682 Barnhart : Dates of Elliott's Sketch 



printed before I could obtain a copy of Pursh's Flora America* 

 Septentrionalis. This work, published in London under the most 

 favorable auspices, has enabled me to add to my own researches, 

 and those of the friends who have aided me, all that has been col- 

 lected in this country by the travellers and botanists of Europe. 

 Willing to avail myself of the advantages it afforded me, and to 

 present to my readers as comprehensive a view of our Botany as 

 possible ; desirous also not to add to the confusion of synonymes, 



& 



Ame 



rect a few inaccuracies which had been pointed out to me, I im- 

 mediately reprinted the first number of my work. In the second 

 number, the alterations were too unimportant to render this meas- 

 ure necessary/' 



One cause which doubtless strongly influenced Elliott to re- 

 print his first number, but is referred to merely incidentally in the 

 foregoing paragraph, is brought out strongly in certain manuscript 

 evidence to which I have had access. Darlington, in the Reli- 

 quiae Baldwinianae, did not publish all of Baldwin's letters which 

 have been preserved. Baldwin was evidently in the habit of writ- 

 ing his letters serially in a note-book, and then copying each from 

 the book, and a number of these note-books (including, it would 

 appear, a portion of those published in Reliquiae Baldwinianae) 

 afterward came into the possession of John Torrey, and are now 

 at the New York Botanical Garden, where I have had the privilege 

 of consulting them, through the kindness of the librarian, Miss 

 Vail. 



Among these books is one containing all of Baldwin's letters 

 to Elliott, from August 31, 1815, until nis death; and of course 

 this correspondence teems with references to the " Sketch," m 

 which Baldwin was almost as much interested as Elliott himself. 

 Under date of October 7, 18 16, he writes, from Savannah: "I 

 have looked over your number one, and am completely satisfied 

 t hat it is by far the best effort that has been made to redeem the 

 Botanical honor of our Country." With this introduction, he pro- 

 ceeds to criticise the work rather harshly, complaining especially 

 that Elliott has credited to him certain names which he never was 

 responsible for, and imperfect descriptions which he did not inter) 

 for publication, and which he wished, after perfecting them, ° 



