
          that you are a bad draughtsman, I must say that I am none whatever. I have 
drawn up a paper in this way. 1. [crossed out: illegible] a decapitation of Sprengel's Torreya (leaving 
out my hits at Sprengel). Secondly, I say "about the same time that I 
[?] the specimen of Sprengel's genus from Dr. torrey, [crossed out: I recei] he wrote me as 
follows: "Did I tell you of a beautiful new Taxoid tree from Middle 
Florida? &c." where I extract part of your letter to me of last Octr. or 
November, but engraft on it the whole [added: historical] account of the tree and general 
account of its flowers & fruit, from your last dispatch, all in the shape 
of an [added: old] letter from you to me, many months ago, [crossed out: quoting of] [?] in 
of course your opinion of its being a new genus, and how it differs from 
Taxus & Podocarpus. I then state: "Having about found out that Sprengel's 
genus Torreya cannot be retained I feel sure I express the sentiment of all botanists 
in [?] that name on the Florida tree, of which [added: I ? to ?] the following [crossed out: is the?]
description" or some such.

I then give a Latin char. [character] and description (but I am sorry to say that you were 
so accurate and precise that I have been able to add [added: almost] nothing to your observations). 
After the description I made some remarks about the pedicel or stalk to the fruit, which 
I do not comprehend, and about which you are silent. I see it in the specimen in spirits. I 
notice that the Podocarpus proves the [stacking?] of the male flower to be an [?] in that 
scales, and not a column of monadelphous stamens, as that the Linnaeists say, and concluded by 
some remarks on Taxus nucifera, or rather follow up the extracts from your letter on that subject. 
All authors seem to have copied the fruit from Kaempfer, except Gaertner who saw it with 
the [added: inner] fibrous [added: part of the] [crossed out: coat of] outer coat of the [seed?]. Gaertner says the embryo is at the base of the album 
(if right, it would approach Podocarpus), but he says the same of Taxus, which is nonsense. Your 
specimen from Lindley was from Wallich, and from Nepal, and is no. 6054 of Wall. Cat.  [Wallich's Catalogue], [added: of] which I 
also possess the male, but Wallich [crossed out: only] refers it to Kaempfer's plant only with "?" and although 
it may be a [?] with Kaempfer's Taxus plant, yet it does not solve the doubt. Wallich

[sideways]
Do all I can I cannot cram in Nees' report on the 
strange Cyperaceae from Taxus 138 of Drummond, and must defer 
the copying it out till my next. It is a n. gen. [new genus]" [locidulni? 
nescio? ab? inter?, cladicas? ab? into? Elyneas? ponendum? let? forcee?] genus. 
Setas, quas dixi, aliis ordinis ipse pridentur ae illea relinquarent 
Cyperaceagrum." Our specimens have no stamens, and the 
style has fallen off in all, so that it is scarcely possible to give 
a short definition of the genus. Of the Annals of the Lyceum of N. 
York, I have got vols. 1 & 2 from Dr. Hooker at your request, 
also nos. 3 & 4 of vol. 3d from the same source; and I have said that 
Dr. Gray has sent the nos. 5, 6, & 7. Could I procure nos. 1 & 2 of that 3d vol. 
to complete my copy? What is your receipt for [?] or [?] 
to attend [planck?] with. You mentioned it to me when here, but I have 
forgotten it. Have you ever 
analyzed the coal [tar?] figures
Dublin gas works for [shading?]?

Paid to Liverpool

Dr Torrey
Prof. of Botany & Chemistry
New York
        