5 



The genders that comprise it have among them numerous similarities and one can make 

 groups that can be circumscribed with certain preciseness. The Melocarpus would form 

 the transition of the Melocactus to the Echinocactus. They are different because of their 

 smooth bark and the others by their deciduous cephalium. They seem to form a very 

 natural group. They also distinguish themselves according there homeland, which is a 

 characteristic, which we would be mistaken not to take into consideration 

 The Melocactus constitute a natural group recognized by nearly all botanists These 

 have multiphed the species.. They also distinguish themselves by their location as they 

 originale mainly along the Mexican Gulf Coasts, or at least in the hottest areas of 

 America. 



I have nothing to say about the Discocactus, that I do not know. Its floral tube is bare 

 and elongated, this is a sufficient differentiation. 



In regards the plants that comprise the three groups that you have united into the 

 common group of the Mamillaria, the characteristics that differentiate them among 

 eacn other, merit our highest degree of scrutiny. 



The more I reflect the more I am persuaded to think that each one of these groups is 

 reduced to sub-genders instead of forming a distinct gender. In regards the Anhalonium 

 you yourself wrote some ideas in the Bound. Comm. Rep, and I agree with you 

 entirely. Like you, I would add to them the Echinocactus Williamsii and the 

 Pehcyphora asilliformis, that according to me cannot be separated from the 

 Anhalonium. The flowers are entirely similar to the A. sulcatum; they arise from the 

 center of the woolly vertex; the seeds are less distinctly tubereulated, as in other species 

 where they are verrucosa We have therefore six species of Anhalonium: A. elongatum 

 pnsmaticum, fissuratum, sulcatum, asilliforme and Williamsii In regards the 

 Leuchtenbergia, I have not found them in Mexico and I do not believe they can be 

 catalogued together with the Anhalonium. The descriptions of Salm, seem to indicate 

 quite clearly that the ovary is squamous; the flower does not come out of the middle of 

 its woolen parts, which is so characteristic of the Anhalonium Then also the 

 extraordinary length of the floral tube would in itself be a reason to make an individual 

 group of this Singular plant. 



In regards the Eumamillaria and the Coryphanta, it seems to me that there is a line of 

 demarcation that is very clear. I propose two distinct genders. The first I would name 

 Mamillaria and the second Aulacothele. The name of Coryphanta does not seem proper 

 because certain plants of this group have flowers as small and even smaller than the ' 

 Eumamillaria. Some have flowers that are as big or bigger. The name Aulacothele 

 responds much better to the principal characteristic seen on it. I do not agree with you 

 entnely, when you State that the principal distinction between the Eumamillaria and the 

 Coryphanta is the lateral or vertical position of its flowers. This property is not 

 sufhciently constant, if under the name of vertical aureolas of the Vertex one considers 

 the species with hidden ovaries. There must be some that do not have hidden ovaries I 

 doubt this very much. This is by the way easy to verify. I will try to do this next spring 

 and perhaps you can do the same. I remember having been Struck by this fact which is 

 contrary to my lectures in 1864 and 1869. 1 paid very little attention to this and could 

 not specifically verify the species on whom I observed it. As far as I can remember 

 some of the macrothelae, such as the Mamillaria aristina, pentacatha var San Luis ' 

 Mamillaria Schetasn, Mam. carnea. I believe I saw the same thing on the Mamillaria 

 acanthophygnea and Haagiana, and I believe I could prove it. It was not until 1 866 in 

 Monterey, I thought of placing this subject under experimental 



Copyright reserved 



