ff 42 Shepard Street, Cambridge, Mass., 



7th April, 1902. 



Dear Davenport: 



Mr. Fernald and I nave been examining your manuscript with much 

 interest. We appreciate its wise moderation and general excellence but are f 

 ly agreed that it loses aost of its force from the fact that you cannot state 

 definitely what was said relative to Hepbrodium in that problematic "E^rt.Med 

 Par. Cat." By a re-examination of Pritzel's Thesaurus I find that a catalogue 

 of this nature was published oy Marthe. It seems very likely that this was t 

 one referred to , for it was published in 1301 and contained 140 pages. I am 

 sorry to say we do not oossess the work, but were I in your place I should 

 wish to see the work before publication. There would be a fair chance of find 

 ing it in some of the great libraries in and about Boston or if not here at 

 least it is very likely in xhe Surgeon General's Library in Washington, where 

 the authorities are very accommodating and would probably be willing either 

 to lend the work if they possess it or to have a copy made for you of what eve 

 is said therein relative to Nephrodium. 



Without seeing this work it will be almost impossible for you to bridge ove 

 what seems to oe a serious gap in your train of logic. On your first page you 

 say "* * * makes it probable that the genus may have originated there instead 

 of in Michaux, and if so then * * * * " This is of course a very tentative 

 and hypothetical statement and does not seem to furnish any secure basis for 

 the later statement "Having thus established the fact of Richard's earlier 

 publication we may * * * * ". This weak point in your chain of evidence will 

 certainly be apparent to Professor Underwood who will not be slow to take ad- 

 vantage of it. 



Under these circumstances would it not be much wiser to hold your article 



