1» 



Once more about species. Fron indications in your letter it 

 is apparent, that you do not agree with the Separation and deter- 

 miration of the Warden species of our books; however.you do not seem 

 to have the self-conf idence to attack the subject. Do so, and even 

 destroy my own ,when they appe ar incorrect. I put mich too much 

 weicht on snine fomation. 15 years apro. Nobody can form a valid 

 jud.cren.ent about the bou^dnries of sneoies, bufc who has seen hinseif 

 in their homeland all the transitions« With as nany species it will 

 aleays be difficult to establish limits.and I doubt not in the least 

 that of garden and book species will prove artif icial through du- 

 bious Observation of Natura in the honeland. Talk about it with out 

 he Ritati on. 



A note aprain. in one spot of your letter, you mention the tuft, 

 Cephalium, and. warn asrain, not to give weight.or not nuch weicht to 

 it»- What you nean, when you say that with Pilocereus the flower 

 sits on the tip of the mamilla, is not clear to me. If one can at 

 all talk about a raammilla, then the flower of all Cereus Stands close 

 by the spine-bundle ; but once more, it does not break fron a pre- 

 pared,more or less woolly areole, but pushes throun-h the epidernis. 



But with the premise, that your Observation of H» ni croneri s 

 is correct, nanely that the flower of Ech » theloidei s and Anhaloniun 

 really Stands upon the mamilla than the plant would be related to 

 these; and wo^ld have to be naraed either a Änhalonium with stränge 

 formation. of spines and strande seed. s; or j^chinocactus theleideus 

 but with a smooth fruit. It is certainly a stränge plant but I 

 would waite before I would create a. special genus. I would join it 

 as abnormal to one or the other genus. Such abnormal forms we find 

 eve^ywbere in Nature t thousrh we do not have pernission to consider 

 them as proper types, which may not be separated.. 



Copyright reserved 



