Miscellaneous. 427 
the cultivators of natural history science, that a wide-spread dissatisfac- 
tion prevails among them relative to the actual condition of and 
means of access to the vast and valuable materials in the Natural 
History Departments of the British Museum, we have necessarily 
directed our attention to this subject of complaint.”’ “I was induced to 
look for the memorial, and you may well suppose my astonishment to 
find that it contains no such complaints, but was entirely devoted to 
another subject. The words of the memorial are as follows: “A 
strong feeling pervades the naturalists of our country that the pro- 
motion of the science of natural history is very inadequately provided 
for by the present constitution of the Trustees of the British Museum.” 
The complaint here made was rectified by the election of Dr. Buck- 
land as a Trustee. 
If the other statements of the Commission are no more accurate 
than the above, their Report cannot be of much value, and the ex- 
penses incurred by their three years’ occupation is a useless expendi- 
ture.—F.R.S. 
ECHINOCACTUS EYRIESII. 
Highgate, April 17, 1850. 
My pear Si1r,—You will remember my calling your attention some 
time ago to the characters which are assumed by Echinocactus 
Eyriesii. The artificial divisions which have been made of the Cac- 
taceze have always seemed to me unsatisfactory. The point is one 
of some interest to those who conceive, as I confess that I do, that 
clearness and definiteness of principle in the characterization of genus 
and species is a matter of much importance to the progress of natural 
history. I think I can satisfy any reasonable person that Echino- 
cactus Eyriesii cannot be separated from Cereus, if Dame Nature is 
to be taken as a guide instead of mere arbitrary fancy. I take Z. 
Lyriesti alone now, because it seems to be regarded as typical of the 
genus, and because I have had the longest opportunities of obser- 
ving it. 
I suppose nobody will contend that the mere matter of the time 
which it takes for a plant (or anything else) to reach maturity and 
its characteristic form, is to fix the determination of genus. This 
may, when strongly marked, be well enough for a specific distinction, 
but it cannot, surely, yield a generic one. Else, on every principle 
of logic, each different kind of Cereus must make a different genus. 
If two plants, belonging to the same family, and in the characters 
of whose flowers no essential distinction can be pointed out, assume, 
when arrived at mature age, a tendency to a similar habit, it seems 
to me that we get only into confusion, and make all classification 
mere moonshine, if we do not put them into the same genus. 
Now to my friend Hehinocactus Eyriesii. And I call it my friend, 
because, though not by any means a frequent denizen of the green- 
house, I am sure it ought to be so, if purity, elegance, and fragrance 
in a flower can give a claim. The gardeners pretend it is a shy 
bloomer. That must be owing to bad managenient. I do not know 
any cactus which is a freer bloomer. Ihave never passed a year 
without a constant succession, on the same plant, of its exquisite 
and delicately fragrant flowers. I have several plants of it. One of 
