Ancistrocactus, a name first published by Britton and Rose in 1923, is best
treated as based on Schumann's Echinocactus subg. Ancistrocactus, not as t
he name of a new genus. Consequently, Britton and Rose's original type desi
gnation cannot stand, nor can the next subsequent published choice by Taylo
r in 1979, as neither is of an element included in Schumann's protologue. E
chinocactus scheeri Salm-Dyck is here proposed to provide the type of both
the subgeneric and generic name. This choice conforms to the provisions of
the ICBN and does not impinge on the application of the name Ancistrocactus
, which, under the narrow generic concept currently again accepted by some,
remains correct for Britton & Rose's genus.