1843— 1882] N. AMERICAN FLORA 433 



must next be tabulated — disjoined species catalogued (i.e. Letter 330 

 those occurring in remote and entirely separated areas — 

 e.g. Phryma, Monotropa uniflora, etc.) — then some of the 

 curious questions you have suggested — the degree of con- 

 sanguinity between the related species of our country and 

 other countries, and the comparative range of species in 

 large and small genera, etc., etc. Now, is it worth while to 

 go on at this length of detail? There is no knowing how 

 much space it may cover. Yet, after all, facts in all their 

 fullness is what is wanted, and those not gathered to support 

 (or even to test) any foregone conclusions. It will be prosy, 

 but it may be useful. 



Then I have no time properly to revise MSS. and correct 

 oversights. To my vexation, in my short list of our alpine 

 species I have left out, in some unaccountable manner, 

 two of the most characteristic — viz., Cassiope hypnoides and 

 Lozseleuria procumbois. Please add them on p. 28. 



There is much to be said about our introduced plants. 

 But now, and for some time to come, I must be thinking of 

 quite different matters. I mean to continue this essay in 

 the January number — for which my MSS. must be ready 

 about the 1st of November. 



I have not yet attempted to count them up ; but of 

 course I am prepared to believe that fully three-fourths of 

 our species common to Europe will [be] found to range 

 northward to the Arctic regions. I merely meant that I had 

 in mind a number that do not ; I think the number will not 

 be very small ; and I thought you were under the impression 

 that very few absolutely did not so extend northwards. The 

 most striking case I know is that of Convallaria inajalis, in 

 the mountains [of] Virginia and North Carolina, and not 

 northward. I believe I mentioned this to you before. 



To Asa Gray. Letter 331 



Down, Oct. 12th [1S56]. 

 I received yesterday your most kind letter of the 23rd 

 and your " Statistics," and two days previously another copy. 

 I thank you cordially for them. Botanists write, of course, 

 for botanists ; but, as far as the opinion of an " outsider " 

 goes, I think your paper admirable. I have read carefully a 

 good many papers and works on geographical distribution, 



28 



