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, hut 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 dear Sir, — 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- 

 tacese 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 E. 

 Eyriesii 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 Echinocactus 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 management. I do not know 

 any cactus which is a freer bloomer. I have 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 



