THE CORRESPONDENCE OF SCHWEINITZ AND TORREY 149 
ours as the description in the “Sketch” [22] will show, Shall it 
be called G. Elliottii? 
You ask how Sprengel could mistake what you have called a 
Blasia pusilla, for Jungermannia pinguis. Smith, in a work 
recently published by him (Correspondence of Linnaeus [81*]) has a 
note on Micheli’s Blasia. He says ‘The accurate observations of 
Dr. Hooker have proved this plant to be a real Jungermannia, 
whose calyx & veil are imbedded in the leaf!” This is taken from 
the celebrated Monography of British Jungermanniae [33], a 
work which I have not yet seen, though I hope to do so soon, 
Mr. Le Conte having imported it from Europe. Now Sprengel 
being right respecting the genus, will not excuse his naming the 
species erroneously, J. pinguis & B. pusilla being little alike. I 
wish you could have had Hooker’s Jungermanniae [33] in time for 
your Hepaticae [74]. It would have added much to its value to 
have the synonomy of this distinguished writer. 
I am more and more puzzled respecting that little es 
Sprengel calls Blandowia as it has so much the appearance of a 
fungus that I can hardly persuade myself it is not one. The place 
in which it was found, & its colour &c. all make me suspect it 
will yet be found an /saria or somthing allied to it. Do you know 
where Willdenow found his plant? The work which Sprengel 
quotes is not to be found here— By the way have you determined 
that other curious little fungus found on moist paper in my her- 
barium & which you promised to subject to the microscope? I 
sent it to Smith, but he has left it unanswered. Do look at it 
again for it must be somthing curious, Linnaeus would probably 
call it a minute Lycoperdon. 
I am happy it is now in my power to send you the Ist volume 
of Agardh’s Species Algarum [3], which is all that is yet published— 
I also send you the Synopsis Alg. Scandinaviae [4] of the same 
author, & the 1st fasc. of his Icones Algarum [2]. These are 
duplicate copies which I lately received & beg you to accept. You 
need not think of-any return for these, except you may have a 
couple of copies of your Hepaticae [74] to spare. 
* [The copy of this work in the library of the New York Botanical Garden 
formerly the property of Dr. David Hosack, has penciled against this footnote (2: 
117), in Torrey’s hand: ‘ (Inform Schweinitz of this).”’ 
