%\t pniuersilii of Chicago 



Department of Botany 



The Botanical Gazette 



March 4, 1901. 



My dear Deane :- 



I have your letter of February 28 and arc very glad to hear 



from you, although I cannot give you the information you wish. All of 



my work was done in connection with the specimens while we were studying 



them at Washington. I have no memoranda here which would enable me to 



answer your question. It would seem to me' that you are better authority 



out 

 upon this than one who was working A the ranges of esa* hundreds of 



species. My suspicion is that the "Hew England" item may have slipped 



in without authority. However, your list, published in the Rhodora , 



was responsible for the extension of some ranges. As you have looked 

 rest there. 



this up for this speciesl**^ is evidenTf^ the responsibility cannot 



If Rose is not willing to claim responsibility for it, then 

 it has no authority, since he most have in his herbarium the specimen 

 from which any such statement was made, provided it exists at all. 



I am glad you like the Monograph. It certainly took a lot of 

 work. I wish I could come more frequently to Cambridge, for I recall 

 my days there with the greatest pleasure. With kind regards, 



I am, 



Yours sincerely, 



Mr . wal t e r Deane , 



Cambridge , Mass . 



(U W - Q~t*& 



