2 



botanist who knows of these manuscripts that contain veiy unusual Information of the 

 Cacti ot Santo Domingo. 



I also collected all the documents scattered in the German, French and English 

 penodicals; for example all the published notes by Lemaire, by Labouret and many 

 other German authors, the work of Scheer ( in Seemann's Botany of the Voyage of 

 HMS Herald), of Philipe ( in Journey through the Desert of Atacama), of de Valleio 

 even ot Humboldt who in the fourth Volume o f his Nov. Gen. and Spec gives most 

 mteresting details of certain Cacti; I found among others the description of the flowers 

 and truits ot the Cereus lanatus Humb. in his Observation of Nature and which 

 ev.dently is the magnificent Pilocereus, introduced 30 years ago with the name of 

 Pilocereus Wilhamsii Lern. This was lost and reintroduced in the last years by Reigl and 

 today it is very well distributed among the collections under the name of Pilocereus 

 Dautwitzn Seitz or Pilocereus Haagii Gosely. This beautiful species that Humboldt 

 compared to the Pilocereus senilis, seems to have flowers in the shape of a lateral 

 acephaleon Do you recognize the description that Kunth gave in the manuscripts of 

 Humboldt? I also found in the Linnaea from 1846, a very interesting article that passed 

 unrecognized ot Ehrenberg on Mexican Cacti. Among other items one finds a very 

 detailed description of flowers while the Pilocereus senilis is in bloom ( without a 

 cephahum but in a vertical and apical position), also seen was the Pilocereus 

 polylophium, etc. etc. 



With the aid of all these documents and the Observation of numerous species that I had 

 flowering myself, I am able to classify the majority of the Cerci myself accordins to 

 their flowers; if you should so desire, I will send you a letter with a table based on the 

 floral charactenstics of the species that are known to me until this time I frequently 

 ftelfesckf 6 " 168 am ° nS flOWeFS ^ appeared t0 be of simüar s P ecies > according to 

 1 frequently observed and noticed in detail the flowering of diverse species of 

 Anhalonium, that I collected myself. For example, the only difference between the 

 Pelicyphora and the Anhalonium were its seeds. I frequently saw and had drawn the 

 flowers of the Luechtenbergia principis, whose flowers have the greatest similarity with 

 those ot the Echmocactus sitispinus and are definitely on the extremities of the 

 tubercles. By its flowers this curious plant belongs without a doubt to the Echmocactus 

 and would place it under the name of Echinocactus Luechtenbergia. However lately I 

 observed a fact that motivated me separate these two genders I saw on a 

 Luechtenbergia that the head had been cut at the end of a multiplication- 1 saw the 

 young offspring ansing from the axillae of the sleeves. That is therefore a plant where 

 the flowers anse from the extremity of the triangulär mamelons, whereas the small 

 brandies or the offspring arise from the acilla of the same mamillae. In other terms the 

 apicillary flowering areolas are distinct from the proliferating axillary areolas In the 

 Echinocactus the flowering areolas are one and the same, and at least are close together 

 1 beheve theretor, that until we know something new, we should leave the 

 Luechtenbergia as a distinct class, even though it is, by its flower similar to the 

 Echinocactus I have some dned flowers of this plant at your disposal. Unfortunately I 

 never was able to obtain fruits nor seeds. 



I also plan to send you a colored drawing that I had made, of the flowers and thorns of 

 the Echinocactus califormcus mono, an old species that we do not always have in our 

 collections and that must interest you because you own it scientifically. It is remarkable 



