. The Cactaceae : descriptions and illustrations of plants of the cactus family. NKOMAMMILLARIA. 113 According to Salm-Dyck, Mammillaria celsiana differs from M. rutila in its columnar stem and in its spines. Schumann refers Mammillaria perringii to M. celsiana, while Hildmann claims that it is possible that the two may be distinct, but we do not have the material at hand to decide definitely. Mammillaria lanifera Haworth (Phil. Mag. 63: 41. 1824; CacUis lanifer Kuntze, Rev. Gen. PI. i: 260. 1891) is referred here by Schumann; it is probably different but, if not, the name has priority over M.
. The Cactaceae : descriptions and illustrations of plants of the cactus family. NKOMAMMILLARIA. 113 According to Salm-Dyck, Mammillaria celsiana differs from M. rutila in its columnar stem and in its spines. Schumann refers Mammillaria perringii to M. celsiana, while Hildmann claims that it is possible that the two may be distinct, but we do not have the material at hand to decide definitely. Mammillaria lanifera Haworth (Phil. Mag. 63: 41. 1824; CacUis lanifer Kuntze, Rev. Gen. PI. i: 260. 1891) is referred here by Schumann; it is probably different but, if not, the name has priority over M. celsiana. To M. lanifera De Candolle (Prodr. 3: 459. 1828) refers Cactus canescens Mociiio and Sesse. M. geminispina monacantha Lemaire (Cact. Gen. Nov. Sp. 100. 1839) was supposed to be the same as M. lanifera. Adammillaria polycephala Miihlenpfordt (Allg. Gartenz. 13: 347. 1845; Cactus polycephalus Kuntze, Rev. Gen. PI. 1: 261. 1891) was referred by Schumann to M. elegans, but it was described with 4 central spines. It seems to be related to M. crucigera, which we have tentatively referred to M. celsiana, which has yellow central spines, while both M. polycephala and M. elegans have white Figs. 117 and 118.—Neomammillaria aureiceps. Mammillaria supertexta dichotoma (Salm-Dyck, Cact. Hort. Dyck. 1849. 9. 1850) is based on M. polycephala. Mammillaria crucigera Martins (Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. 16: 340. pi. 25, f. 2. 1832; Cactus cruciger Kuntze, Rev. Gen. PI. i: 260. 1891) is related to this species, judging from the description, but the illustration suggests that it is a distinct species. It was collected by Karwinsky in Mexico, but he does not give a definite locality. It was unknown to Schumann. Illustrations: Gartenwelt 10: 250; Mollers Deutsche Gart. Zeit. 25: 475. f. 8, No. 29, as Mammillaria celsiana; Gartenwelt 10: 250, as Mammillaria perringii; ?Mem. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 17: pi. 4, as Mammillaria lanifera; PMartius, Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. 16: pi. 25, f. 2, as Ma
Size: 2129px × 1174px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorbrittonnathaniellord1, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910
