52 LEAFLETS. 
nean cacti whose fruits are so small, rounded or elongated and 
smooth as naturally to be called berries are his C. mamillaris 
and C. Melocactus. Necker’s Cactus is then exactly that of 
Miller as to its type species. Both authors retain the Linnæan 
genus name, restricting the genus of that name to the first 
group of species enumerated by that author; and inasmuch as 
Miller is the first author of this restricted Cactus, the type-species 
of the genus must evidently be sought of Miller. In a word, 
Necker’s Cactus is synonymous with that of Miller. 
Crrinosum, Neck. 1. c. 84. Thisis evidently the equivalent of 
Cereus, the spelling of which, in the earliest mention of these 
plants, I find to have been Cirius, meaning the wax taper of 
church altars. Even the French name given by Necker is 
Cierge de Perou, which in English would be Peruvian Wax 
Taper, the Latin equivalent being exactly what Linneus adopted 
from earlier authors, Cereus Peruvianus, which is therefore 
naturally to be taken as the type of Cirinosum. 
CARPOPHYLLUS, Neck. Leg, This synonym, if it must needs 
have been made, should have been written Carpophyllum; and 
stillit would have been a mere synonym of Peireskia, of which 
the character of a “globose leafy 3-seeded fruit,’’ assigned by 
Necker is quite the same given by Father Plumier, who founded 
the genus. Even the Neckerian name is meant to indicate this 
curious character of a leafy berry. Some of us who are un- 
willing that the pre-Linnæan founders of modern botany should 
be deprived of the credit of their genera, will deem it fortunate 
that Miller restored Pezreskia ; but for which fact, it seems that 
Carpophillus would now have been forced into the place of the 
Plumierian name; and that too by some who are willing to 
assert that in botanical nomenclature “The principle of priority 
is fundamental.” 
PHYLLARTHUS, Neck. ]. c. 85. The name means leaf-joint, or 
jointed leaf. The vegetative character attributed to the genus 
is that of compressed and jointed leaves in the place of stem and 
branches. It embraces, therefore, both Opuntia and Phyllan- 
thus of earlier authors. Itis not a genus which as to limits will, 
ever in the future meet with approval. It does not differ from 
Linneus’ fourth group of Cactus, and is in fact exactly coexten- 
