OPUNTIA. 
317 
Canaries, has singularly confused and misunderstood the two sp. 
common in those islands : one of which, and by far the most 
universal and abundant, is exactly the present pi. First, he re- 
verses the col. of their fl., calling them “ lutei ” in the more 
widely diffused glaucescent less copiously and more shortly w.- 
or pale-spined very common sort with dull or. -red fl. and ovoidal 
truncate widely umbilicated gr. fruit, — and “ sordide flavi ” (and 
the fr. “late umbilicati”) in the more specially littofal greener 
thickly or copiously spinous long and slender y.-spined sp. with 
bright sulphur or lemon-y. fl. and pear-shaped more narrowly 
umbilicated purple fr. And secondly, he almost more strangely 
mistakes or inverts their names and syn. ; calling “ O. Ficus- 
indica L.” the first, which, by its pale or whitish mostly short 
and scanty spines, gr. truncated ovoidal fr. and dull orange-red or 
flame-col. fl., is the common Mad. pi. and assuredly the true 
Cactus Tuna of Linnaeus, clearly identified by his reference to 
Dill. Elth. 39G. t. 295. f. 380 (errore typ. quoted f. 238) ; and 
referring the second — which by the very numerous long slender 
v. spines, short rounded joints, the pear-like form, purple flesh 
and tinging properties mentioned by him of its fr., and by the 
pure pale lemon- or sulphur-y. fl. mostly uniform in tint, but 
occasionally (as observed in Lanzarote) tinged or streaked out- 
side with reddish, is as clearly Dillenius’s next sp. at p. 398. 
t. 296. f. 382 — to “ Opuntia Tuna Mill.” or Cactus Tuna L. 
With such confused ideas or recollections of the two pi. 
themselves, the synonymy and notices of the Linnaean and other 
sp. in the Phytogr. Can. are necessarily full of errors. Yet 
Linnaeus had clearly enough defined his C. Ficus indica by the 
words “ spinis setaceis ” as being entirely devoid of thorns, 
which he terms “spinae subulatae”; and although his synonyms 
of C. Tuna plainly comprehend two sp., viz. Dillenius’s f. 380, 
“Tuna major &c. fl. gilvo,” and Sloane’s t. 224. f. 1, “Opuntia. 
major &c. fl. luteo,” yet his diagnosis, by the words “ articulis 
ovato-oblongis,” refers to the former rather than the latter, 
which is described by Sloane “ folio ” (i. e. articulis) “ oblongo- 
rotundo,” and which moreover, by his following words “ spinis 
longis et validissimis confertim nascentibus obsito, fl. luteo ” 
and by the distinctly elongate-pear-shaped “ purple ” fr. at- 
tenuated downwards, is very distinct from the pi. of the Hort. 
