expanded leaflike structure; also a narrow, 

triangular, or sometimes spinelike lower perianth segment often 

found on the ovary or flower-tube surface. 

Sepal. One of the outer perianth segments of the calyx. 

Spatulate. Spoon-shaped; oblong or rounded above, the base long and 

narrow. 

Species. A population recognizable by characteristics of form and 

genetic relationship as a unit, often capable of subdivision into 

varieties all genetically close enough for interbreeding. 

Spicule. A very small, fine spine. A glochid. 

Spine. A sharp outgrowth, either rigid and woody or sometimes flexible 

and hairlike. In cacti always arising from an areole and thought 

of as a modified leaf. 

Spreading. Growing outwardly. Used in referring to a series of radial 

spines projecting obliquely outward around the areole, as opposed 

to lying flat against the surface of the plant. Used also for plant 

growth advancing outward by new shoots or by rooting from old, 

reclining stems. 

Stamen. The male part of the flower consisting of the filament and 

the anther bearing the pollen. 

Stem. The main upward axis of a plant. 

Stigma. The uppermost part of the pistil, at the tip of the style; the 

part that receives the pollen; in cacti usually divided into lobes. 

Stigma lobe. One of the expanded sections of the stigma. 

Stoma (pl.: stomata). A microscopic opening through the epidermis 

of the plant allowing for respiration and transpiration. 

Style. The central portion of the pistil, connecting ovary and stigma. 

Subgenus. A taxonomic rank sometimes used to divide a large genus 

into subdivisions above the species level. 

Subspecies. A subdivision of the species unit recognizable by certain 

morphological characters, but not isolated by genetic barriers from 

others within the species. (No attempt is made in this work to distinguish 

between the subspecies and the variety.) 

Taproot. The primary root axis, when larger and longer than the 

branch roots, and often thick and used for storage, as a carrot. 

Taxon. A formally described category in classification; a series of individuals 

distinct by some visible characteristics. 

Terminal. At the tip or end. 

Transpiration. ‘The giving off of water vapor through the stomata by 

a plant. 

Trichome. A hairlike structure found on plants; a slender filament 

growing from the plant’s epidermis by one end. 

Tuber. A short, thick, fleshy underground stem or stem branch for 

storage and having buds. The potato is an example. 

Tubercle. A knoblike protrusion from the surface of any structure; 

a more or less pyramidal knob rising from the stem surface of a 

cactus and having an areole on or near its summit. 

Tuberous root. A root of undistended size overall, a generally fibrous 

root, but having thick, fleshy sections like tubers scattered upon it. 

Not a taproot. 

Tuberculate. Having tubercles. 

Umbilicus. On those species which drop the perianth and upper parts 

of the flower, the scar left at the summit of the fruit after the 

floral parts are shed. 

Variety. See Subspecies. 

Woolly. Covered with long and very thick hairs.

princips -> 

princeps 

Cornyopuntia 

Cf. Corynopuntia 

leptocanthus -> 

leptacanthus 

INDEX OF SCIENTIFIC NAMES 

The number of the page on which the principal description of a form begins is in 

italics. The number of the plate where the illustration of the plant appears is in 

parentheses. All other numbers refer to pages on which there is incidental reference 

to the plant. 

Acanthocereus: 8, 57, 60 

Acanthocereus pentagonus: 60, 61, 62, (18) 

Acanthocereus tetragonus: 62 

Ancistrocactus: 64, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 

Ancistrocactus brevihamatus: 76 

Ancistrocactus scheeri: 77 

Ancistrocactus tobuschii: 78, 79 

Anhalonium: 100 

Anhalonium engelmannii: 102 

Anhalonium lewinii: 98 

Ariocarpus: 9, 63, 100, 101, 102, 107, 108 

Ariocarpus fissuratus: 101, 102, (26) 

Ariocarpus fissuratus var. lloydii: 102 

Ariocarpus retusus: 101 

Ariocarpus trigonus: 101 

Astrophytum: 64, 70 

Astrophytum asterias: 70 

Brittonia: 85 

Brittonia davisii: 85 

Cactus: 110 

Cactus compressus: 202 

Cactus conoideus: 93 

Cactus ferox: 222 

Cactus glomeratus: 148 

Cactus humifusus: 202 

Cactus mammillaris: 123 

Cactus missouriensis var. similis: 123 

Cactus neo-mexicanus: 129 

Cactus opuntia: 202 

Cactus opuntia var. inermis: 167 

Cactus pentagonus: 61, 62 

Cactus pitajaya: 61 

Cactus proliferus: 148 

Cactus pusillus: 148 

Cactus similis: 123 

Cactus strictus: 167 

Cactus tetragonus: 62 

Cactus viviparus: 126 

Cereus: 55, 57, 60, 110 

Cereus acutangulus: 61 

Cereus aggregatus: 41 

Cereus baxaniensis: 61 

Cereus conoideus: 42 

Cereus dussii: 61 

Cereus leptacanthus: 51 

Cereus nitidus: 61 

Cereus octacanthus: 39 

Cereus pectinatus centralis: 89 

Cereus pentalophus: 51 

Cereus phoeniceus: 41, 130 

Cereus phoeniceus var. conoideus: 42 

Cereus poselgeri: 56 

Cereus princeps: 61 

Cereus prismaticus: 61 

Cereus procumbens: 51 

Cereus roemeri: 39, 42 

Cereus roetteri: 34 

Cereus runyonii: 51 

Cereus sirul: 61 

Cereus tuberosus: 56 

Cereus undulosus: 61 

Cereus variabilis: 61 

Cereus viridiflorus var. tubulosus: 15 

Clavatae: 161 

Clavatopuntia: 161, 227 

Coloradoa: 64, 75 

Coloradoa mesae-verdae: 75 

Coryphantha: 103, 110, 111, 112, 140, 141, 144 

Coryphantha aggregata: 130 

Coryphantha arizonica: 131 

Coryphantha clava: 111, 112 

Coryphantha conoidea: 93 

Coryphantha cornifera: 116 

Coryphantha deserti: 131 

Coryphantha echinus: 116 

Coryphantha engelmannii: 115 

Coryphantha erecta: 111, 112 

Coryphantha fragrans: 132 

Coryphantha hesteri: 139 

Coryphantha macromeris: 120 

Coryphantha minima: 139,140 

Coryphantha muehlenpfordtii: 114, 115 

Coryphantha muehlenpfordtii 

var. robustispina: 115 

Coryphantha nellieae: 139, 140 

Coryphantha neo-mexicana: 128, 129, 130 

Coryphantha piercei: 141 

Coryphantha pirtlei: 121 

Coryphantha pottsii: 144 

Coryphantha radiosa: 127, 128, 130, 131 

Coryphantha ramillosa: 119 

Coryphantha roberti: 140, 141 

Coryphantha runyonii: 121, 141 

Coryphantha scheeri: 114, 115 

Coryphantha scolymoides: 116 

Coryphantha sulcata: 118 

Coryphantha varicolor: 138 

Coryphantha vivipara: 126 

Coryphantha vivipara var. aggregata: 130 

Coryphantha vivipara var. vivipara: 126 

Corynopuntia: 161, 184, 217, 227 

Curassavicae: 217 

Cylindropuntia: 161, 227 

Dolichothele: 110, 157 

Dolichothele sphaerica: 156 

Ebnerella: 145 

Echinocactus: 9, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 

76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 85, 87, 95, 106, 107 

Echinocactus arizonicus: 72 

Echinocactus asterias: 66, 70, (19) 

Echinocactus bicolor: 86, 87 

Echinocactus bicolor var. schottii: 66, 85, 86, 

87, (23) 

Echinocactus bicolor var. texensis: 86 

Echinocactus bicolor var. tricolor: 86 

Echinocactus brevihamatus: 66, 76, 78, 79, 

(21) 

Echinocactus conoideus: 66, 93, 94, 135, (25) 

Echinocactus emoryi: 72 

Echinocactus equitans: 67 

Echinocactus erectocentrus: 91 

Echinocactus erectocentrus var. pallidus: 66, 

90, 91, (24) 

Echinocactus falconeri: 72 

Echinocactus flavidispinus: 66, 87, (23) 

Echinocactus flexispinus: 85 

Echinocactus grusonii: 65 

Echinocactus hamatacanthus: 66, 83, 84, 85, 

(23) 

Echinocactus hamatacanthus var. 

brevispinus: 85 


crassispinus: 85 


gracilispinus: 85 

Echinocactus horizonthalonius: 65, 66, 67, 

69, 115, (18), (19) 

Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. 

centrispinus: 67 


curvispina: 65, 67, 68, (18) 


moelleri: 65, 68, (19) 

Curassauicae -> 

Curassavicae 

scheerii -> 

scheeri

scheerii -> scheeri 


Echinocactus ingens: 6 

Echinocactus intertextus: 88, 89, (24) 

Echinocactus intertextus var. dasyacanthus: 

66, 90, 132, (24) 

Echinocactus intertextus var. intertextus: 66, 

89, 90, (24) 

Echinocactus lindheimeri: 69 

Echinocactus longihamatus: 84 

Echinocactus longihamatus var. sinuatus: 83 

Echinocactus mariposensis: 66, 92, (25) 

Echinocactus megarhizus: 78 

Echinocactus mesae-verdae: 65, 66, 75, (21) 

Echinocactus micromeris: 107 

Echinocactus muehlenpfordtii: 115 

Echinocactus platycephalus: 69 

Echinocactus pottsianus: 144 

Echinocactus reichenbachii: 20, 21 

Echinocactus scheeri: 66, 76, 77, 78, (21) 

Echinocactus setispinus: 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 

(22) 

Echinocactus setispinus var. cachetianus: 82 

Echinocactus setispinus var. hamatus: 65, 80, 

81, 82, (22) 

Echinocactus setispinus var. micrensis: 82 

Echinocactus setispinus var. robustus: 83 

Echinocactus setispinus var. setaceus: 65, 81, 

82, (22) 

Echinocactus setispinus var. sinuatus: 83 

Echinocactus similis: 123 

Echinocactus simpsonii: 104 

Echinocactus sinuatus: 66, 80, 82, 83, 84, (23) 

Echinocactus texensis: 66, 68, 69, 125, (19) 

Echinocactus texensis var. gourgensii: 69 

Echinocactus texensis var. longispinus: 69 

Echinocactus tobuschii: 66, 78, 79, (22) 

Echinocactus uncinatus: 64, 73, 80 

Echinocactus uncinatus var. wrightii: 65, 72, 

73, (20) 

Echinocactus victoriensis: 70 

Echinocactus whipplei: 66, 74, (20) 

Echinocactus wislizeni: 66, 71, 85, (20) 

Echinocactus wislizeni var. decipiens: 72 

Echinocereus: 8, 10, 55 

Echinocereus albispinus: 11, 28, (6) 

Echinocereus baileyi: 11, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 

(6) 

Echinocereus baileyi var. albispinus: 27, 28 

Echinocereus baileyi var. brunispinus: 27 

Echinocereus baileyi var. caespitosus: 27 

Echinocereus baileyi var. flavispinus: 27 

Echinocereus baileyi var. roseispinus: 27 

Echinocereus berlandieri: 13, 19, 52, 53, 54, 

(17) 

Echinocereus blanckii: 13, 53, 54, (17) 

Echinocereus caespitosus: 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 

24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 40, 149, 230, (3) 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. albiflora: 22 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. aureiflora: 22 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. caespitosus: 11, 

22, (3), (7) 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. castaneus: 21 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. minor: 11, 22, 

23, (4) 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. perbellus: 11, 

23, (4) 

Echinocereus caespitosus var. purpureus: 11, 

23, (5) 

Echinocereus chisoensis: 11, 29, (7) 

Echinocereus chloranthus: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 

19, (2) 

Echinocereus chloranthus var. chloranthus: 

11, 17, (2) 

Echinocereus chloranthus var. neocapillus: 

11, 17, 18, (2) 

Echinocereus coccineus: 39, 41, 42, 43, 47, 

130, (12), (13) 

Echinocereus longispinus: 27 

Echinocereus mariae: 27 

Echinocereus melanocentrus: 11, 24, 25, (5) 

Echinocereus mojaviensis: 12, 39 

Echinocereus neo-mexicanus: 32, 44 

Echinocereus octacanthus: 39 

Echinocereus oklahomensis: 27 

Echinocereus papillosus: 49, 50, (16) 

Echinocereus papillosus var. angusticeps: 13, 

50, (16) 

Echinocereus papillosus var. papillosus: 13, 

50, (16), (17) 

Echinocereus papillosus var. rubescens: 50 

Echinocereus paucispinus: 40, 41 

Echinocereus pectinatus: 21, 22, 25, 29, 30, 

31, 32, 33, 34 

Echinocereus pectinatus centralis: 89 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. ctenoides: 12, 

30, 31, (7), (8) 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. neo-mexicanus: 

33 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. rigidissimus: 12, 

30, 31, (7) 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. rubescens: 22 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. steereae: 32 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. texana: 30 

Echinocereus pectinatus var. wenigeri: 12, 

29, (7) 

Echinocereus pentalophus: 13, 51, 52, 54, 

(16) 

Echinocereus pentalophus var. leptacanthus: 

51 

Echinocereus pentalophus var. propinquus: 

51, 53 

Echinocereus pentalophus var. radicans: 51 

Echinocereus pentalophus var. simplex: 51,53 

Echinocereus pentalophus var. subarticulatus: 

51 

Echinocereus perbellus: 21 

Echinocereus polyacanthus: 43, 44 

Echinocereus polyacanthus var. neo- 

mexicanus: 12, 44, (13) 

Echinocereus polyacanthus var. polyacanthus: 

12 

Echinocereus polyacanthus var. rosei: 12, 43, 

44, (13) 

Echinocereus poselgeri: 56 

Echinocereus procumbens: 51 

Echinocereus purpureus: 28 

Echinocereus reichenbachii: 21, 27 

Echinocereus roemeri: 40 

Echinocereus roetteri: 12, 33, 34, (10) 

Echinocereus roetteri var. lloydii: 34, (11) 

Echinocereus rosei: 44 

Echinocereus russanthus: 11, 18, 19, (3) 

Echinocereus steereae: 32 

Echinocereus stramineus: 12, 46, 47, 48, (14) 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus: 35, 36, 37, 40, 

236, (11), (12) 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. 

gonacanthus: 12, 37, 39, 40, (12) 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. hexaedrus: 

12, 40 


melanacanthus: 41 

Echinocereus coccineus var. coccineus: 12, 42, 

(12) 

Echinocereus coccineus var. conoideus: 12, 

42, 43, (13) 

Echinocereus coccineus var. octacanthus: 

38, 39 

Echinocereus conglomeratus: 47 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus: 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 

34, (9) 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. ctenoides: 31 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. 

dasyacanthus: 12, 33, (9) 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. hildmanii: 

12, 33, (9) 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. minor: 33, 34 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. 

neo-mexicanus: 32, 33 

Echinocereus dasyacanthus var. steereae: 32 

Echinocereus davisii: 11, 15, 16, (2) 

Echinocereus dubius: 13, 47, 48, (15) 

Echinocereus engelmannii: 48 

Echinocereus enneacanthus: 40, 44, 45, 47, 

(14) 

Echinocereus enneacanthus var. carnosus: 12, 

46, 42, (14) 

Echinocereus enneacanthus var. 

enneacanthus: 12, 45, 46, (14) 

Echinocereus enneacanthus var. major: 46 

Echinocereus fendleri: 29, 48, 49, (15) 

Echinocereus fendleri var. bonkerae: 34 

Echinocereus fendleri var. fendleri: 12, 49, 

(15) 

Echinocereus fendleri var. pauperculus: 49 

Echinocereus fendleri var. rectispinus: 12, 49, 

(15) 

Echinocereus fitchii: 11, 25, (5) 

Echinocereus gonacanthus: 38 

Echinocereus lloydii: 12, 34 

Echinocereus longisetus: 19, 26 


octacanthus: 12, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, (12) 


polyacanthus: 44 


triglochidiatus: 12, 37, 38, 40 (11) 

Echinocereus tuberosus: 56 

Echinocereus viridiflorus: 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

19, 31, (1) 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. viridiflorus: 17 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. cylindricus: 

11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 31(1) 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii: 16 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. minor: 14

index of scientific names 245 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. standleyi: 11, 

15, (1) 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. viridiflorus: 

11, 14, 15, 17, (1) 

Echinomastus: 64, 73, 89, 93 

Echinomastus dasyacanthus: 90 

Echinomastus intertextus: 88 

Echinomastus intertextus var. dasyacanthus: 

90 

Echinomastus johnsonii: 64, 72 

Echinomastus mariposensis: 92 

Echinomastus pallidus: 90, 91 

Echinopsis: 39 

Echinopsis octacanthus: 39 

Echinopsis pectinata var. reichenbachiana: 20 

Eopuntia: 3 

Eopuntia douglassii: 3 

Epithelantha: 9, 107, 108 

Epithelantha micromeris: 108, 109, (27) 

Epithelantha micromeris var. greggii: 108 

Escobaria: 110, 111, 112, 138, 140, 141, 144 

Escobaria albicolumnaria: 137 

Escobaria bella: 143 

Escobaria dasyacantha: 135, 137 

Escobaria leei: 142, 143 

Escobaria nellieae: 140 

Escobaria orcuttii: 135 

Escobaria runyonii: 140, 141 

Escobaria sneedii: 141 

Escobaria tuberculosa: 133, 134, 144 

Escobaria varicolor: 138 

Escobesseya: 111, 136, 137 

Escobesseya dasyacantha: 136 

Escobesseya duncanii: 136 

Eu-coryphantha: 110 

Eumammillaria: 110 

Euphorbia: 3, 111, 161 

Euphorbia grandicornis: 161 

Euphorbia obesa: 161 

Euphorbia prostrata: 161 

crassahamatus Ferocactus: 64, 72, 73, 80, 85 

-> crassihamatus Ferocactus crassihamatus: 72 

Ferocactus hamatacanthus: 72, 83 

Ferocactus johnsonii: 64, 72 

Ferocactus rafaelensis: 70 

Ferocactus uncinatus: 64, 72 

Ferocactus wislizeni: 71, 72 

Frailea: 71 

Glandulicactus: 64, 65, 72, 74 

Glandulicactus uncinatus: 74 

Glandulicactus uncinatus var. wrightii: 72 

Gymnocactus: 93 

Hamatocactus: 64, 72, 74, 80, 85 

Hamatocactus hamatacanthus: 83, 84 

Hamatocactus hamatacanthus var. davisii: 85 

Hamatocactus setispinus: 79, 80 

Hamatocactus setispinus var. hamatus: 80 

Hamatocactus setispinus var. setaceus: 81 

Hamatocactus sinuatus: 82 

Hamatocactus uncinatus: 74 

Homalocephala: 64, 65, 69 

Homalocephala horizonthalonius: 69 

Homalocephala texensis: 65, 69 

Krainzia: 157 

Lepidocoryphantha: 112, 119, 120 

Lepidoptera: 209 

Lophophora: 9, 63, 95, 97, 107, 108 

Lophophora williamsii: 97, 99, (15), (26) 

Lophophora williamsii var. caespitosa: 98 

Lophophora williamsii var. echinata: 98, (26) 

Lophophora williamsii var. lewinii: 98 

Lophophora williamsii var. lutea: 98 

Lophophora williamsii var. pluricostata: 98 

Lophophora williamsii var. texana: 98 

Lophophora williamsii var. typica: 98 

Lophophora williamsii var. williamsii: 98, 

(26) 

Mammillaria: 9, 93, 100, 101, 103, 107, 110, 

111, 112, 115, 121, 141, 157 

Mammillaria aggregata: 41, 130, 131 

Mammillaria albicolumnaria: 114, 137, 138, 

(36) 

Mammillaria alversonii: 132 

Mammillaria bella: 113, 143 

Mammillaria borealis: 105 

Mammillaria calcarata: 119 

Mammillaria celsiana: 115 

Mammillaria conoidea: 93 

Mammillaria cornifera: 116 

Mammillaria cornifera var. scolymoides: 116 

Mammillaria dactylothele: 121 

Mammillaria dasyacantha: 114, 134, 135, 

136, 137, 138, (34), (35) 

Mammillaria deserti: 132 

Mammillaria diaphanacantha: 93 

Mammillaria duncanii: 114, 136, (35) 

Mammillaria echinocactoides: 93 

Mammillaria echinus: 113, 116, 117, 118, (28) 

Mammillaria elongata: 140 

Mammillaria engelmannii: 115 

Mammillaria fissurata: 102 

Mammillaria fragrans: 114, 132, 133, 137, 

(33) 

Mammillaria grahami: 149,150 

Mammillaria gummifera: 155,156 

Mammillaria hesteri: 113, 139, (37) 

Mammillaria heyderi: 112,152,153, 154, 156, 

(42), (43) 

Mammillaria heyderi var. applanata: 112, 

153, 154, 155, (42) 

Mammillaria heyderi var. hemisphaerica: 

112, 154, 155, (43) 

Mammillaria heyderi var. heyderi: 112, 153, 

154, (42) 

Mammillaria heyderi var. waltheri: 153 

Mammillaria inconspicua; 93 

Mammillaria lasiacantha: 145, (39), (40) 

Mammillaria lasiacantha var. denudata: 114, 

145, 146, (39), (40) 

Mammillaria lasiacantha var. lasiacantha: 

114, 145, 146, (39) 

Mammillaria lasiacantha var. minor: 146 

Mammillaria leei: 114, 142, 143, (39) 

Mammillaria leona: 144 

Mammillaria longimamma: 157 

Mammillaria macdougalii: 155,156 

Mammillaria macromeris: 113, 119, 120, 121, 

143, (30) 

Mammillaria meiacantha: 112, 152, 155, 156, 

(43) 

Mammillaria melanocentra: 156 

Mammillaria melanocentra var. meiacantha: 

156 

Mammillaria microcarpa: 113, 149, 150, (40) 

Mammillaria micromeris: 107 

Mammillaria milleri: 150 

Mammillaria minima; 140 

Mammillaria missouriensis: 123 

Mammillaria missouriensis var. robustior: 123 

Mammillaria missouriensis var. similis: 123 

Mammillaria muehlenpfordtii: 115,119 

Mammillaria multiceps: 114, 147, 148, (40) 

Mammillaria nellieae: 15, 114, 139, 140, (37) 

Mammillaria nuttallii: 123 

Mammillaria nuttallii var. borealis: 123 

Mammillaria nuttallii var. caespitosa: 123 

Mammillaria nuttallii var. robustior: 123 

Mammillaria pectinata: 116, 117, 118 

Mammillaria phellosperma: 150 

Mammillaria pottsii: 114, 143, 144, (39) 

Mammillaria prolifera: 148 

Mammillaria prolifera var. multiceps: 148 

Mammillaria prolifera var. texana: 148 

Mammillaria pusilla var. texana: 148 

Mammillaria purpusii: 104 

Mammillaria radians: 116 

Mammillaria radiosa: 128 

Mammillaria ramillosa: 113, 119, (29) 

Mammillaria roberti: 114, 140, 141, (38) 

Mammillaria robustispina: 115,116 

Mammillaria rosiflora: 112, 124, 125 

Mammillaria runyonii: 113, 121, 122, (30) 

Mammillaria scheeri: 93, 113, 114, 115, 116, 

(28) 

Mammillaria scheeri var. valida: 115 

Mammillaria scolymoides: 113, 116, (28) 

Mammillaria sheldonii: 150 

Mammillaria similis: 112, 119, 122, 123, 124, 

125, (30), (31) 

Mammillaria similis var. robustior: 119, 123, 

124 

Mammillaria simpsonii: 104 

Mammillaria sneedii: 114, 141, 142, 143, (38) 

Mammillaria sphaerica: 112, 156, 157, (44) 

Mammillaria strobiliformis: 93, 134, 135 

Mammillaria sulcata: 113, 118, 119, 120, 124, 

135, (28) 

Mammillaria tobuschii: 79 

Mammillaria tuberculosa: 114, 133, 134, 136, 

137, 138, 144, (34), (35) 

Mammillaria tuberculosa var. durispina: 138 

Mammillaria varicolor: 113, 138, (37) 

Mammillaria vivipara: 125, 126, 127, 128, 

130, 132, 133, (31), (32), (33) 

Mammillaria vivipara var. aggregata: 130 

Mammillaria vivipara var. arizonica: 113, 

131, 132, (33) 

pellosperma -> 

phellosperma 

scheerii -> scheeri 

scheerii -> scheeri

Mammillaria -> 

Mammillaria 


Mammillaria vivipara var. borealis: 113, 127, 

128, 129, 130, 131, (32) 

Mammillaria vivipara var. deserti: 114, 131, 

132 

Mammillaria vivipara var. neo-mexicana: 

114, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, (32) 

Mammillaria vivipara var. radiosa: 113, 127, 

128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 137, (32) 

Mammillaria vivipara var. texana: 128, 129 

Mammillaria vivipara var. vivipara: 113, 

126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, (31) 

Mammillaria wilcoxii: 112, 151, 152, (42) 

Mammillaria wissmannii: 119, 123, 124 

Mammillaria wrightii: 112, 150, 151, 152, 

(41) 

Melocactus: 69 

Melocactus laciniatus: 69 

Navajoa: 103 

Neobesseya: 110, 112 

Neobesseya rosiflora: 124 

Neobesseya similis: 122 

Neobesseya wissmannii: 119, 124 

Neocoryphantha: 111, 112 

Neoevansia: 57 

Neolloydia: 64, 89, 93, 94 

Neolloydia conoidea: 93, 135 

Neolloydia intertextus: 89 

Neolloydia orcuttii: 135 

Neolloydia texensis: 93 

Neomammillaria: 110, 111, 112 

Neomammillaria leei: 143 

Opuntia: 9, 110, 159, 202, 217 

Opuntia aciculata: 179 

Opuntia aciculata var. orbiculata: 179 

Opuntia allairei: 210, 211 

Opuntia anahuacensis: 175 

Opuntia arborescens: 230 

Opuntia arbuscula: 238 

Opuntia arenaria: 165, 216, 225, 226, (59) 

Opuntia atrispina: 164, 180, 183, 188, 190, 

194, (50) 

Opuntia ballii: 165, 213, 214, 215, (56) 

Opuntia bentonii: 177 

Opuntia brachyarthra: 218 

Opuntia cacanapa: 178 

Opuntia caespitosa: 202 

Opuntia chihuahuensis: 195 

Opuntia chlorotica: 163, 182, 184, 187, (48) 

Opuntia chlorotica var. santa-rita: 187 

Opuntia clavata: 166, 227, 228, 229, (60) 

Opuntia compressa: 191, 197, 200, 201, 202, 

203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 

214, 217, 219, (54), (55) 

Opuntia compressa var. allairei: 164, 204, 

210, 211, (55) 

Opuntia compressa var. fusco-atra: 166, 175, 

204, 207, 208, 209, 211, 223, (54), (55) 

Opuntia compressa var. grandiflora: 166, 

209, 210, 211, (55) 

Opuntia compressa var. humifusa: 165, 202, 

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, (54) 

Opuntia compressa var. macrorhiza: 166, 204, 

205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 

219, (54) 

Opuntia compressa var. microsperma: 166, 

206, 207, (54) 

Opuntia compressa var. stenochila: 165, 211, 

212, (56) 

Opuntia convexa: 175 

Opuntia cyanella: 176 

Opuntia cymochila: 165, 199, 200, 201, 211, 

212, 214, (53) 

Opuntia davisii: 167, 234, 235, 236, (63) 

Opuntia deltica: 177 

Opuntia dillei: 172, 173, 181 

Opuntia dillenii: 177 

Opuntia drummondii: 166, 216, 217, 227, 

(57) 

Opuntia emoryi: 228 

Opuntia engelmannii: 161,163,168, 169, 170, 

171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 

180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 190, 191, 

192, 193, 194, 223, (44), (45), (46), (47), 

(48) 

Opuntia engelmannii var. aciculata: 163, 164, 

178, 179, (47) 

Opuntia engelmannii var. alta: 163, 168, 175, 

177, 187, (45), (46) 

Opuntia engelmannii var. cacanapa: 163, 177, 

178, (46) 

Opuntia engelmannii var. cyclodes: 163, 173, 

174, 178 

Opuntia engelmannii var. dulcis: 163, 179, 

187, (47) 

Opuntia engelmannii var. engelmannii: 162, 

171, 173, 174, (44) 

Opuntia engelmannii var. flexispina: 163, 

178, 179, 182, (46) 

Opuntia engelmannii var. linguiformis: 163, 

181, (48) 

Opuntia engelmannii var. subarmata: 164, 

180, 181, (47) 

Opuntia engelmannii var. texana: 162, 168, 

174, 175, 176, 177, 182, (45), (51) 

Opuntia engelmannii var. wootonii: 175 

Opuntia engelmannii X phaeacantha: 194 

Opuntia erinacea: 165, 220, 224, 225 

Opuntia erinacea var. hystricina: 224 

Opuntia erinacea var. xanthostemma: 220 

Opuntia expansa: 193 

Opuntia ferruginispina: 175 

Opuntia filipendula: 213, 214 

Opuntia fragilis: 166, 217, 218, 222, 226, 

227, (57) 

Opuntia fragilis var. brachyarthra: 218 

Opuntia fragilis var. frutescens: 240 

Opuntia frutescens: 239, 240 

Opuntia fulgida: 217 

Opuntia fusiliformis: 205 

Opuntia gilvoalba: 177 

Opuntia gomei: 172 

Opuntia gosseliniana: 187 

Opuntia gosseliniana var. santa-rita: 164, 

185, 186, 187, (50) 

Opuntia grahamii: 166, 226, 227, 236, (59) 

Opuntia grandiflora: 210 

Opuntia gregoriana: 172 

Opuntia griffithsiana: 175 

Opuntia humifusa: 202, 203, 206 

Opuntia hystricina: 164, 165, 221, 224, 225, 

(59) 

Opuntia imbricata: 230, 231, 233 

Opuntia imbricata var. arborescens: 166, 229, 

230, 231, 232, (61) 

Opuntia imbricata var. vexans: 166, 231, 

233, (61) 

Opuntia imbricata var. viridiflora: 166, 167, 

231, (61) 

Opuntia inermis: 167 

Opuntia intermedia: 210, 211 

Opuntia juniperina: 222, 223, 224 

Opuntia kleiniae: 167, 236, 237, 238, 239, 

240, (64) 

Opuntia laevis: 173 

Opuntia lawsonii: 177 

Opuntia laxiflora: 177 

Opuntia leptocarpa: 164, 170, 190, 191, 193, 

(51) 

Opuntia leptocaulis: 56, 167, 239, 240, (64) 

Opuntia leptocaulis var. badia: 240 

Opuntia leptocaulis var. brevispina: 240 

Opuntia leptocaulis var. longispina: 240 

Opuntia leptocaulis var. pluriseta: 240 

Opuntia leptocaulis var. robustior: 240 

Opuntia leptocaulis var. stipata: 240 

Opuntia leptocaulis var. vaginata: 239, 240 

Opuntia lindheimeri: 170, 171, 172, 174, 

175, 176, 180, 190, 191 

Opuntia lindheimeri var. chisoensis: 174 

Opuntia lindheimeri var. dulcis: 180 

Opuntia loomisii: 212 

Opuntia macateei: 175, 208, 209 

Opuntia mackensenii: 197 

Opuntia macrocalyx: 185 

Opuntia macrocentra: 164, 173, 185, 186, 

187, 195, (49) 

Opuntia macrocentra var. castetteri: 186 

Opuntia macrocentra var. minor: 186 

Opuntia macrorhiza: 190, 204, 205 

Opuntia mesacantha: 200, 202, 203, 206 

Opuntia mesacantha var. cymochila: 200 

Opuntia mesacantha var. oplocarpa: 193, 

195, 197 

Opuntia microdasys: 185 

Opuntia microdasys var. rufida: 185 

Opuntia missouriensis: 222 

Opuntia missouriensis var. microsperma: 223 

Opuntia mortolensis: 240 

Opuntia nemoralis: 203, 217 

Opuntia nicholii: 221 

Opuntia opuntia: 202 

Opuntia phaeacantha: 173, 179, 184, 190, 

191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 

200, (51), (52), (53) 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. brunnea: 164, 186, 

194, 195, 198, (52) 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. camanchica: 163, 

164, 166, 183, 191, 193, 196, 197, 198, 

200, 201, 221, (53) 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. major: 163, 164, 

191, 192, 193, 197, (51) 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. nigricans: 163, 

188, 190, 193, 194, (51)

uba -> rubra 


Opuntia phaeacantha var. tenuispina: 165, 

197, (53) 

Opuntia plumbea: 165, 215, 216, (56) 

Opuntia polyacantha: 165, 200, 219, 221, 

222, 223, 224, 225, (58), (59) 

Opuntia polyacantha var. albispina: 222, 223 

Opuntia polyacantha var. platycarpa: 223, 

224 

Opuntia polyacantha var. rufispina: 222, 223 

Opuntia polyacantha var. subinermis: 223, 

224 

Opuntia polyacantha var. trichophora: 223, 

224 

Opuntia pottsii: 165, 212, 213, 214, 215, (56) 

Opuntia pyrocarpa: 175, 197 

Opuntia rafinesquii: 170, 191, 200, 202, 203, 

204,206 

Opuntia rafinesquii var. cymochila: 200 

Opuntia ramulifera: 240 

Opuntia reflexa: 175 

Opuntia rhodantha: 220, 221, (58) 

Opuntia rhodantha var. brevispina: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. elegans: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. flavispina: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. fulgens: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. gracilis: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. orbicularis: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. pallida: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. pisciformis: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. rhodantha: 164, 166, 

220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. rosea: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. rubra: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. salmonea: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. schumanniana: 220 

Opuntia rhodantha var. spinosior: 164, 221, 

(58) 

Opuntia roseana: 205 

Opuntia rufida: 164, 184, 185, 187, (49) 

Opuntia rufida var. tortiflora: 185 

Opuntia sanguinocula: 206 

Opuntia santa-rita: 187 

Opuntia schottii: 166, 217, 227, 228, (60) 

Opuntia schweriniana: 222, 223 

Opuntia sinclairii: 175 

Opuntia sphaerocarpa: 166, 218, 219, 223, 

(57) 

Opuntia spinosibacca: 162, 183, 184, (49) 

Opuntia spinosior: 166, 233, 234, (62) 

Opuntia spinotecta: 233 

Opuntia stanlyi: 166, 228, 238, (60) 

Opuntia stanlyi var. parishii: 229 

Opuntia stenochila: 212 

Opuntia stricta: 162, 164, 167, 168, 177, (44) 

Opuntia strigil: 164, 187, 188, 190, 194, (50) 

Opuntia tardospina: 163, 182, 183, 190, (48) 

Opuntia tenuispina: 195, 198, 199 

Opuntia tortispina: 197, 198, 200, 201 

Opuntia tortispina var. cymochila: 200 

Opuntia tracyi: 217 

Opuntia trichophora: 222, 223 

Opuntia tricolor: 178 

Opuntia tunicata: 166, 217, 236, 237, (63) 

Opuntia ursina: 225 

Opuntia vaginata: 167, 239 

Opuntia valida: 172 

Opuntia vexans: 232, 233 

Opuntia virgata: 240 

Opuntia viridiflora: 231 

Opuntia vulgaris: 191, 202 

Opuntia whipplei: 166, 167, 233, 234, 235, 

236, (62) 

Opuntia whipplei var. laevior: 234 

Opuntia whipplei var. spinosior: 233, 234 

Opuntia wootonii: 175 

Opuntia wrightiana: 238 

Opuntia wrightii: 238 

Opuntia xanthostemma: 220 

Pediocactus: 9, 63, 64, 103, 106 

Pediocactus knowltonii: 105, (27) 

Pediocactus papyracanthus: 105, 106, (27) 

Pediocactus simpsonii: 104, 106 

Pediocactus simpsonii var. minor: 105 

Pediocactus simpsonii var. robustior: 105 

Pediocactus simpsonii var. simpsonii: 104, 

(27) 

Peniocereus: 8, 55, 57 

Peniocereus greggii: 4, 57, 58, (18) 

Peniocereus greggii var. cismontanus: 59 

Peniocereus greggii var. roseiflorus: 59 

Peniocereus greggii var. transmontanus: 59 

Pereskia: 3, 110 

Phellosperma: 157 

Platyopuntia: 161 

Pseudocoryphantha: 111, 112 

Roseocactus: 100, 101 

Roseocactus fissuratus: 101 

Sclerocactus: 64, 75 

Sclerocactus mesae-verdae: 75 

Sclerocactus whipplei: 74, 75 

Sclerocactus whipplei var. intermedius: 75 

Sclerocactus whipplei var. whipplei: 75 

Subgymnocarpae: 111 

Thelocactus: 64, 85, 86, 93 

Thelocactus bicolor var. flavidispinus: 87 

Thelocactus bicolor var. schottii: 85 

Thelocactus flavidispinus: 87 

Thelocactus uncinatus: 74, 80 

Thelocactus wagnerianus: 88 

Theloidei: 103 

Toumeya: 103, 106 

Toumeya papyracantha: 106 

Utahia: 103 

Wilcoxia: 8, 55 

Wilcoxia poselgeri: 4, 55, 56, (17) 

Pellosperma Cf. 

Phellosperma


INDEX OF COMMON NAMES 

The spelling of the Spanish names is that of local usage where the plants grow, 

without correction or standardization. 

Abrojo: 236 

Aggregate Cactus: 41 

Aguijilla: 239 

Alicoche: 51, 53 

Arizona Coryphantha: 131 

Arizona Queen of the Night: 57 

Arizona Rainbow Hedgehog: 30 

Ball Cactus: 125 

Barrel Cactus: 71 

Beehive Cactus: 42 

Berlandier’s Alicoche: 52 

Bisnaga de Dulce: 66 

Bisnaga Meloncillo: 66 

Bisnagre: 66 

Biznaga: 71 

Biznaga Costillona: 84 

Biznaga de Agua: 71 

Biznaga de Chilitos: 152, 153, 155 

Biznaga de Tuna: 84 

Biznaga es Pinosa: 84 

Biznaga Ganchuda: 84 

Biznaga Limilla: 84 

Black Lace: 23, 24 

Blind Pear: 184 

Brittle Cactus: 217 

Brown-Flowered Hedgehog: 72 

Brown-Spined Prickly Pear: 191 

Bunch-Ball Cactus: 41 

Button Cactus: 108 

Cabeza del Viejo: 30 

Candelabrum Cactus: 229 

Candle Cholla: 237 

Candy Barrel: 71 

Candy Cactus: 68 

Cane Cholla: 233 

Cat-Claw Cactus: 72 

Cave Cactus: 229, 233 

Chaparral Cactus: 57 

Chautle: 101 

Cholla: 229 

Claret-Cup Cactus: 35, 36, 37, 39 

Classen’s Cactus: 19 

Clavelina: 236 

Clavellina: 227 

Cliff Prickly Pear: 220 

Clock-Face Prickly Pear: 182 

Club Cholla: 228, 229 

Cockle-Burr Cactus: 216 

Cock-Spur Cactus: 216 

Comb Hedgehog: 29 

Cow’s Tongue Cactus: 181 

Coyote Candles: 229 

Creeping Cholla: 228 

Crow-Foot Prickly Pear: 216 

Dagger Cholla: 228, 229 

Dahlia Cactus: 55 

Deer-Horn Cactus: 57 

Desert Christmas Cactus: 239, 240 

Devil Cactus: 227 

Devil’s Cholla: 228 

Devil’s Claw Barrel: 74 

Devil’s Head: 66, 68 

Dog Cholla: 227 

Dry Whisky: 97 

Dumpling Cactus: 121 

Eagle Claws: 66, 67 

Early Bloomer: 88 

Engelmann’s Prickly Pear: 168 

Estria del Tarde: 128 

Fendler’s Hedgehog Cactus: 48 

Fendler’s Pitaya: 48 

Finger Cactus: 118 

Fishhook Barrel: 71 

Fishhook Cactus: 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 149 

Flaming Prickly Pear: 168 

Flap-Jack Cactus: 180 

Fragile Prickly Pear: 217 

Garrambullo: 239, 240 

Glory of Texas: 85, 86 

Golden Rainbow Hedgehog: 32 

Grama-Grass Cactus: 105, 106 

Grape Cactus: 147 

Green-Flowered Pitaya: 13, 16 

Green-Flowered Torch Cactus: 13, 16 

Hair-Covered Cactus: 147 

Heart Twister: 41 

Hedgehog Cactus: 79, 80, 81 

Hicore: 95 

Horse Crippler: 68, 69 

Hunger Cactus: 221 

Jiculi: 95 

Junior Tom Thumb Cactus: 140 

King’s Cup Cactus: 35, 37 

Klein Cholla: 237 

Knowlton Cactus: 105 

Lace Cactus: 19, 20 

Lady-Finger Cactus: 51 

Large-Flowered Opuntia: 209 

Lengua de Vaca: 181 

Little Chilis: 152, 155 

Living Rock: 101, 102 

Long Mama: 120 

Long-Tubercled Coryphantha: 114 

Lower Rio Grande Valley Barrel: 82 

Low Prickly Pear: 201 

Manco Caballo: 68 

Mesa Verde Cactus: 75 

Mescal Button: 97 

Mounded Dwarf Cholla: 226 

Mountain Cactus: 104 

Mulato: 108 

Needle ‘Mulee’: 114 

New Mexico Coryphantha: 128 

New Mexico Prickly Pear: 191 

New Mexico Rainbow Cactus: 13 

Night-Blooming Cereus: 58, 60 

Nipple Cactus: 118, 122, 152 

Nopal: 168 

Nylon Cactus: 13 

Organo: 46, 60 

Paper-Spined Cactus: 105 

Pencil Cactus: 55 

Pest Pear: 167, 175 

Peyote: 95, 96, 97, 98 

Peyote Cimarron: 101 

Peyotl: 95 

Pincushion: 125, 128, 149 

Pineapple Cactus: 118 

Pink-Flowered Echinocereus: 48 

Pitahaya: 43, 60 

Pitaya: 44, 46, 47 

Porcupine Prickly Pear: 224 

Purple Candle: 19 

Purple Hedgehog: 48 

Purple Prickly Pear: 185 

Rat-Tail Cactus: 233 

Red-Flowered Hedgehog Cactus: 41 

Red-Goblet Cactus: 43 

Root Cactus: 77


Runyon’s Coryphantha: 121 

Runyon’s Escobaria: 140 

Sacasil: 55 

Sand-Burr Cactus: 216 

Sea-Urchin Cactus: 70 

Seni: 95 

Silverlace Cactus: 137 

Sitting Cactus: 48 

Slender Stem Cactus: 239 

Small Papillosus: 50 

Smooth Prickly Pear: 201 

Sour Cactus: 129, 131 

Spiny Star: 125, 128 

Standly’s Cholla: 228 

Star Cactus: 101 

Star Rock: 101 

Starvation Cactus: 221 

Sticker Cactus: 233 

Strawberry Cactus: 35, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 

Sunami: 101 

Sunset Cactus: 149 

Sweet-Potato Cactus: 57 

Tasajillo: 239 

Teonanacatl: 95 

Texas Hedgehog: 72 

Texas Night-Blooming Cereus: 57 

Texas Rainbow Cactus: 32 

Tlalcoyote: 95 

Torch Cactus: 48 

Toumeya: 105 

Tree Cactus: 229, 230 

Triangle Cactus: 60, 61, 62 

Tulip Prickly Pear: 191 

Tuna: 168 

Turk’s Head Cactus: 41, 66, 72, 84 

Twisted-Rib Cactus: 79, 80, 81 

Uocoui: 95 

Velas de Coyote: 229 

Visnaga: 71, 84 

Viznaga: 68 

Whipple’s Cholla: 233 

Whisky Cactus: 97 

White Column: 137 

White-Flowered Visnagita: 88 

Wide Cactus: 220 

Xicorl: 95 

Yellow-Flowered Alicoche: 49 

Yellow-Flowered Echinocereus: 49 

Yellow-Flowered Pitaya: 32

Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of the Southwest 

A Guide for the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas 

By Robert A. Vines 

"This monumental work, describing 1231 species of woody plants, with 1240 illustrations, 

is an incredible achievement in the history of natural science publishing. It is an immense 

production, indispensable to naturalists of the region."—American Forests. $30.00 

Roadside Flowers of Texas 

Paintings by Mary Motz Wills 

Text by Howard S. Irwin 

"… the plates are reason enough for owning this book. Reproduced entirely in color, they 

are part of an enormous labor of love on the part of the artist, and their unexaggerated 

grace and exquisite coloring bear witness to an affection not less than her considerable 

talent. While the plates are the reason for its existence, this is also a perfectly usable 

guide, with an admirable and informative text.”—Audubon. $5.75 

Adventures with a Texas Naturalist 

(second edition) 

By Roy Bedichek 

“It is striking to note how often, in their own highly original fashion, Roy Bedichek’s re- 

flections on the flora and fauna which he had spent a lifetime observing anticipate the 

ecological view of things…”—Audubon Illustrated $4.50 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PRESS · AUSTIN & LONDON

OF THE SOUTH- WEST - Free

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?