®0XttmMa Winiyj&vsitv, in tUt ©its "^t '^jm "^ovh 



DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY 



1" 



/ 2.8. Jan 189.8 189 



dear Mr. Davenport, 



I find that -."e have three niimbers in Adiaiitioa of Ivfr. schotts 



things and send then to you by this mail* 



I can hardly go over the whole collection of ferns at Columbia 



to find what numbers are here a natter of two days vrork but will send 



yoii sQch as you nay specify that you >«'ant. We have in that collection 



probably quite a number of Schotts ferns as I &ave seen some of 



then from tine to tine in our herbarium. I have none of then in ny ov^ni 



I have accuimilated a good deal of naterial on the Botrychium question 



having noyr seen all ikit trro of the collections the co\mtry of any 



Of B.silaifolium 



size. I have also Presl's type fi?on Prague and I find that it repre« 

 sents a good species* Pringle has also sent ne recently an interest- 

 ing forn f!?on Mexico of which I would like more material. It is xmliX 

 any U.S. forn I have seen. 



Tho I suppose that you will differ with me I shall reinstate three 

 species that have been BBHH5M confused \inder B. ternatiffli which is 

 not an Anerican form , shall describe a totally new species from the 

 United States and another fi'om Japan that with us has been conflised 

 with B.ternatun but which Jfr. Baker confused with B. daiicifolium 

 in which he was folloed by ?tanchet and Sauvatier in his flora of 

 Japan. If we must, we win agree to disagree and be tv/o f5?iends» I feel 

 sure after going over the results of years collecting at Kew that 

 Baker has made tho worst mess of this spe;ci©si;CSP'= group that he has 



