232 THE FLOEIST AND 
lished them as new, and considered them as such, until a happy chance 
proved the error. For the establishment of what we have above stated, 
we can mention many proofs. 
And very often, besides, these abbreviated descriptions were accompanied 
by plates still less satisfactory. But what, however, shall we say of the 
plants described by the older authors, Hermann, Plumier, Hernandez, Dil- 
len, &c. ? Most of them are at this time unrecognizable I 
Be it as it may, the appearance of M. Pfeiffer's book, notwithstanding 
its defects, (which were those of circumstances rather than his own,) has 
been a real service rendered to science and to horticulture. The author 
has had the merit of uniting in one work all the species known until his 
time, and of grouping them according to the analogies of form and affinities 
with a skill which often does him honor. 
In 1839, a year after the publication of our twelfth number, in which we 
proposed a classification of the Cacteae, there appeared a little work,* a 
rather remarkable one, by M. F. A. Guill. Miquel, Professor of Botany in 
the Institute of Rotterdam. The author proposes in it a new generic dis- 
position of this family, under an entirely new point of view, containing 
views and deductions often ingenious. He admits two large sections — the 
tubular Cacti, [Cacteae tuhulosae,)f and the rotating Cacti, Cacteae rotatse; 
nine genera, six in the first section ; Cactus (sub genera, Melocactus, 
Mammillaria ;) Eeliinocaetus, (sub genus, Astrophytum ;) Echinopsis, 
Ceretfs, (sub genera, Ceplialophorus, JEicceretis ;) Phylloeercus, Epiphyllum. 
Three in the second: Mariota, sub genera, Rhipsalis, Lepismium Mar iota ;) 
Opuntia, Perestria. 
As we have before said, the nature of our work is not scientific ; therefore 
we do not examine the work of M. Miquel in this point of view, contenting 
ourselves with stating the result to our readers, and in praising the arrange- 
ment by which we ourselves^ will profit. 
Two years afterwards (1841 — 42) the Prince de Salm sent out, under the 
title of Cacteae in Jiorto PycJcensis cultae, the catalogue of the species of 
Cacti found in his garden. Under this modest title he published a true 
generic and specific classification, which we must not pass by in silence. 
* Genera Cacteaium descripfa et ordinata, etc. Roteroclami apud. Hd. Boedekeb. 
1839. 
f We, who prefer greatly the exact bearing of words, would have said, Cactees txibuflores, 
Caeties rotatefloits. 
