260. THE CORRESPONDENCE OF SCHWEINITZ AND TORREY 
Your kind letter of the 8th inst. is also still unanswered. It 
came rather too late for me to use the list of N. Am. Algae which 
you took the trouble to make out at my request, but it will be of 
use to me nevertheless, in preparing my general list of N. Am. 
plants whlich] I never lose sight of. I should be greatly pleased if- 
I could have an opportunity of examining the salt water Algae of 
our Seacoast. It is astonishing that scarcely any of our botanists 
have collected them hitherto—no department of our Crytogamia 
has been so much neglected. 
You remarked, that you had not seen the 2nd No. of Hooker’s 
Boreal Flora [34]. It will give me pleasure to loan it to you for 
two or three months, after the first of November next—from which 
time, until the beginning of February I can give only occasional 
attendance to Botany. As you observe, this Flora would have 
been far more useful to you than the splendid work on the Ferns 
[37] sent you by Dr. Greville. 
The contents of the parcel sent by your nephew are highly 
interesting tome. Valeriana pauciflora | almost despaired of ever 
seeing. Your Koeleria from Ohio seems to be very near one which 
Dr. Pitcher brought me from Fort Gratiot, a specimen of which I 
believe you have— 
Your Bromus occidentalis 1 cannot distinguish from one of the 
varieties of B. ciliatus which grows in this neighborhood. After 
much exam”. I am convinced that the Bromus canadensis, ciliatus 
& pubescens are all one species. 
Hydrophyllum or Phacelia—This seems to belong to the former 
genus,—and near H. —— differing however in its denser clusters 
of flowers, & in being hairy. It is probably a new species. 
Viola alba L.v.S. Is it distinct from V. Muhlenbergii? Per- 
haps the peculiarity of its appearance is owing to the situation 
in which it grew. 
Salix—? I will not pretend to name any unusual species of 
this genus until I make a regular study of the collection which I 
have been making for several years, & which is now very extensive, 
Sept. 30. I don’t know that there were any other specimens 
in your parcel which required a particular examination—except 
perhaps a Rumex, which I think must be R. verticilllatus]: & the 
Koeleria which I now find is identical with a species sent to me 
= 
AS 
