THE CORRESPONDENCE OF SCHWEINITZ AND TORREY 207 
ately to find out whether it is at Easton or not. Permit me just to 
go thro’ your two favors & to remark, what I am at present able to 
remark. Do by all means, make exactly such alterations in 
names & barbarities of any kind which I have committed as you 
think proper. I have a most shameful habit of putting down 
names for what I consider new, without sufficient reflection & 
afterwards forget to alter them. I am sure I wish you may have 
put something less indianic for my Muskingumensis—for if that 
should pass—who knows some future Botanist might think himself 
justified in calling a new Carex found by good luck near Chambers- 
burg, Penns. (& I myself found one there that may possibly 
prove new) Conecocheaguensis to the utter dismay of all Europeans 
except the Russians, who might possibly punish us by even calling 
one. T'schernitiskowensis!! Into “ granularioides’’ meaning “like 
granularis” | suffered myself to be led by Prof. Dewey—it is cer- 
tainly wrong. With the greatest pleasure I would furnish drawings 
of some of the species, you will kindly insert in the 3d [no. of the] 
Annals, if I could flatter myself with anything like leisure—as 
it is Mr. Halsey will do me the greatest favor to attend to them. 
I rely implicitly on his accuracy & skill. I am delighted with the 
prospect of soon getting your published 2 Number of the Flora 
[89]—I hope however you consider me as a subscriber—as well 
as to the Annals—of which I very much long to see the number 
cont{ainin]g the rest of my table [67].. The correspondence of 
r. Cooper will be highly acceptable to me—& nothing more im- 
portant could he do than to attack Syngenesia—if he does resolve, 
the loan & use of my collection shall be at his service. 
I am greatly obliged to you for your remarks on the few 
- grasses I sent. Is the Poa—n. 2. I sent—the one with black 
scales?—that surely is no var. of nervata. I have since been con- 
vinced that my F. diandra is the nutans. 5 Cyplerus] virens?—I 
never saw the parviflorus, & cannot therefore know whether it be 
that.—You are certainly correct in believing my Dulich{ium] cana- 
dense the same with D. spathaceum. It is a variety however some- 
what constant. 
The history I have given of C. hystericina’s name is correct 
—but it is very probable that it is nothing but C. Pseudocyper{us] 
—of Am.—not however the Pseudocyp. of Germany.—13. 
