43 Sheoar§ Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 

 13th January, 1933. 



Dear Mr. Davenoort: 



Thank you for your kind lettar of the 9th. I am glad to hear that you 

 are thinking of taking ud your work on your manuscript again and hooe that 

 you will be able to bring it to successful comoletion. I wish I could give 

 you some encouragement in applying to the Oarnegie Institution, but I am 

 afraid I cannot. Several of my botanical acquaintances, who are or have been 

 applicants for aid from tha Oarnegie Institution, have consulted me regarding 

 their difficulties with the. management. The fact is that the botanical com- 

 mittee is made up of Messrs. Britton, Ooville, Pinchot, MacFarlane, and (ex 

 officio) Mr. Sfalcott, the secretary of the Institution. Of these men, of 

 course, Professor Britton,' Mr. Ooville, and Mr. Pinchot are interested in 

 the success of the neo-Amerioan methods in botany, and are by no means dispo- 

 sad to assign grants of money to those who>nthey know to be opposed to their 

 ideas on this subject. Mr. 'flalcott, although not himself a botanist, is en- 

 tirely in sympathy with Mr. Ooville in this matter, and Professor MacFarlane 

 would be hopelessly in the minority and as a non-systematist would not be 

 likely to have any great influence in deciding on such a grant. 



Furthermore, even if the grant were obtained, the conditions would be exceed 

 ingly annoying to you. The work has to be done under oversight of some member 

 of the Committee. In case of systematic work, like yours, it would be either 

 profassor Britton or Mr. Ooville, to whom the Institution would deligate the 

 oversight of your work. Both of these men as you know are bent upon having 

 the Rochester nomenclature used in all work of which thay have any control^ 



