7 



I reassured myself in the most positive manner, by careful dissection, that the flowers 

 and truits anse frorn the young summit mamilla and not from the axilla that at all times 

 are bare all the way to the vertex. The fruits that I examined arise from the superior 

 portion of the areola, immediately below the silk fascicles and thorns Later on there 

 was no trace, nor scar, nor ridge on the perfectly developed mamilla, underneath the 

 place where the flower is found" 



" The Shell of the seeds are as they have been shown in the plates of the Bound Comm 

 Kep. The seeds are scaphoid; I found this particular shape only in the seeds of the 

 Echmocactus capncornis, that grows a few leagues farther away, close to La 

 Rmconada." 



Which gender should this unusually small species be found in? It is surely not in the 

 Eumamillana that are essentially characterized by the axillary flowering, and in which 

 the flowers are essentially lateral, sometimes subcentral ( that is to say arising from the 

 axilla ot the mamilla from the same year, but never arising from the young mamilla 

 u t T thlS ,^ p P en amon § the Aulacantha? Therefore the general characteristic on ' 

 which I will found this gender (flowers arising from the end of a groove that prolongs 

 the areola ot the vertex mamilla), would be false. Or one would have to modify it by 

 admitting that the section in which there is a blooming groove is short and that the 

 florescence would be entirely areolar??????. Our plant has, by the way, no analogy nor 

 resemblance, with the species of the Aulacothele. Then the unique particularity of the 

 thorns, that break after the areola has produced the fruit, and then reject their upper 

 claviforme half! ! ! ! The cephalium appeared to me to be much less obsolete thanis 

 ordinanly seen in the Aulacothele!? Could it be persisting as in the Melocactus? If so 

 then it would have the right of being part of the Melocactus, with which it appears to 

 have great affimty, if one wants to disregard its mamillary body. Should one create an 

 mdividual type, a new gender, intermediate between the Eumamillaria and the 

 Melocactus, having the body of the first and the florescence of the second? In the 

 ditficulty that I find myself it may be that I will resolve my questions with the help of 

 your lummous advice. You have been able to study this plant better than I, you perhaps 

 have some hvmg samples at your disposal. I hope you can answer my doubts 

 There now, I have again taken much of your time and your patience, dear colleague For 

 today my letter is long enough if not too long and I will go to another dav for its 

 continuation. J 

 You would make me very happy if you would not save any of your critiques, and to help 

 me with your advice, as my name is unknown in the world of botany and has no 

 authonty when it is compared to yours. 



In a future letter I will try to approach the thorny subject of the Echinocactus and 

 Cereus.lt is there where I will be obliged to confess that the majority of the material 



elemente t0 §ather * ^ ^ C ° ntain e " 0Ugh reconstructive 



I will also make it a point to revue and classify my notes, to send you the list of all the 

 species, old and new, that I will have reconstructed. There will be a certain number of 

 species that I will not be able to report upon and of which I will not know their 

 Synonyms in Europe. You can well imagine that it is not al ways easy to recognize the 

 species in our catalogues when they have not been seen in their country and when thev 

 are not properly labeled. In addition the market offers them with an endless variety of 



0 1 



cm 



7 8 g 10 Missouri 



. BOTANICAL 



Copyright reserved Garden 



