6 



observer, could have fallen into such an obvious error. But I will go further. I think that in the sections 

 that you assembled under the name Eumammillaria, the ovary is neither immersed or inserted. I 

 observed a large number of flowers from diverse species on detaching the flowers close to the plant and 

 cutting them longitudmally in two I always found the ovary in the cut portion. I am sure that I did not 

 make a mistake in the species that I examined. I only regret not having stayed at the institute to write 

 regulär essays, taking many notes, of all the species examined. 



The hazard could be that I would come across exclusively on species that have inserted ovaries. There 

 would be some in whom the ovary has already emerged. I doubt very much that this Situation can be 

 easily identified; I will try to reexamine them next spring and you in turn can also do it. I remember 

 having been impressed by this fact, that contradicted my lectures in 1864 and 1867, during which I 

 could not identify specifically the species on which 1 observed it. They were as far as I can remember , 

 some Macrothelae like the Mammillaria aristina juntacantha, San Luis variety, Mammillaria 

 Schelhasie, M Carusa; I even seem to remember that I observed the same thing on the Mammillaria 

 acantoplyma et Haageana. However I could not be sure. It was not until 1866 in Monterrey that 1 

 thought of doing a regulär experiment but at the time I only had 3 species of Eumammillaria: pasilla 

 lenana applanata, and the species from which I sent you seeds under the name of Mammillaria 

 Glabrata. At the Universal Paris Exposition I saw plants named Glabrata; they are different from the 

 Monterrey species. I must say they were quite different from this last one according to Salm. Well! 

 These 3 species have shown me an inserted ovary. On the illustrations of the Bound Comm. Rep. which 

 show the flowers of the Mammillaria the flowers are very distinctly seen and are without doubt 

 immersed. On the other hand this would not be sufficient to establish a defmite Classification; it would 

 be too inconsistent to include it in the Classification of the Eumammillaria ovarium emersumo 

 immersum. 



In the Anhalonium you proved the emergence of the ovary, that I proved in the Anhalonium 

 prismaticum elongatum et sulcatum. This last species forms the transition with the Pelucyphora, that in 

 no way can contribute a distinct gender that is nothing but an Anhalonium. I did not see the open flowers 

 but their positionand that of the fruit is identical with the flowers of the Anhalonium sulcatum. I don't 

 for a moment agree that its ovaries are also emmerged, this is because its flowers are vertical. The fruit 

 is small and like the Anhalonium is found compressed between the tubercles at the top and do not 

 mature until after they bloom. 



Within the Melocactus, that seem to form a very natural group, the ovary is probably not immersed. It is 

 true that I did not see the Melocactus in Mexico. I did not see these plants well developed until I went 

 by Martinique where there were some beautiful Melocactus communis plantis, at the garden of plants in 

 the town of St. Pierre. I do not believe that in this gender the ovary is also inserted. All these 

 observations are exactly like those made byr. De Manville ( see Labouret, Monogram of Cactus, 

 pagel 18), that is to say that in the Melocactus the flower is only auxiiliary and comes out of the summit 

 of the Mamilons Laniferes to form the cephalium. I verified this fact in the Pilocereus lateralis. In my 

 opinion there is a great analogy between the cephalium of the Pilocereus and that of the Melocactus, but 

 they are not entirely the same asthe latter. 



Certainly the fact advanced by Manville, should be verified again, but unless there is proof against 

 these observations, they seem too precise not to be admitted. But if the flower comes out of the summit 



Copyright reserved 



