Barnhart : Dates of Elliott's Sketch 683 



publish himself. Undoubtedly these complaints had their influence 

 in inducing Elliott to recall and reprint his first number. On No- 

 vember ii, 1816, Baldwin writes: "I had this day the pleasure 

 to receive your valuable letter of the 8th. No measure could 

 possibly be adopted more to my satisfaction than that of re-print- 

 ing your first number. Every thing can now be adjusted to our 



mutual satisfaction." 



Elliott seems to have been remarkably successful in recalling 

 and destroying the original edition of the first number of his 

 "Sketch." No copy is now known to exist, and if any should be 

 discovered it would be of the utmost importance that fac-similes of 

 it should be prepared and distributed, for there is no question 

 whatever that it was properly published in every sense of the word, 

 and if its contents were known it would necessitate the alteration 

 of several names of southern species. 



I have often wondered to what extent the first edition differed 

 from the second, which forms pages 1-96 of all known copies, but 

 had never found a line bearing upon the subject until I discovered 

 these letters of Baldwin to Elliott. Baldwin's letters of October 

 7th and 13th, and November nth, mention specifically certain 

 features of the original edition which were altered in the reprint, 

 and it seems worth while to place these on record, although I 

 would not advocate taking up the older names as long as no copy 

 of the original edition is known to exist, and we are unable to cite 

 the page with certainty. In the following list, the citations are 

 from the known edition, the differences in the first edition being 



noted. 



P. 36. Collinsonia vcrticillata Baldw. This was not in edition 



1 ; it was first described in Baldwin's letter of November 11. 



P. 39. Erianthus strictus Baldw. This was described by 

 Baldwin in his letter of November II, but it is not clear whether 

 the species was not mentioned in the original edition, or Baldwin 

 was dissatisfied with the description as it there appeared. 



P. 53. Xyr 



Xyris setifoli 



Baldw." originally, but Baldwin indignantly disclaimed responsi- 

 bility for this name, so Elliott changed it. 



P. 90. Dichromena latifolia Baldw. This was Dichromcna 

 involucrata in the first place, but in his letter of October 13, Bald- 



