Voie V. JUNE, 1900. No. 1 
NOTES ON CACTEA—II* 
KATHARINE BRANDEGEE. 
Students of other orders than the so called ‘‘succulents’’, especi- 
ally Cacti, have not usually a clear idea of the confusion existing 
in their nomenclature. It would be possible, perhaps, if all the 
species of Astragalus or Senecio were described from specimens 
without flowers or fruit, and the types preserved, to identify all 
or nearly all of them with living forms, though the labor required 
would be immense. If, however, these imperfect types were 
thrown away and botanists required to identify plants with only 
such descriptions, the identification could but be a series of 
guesses. In this predicament are students of Cactacez, and it 
seems to me that the time has fully come to set science free 
from such a great and unavailing waste of time. 
Cacti, as is well known, are in trade to a considerable extent. 
Large collections are made in their native places and shipped 
to dealers, mostly in Europe, who find numbers of plants that 
answer to none of the spine descriptions in their manuals. They 
must have names, being unsalable without, and the honest 
dealer has recourse to a specialist, and waits with what patience 
he may, while the botanist racks his head overa mass of descrip- 
tions which do not describe and struggles to find by .a process 
of exclusion whether the plants have possibly been described 
by some one who threw away the type after inditing a diagnosis 
that, but for the generic name, might stand fora sea urchin. 
In the meantime the unscrupulous dealer prints his list bespangled 
with ‘‘new’’ species to which he attaches his name, dissemi- 
nates them to the four quarters, mixing them from time to time 
* The first number of this series appeared in Erythea, vol. iii-123. 
