﻿234 MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN. 



there spelled, to a variety of flavescens (p. IG), transfers 

 .4. pugioniformis to a quite different alliance (p. 18) and 

 includes an additional name, A. Besseriana (called Besserer- 

 iana by its collector, Roezl), of the Belgian dealers, who had 

 listed it at least since 1861, this — spelled Besserreriana — being 

 reduced to a synonym of A. flavescens in the Nachtrag of 

 1867 (p. 7), in which the new association is maintained for 

 A. pugioniformis (p. 9). 



His account of A. macracaniha, which is separately de- 

 scribed (p. 92) though regarded as only a robust variety of 

 A. flavescens (p. 91), shows that Jacobi had been an observer 

 of Salm's plants of both, which are respectively redescribed 

 as caulescent and subcaulescent, in contrast with the earlier 

 descriptions of young plants and with the existing plants 

 of Besseriana which, though having less glaucous and more 

 spreading leaves with smaller and closer-set prickles, was 

 considered as perhaps placeable under flavescens in case it 

 were to develop a trunk in age, — a conclusion, as has been 

 said, reached without qualification in the Nachtrag (p. 7), 

 and in a still later article* on new importations by Besscrer 

 himself. The type of this had been exhibited at the Ghent 

 exposition of 1863 by De Smet. 



To the original description of A. Karwinskii, Jacobi (p. 

 93) adds in his monograph that the trunk of Salm Dyck's 

 plant had increased to a length of over a foot before its 

 death. He states that, suckering but little, this had already 

 become very rare in Europe: it may be questioned whether 

 any botanist has since observed a derivative of Zuccarini's 

 oriiiinal material. Jacobi recognized as belonging to this 

 specii^s a well-developed plant in the De Smet exhibit already 

 r('f( rn^l to, where it was marked as a unique new importation, 

 hut without name. It may be assumed that Roezl rather 

 than Bcssercr was the collector, and that this individual, 

 the history of which is lost, was of the same species as De 

 Smet's Corderoyii of a few years later. 



Apparently it was only because of the more spreading and 



* Von Jacobi, Wochenschr. des Vereins zur Beford. des Gartenbaues etc. 

 186»: 178. 



