
          I should have seen what you had done with some of our
contested genera yet he sent it off immediately to London
to Dr. Boott as he was then engaged on [crossed out: the] torturing again 
the genus Carex, and as Dr. Hooker's specimens were with him. 
I have not heard of its being returned.

And now in case I forget, let me send you a note or two
I made on your last parcel today (it only reached me 
on Friday, three days ago)

1. Your Ceanothus ovalis Bigel. [Bigelow] appears to me identical both
C. ovatus Desf. [Desfontaines] and D.C. [De Candolle])! My specimen of the latter if from 
the [crossed out: French] [added: Avignon] gardens, the leaves and [?] sent there under 
the name [?] from the Jard. [Jardin] des Plantes by Desfontaines 
himself. It agrees perfectly with the description, and the 
foliage accords precisely with your C. ovalis. I would then 
not say "appears" identical but that it is actually identical 
with yours, were it not that [in?] the cultivated one 
[crossed out: the] is in fruit, yours in flowers. In both the inflorescence is 
compact and short like a short [?], and if the two be 
distinct the difference must be sought in the fruits or flowers, 
but I do really believe the two the very same plant.

2. "Physalis lanceolata?" from Dr. Short, which you think you may be 
Ph. alkekengi is Ph. angulata [?] of Nees v . [von] Esenbeck in the 
Linneae, vol. 5th & 6th. So far as I have been able to 
examine for myself, I think Nees deserves credit for what 
he [has?] [there?] down. If you have not yet seen it, it is with 
your studying, particularly as you can do so [?]in the living 
plants.

3. Croton argyranthemus Mx. [Michaux]. I know not what your authority for 
this is, but Elliott seems to know nothing about Michaux's 
plant, and although Sprengel united to it a West Indian species 
I suspect he was equally ignorant. Be that as it may, your 
plant is neither now nor before less than Crotonopsis linearis M [Michaux], 
of which I have a specimen sent 12 years ago by Nuttall 
from Tenessee [Tennessee] to Mr. [Nicolas Charles] Seringe of Geneva. This is also the plant 
described and figured by Adr. [Adrien] de Jussieu in his essay on the

[cross writing]
mine so that he really [?] all [?] our
no doubt I might be justified in this so that in all 
the work he [?] I have published conjointly with 
Hooker or Wight their name have [?] first, which 
I alone have done the descriptions. I shall 
however send Nees all my notes and let him do 
what he pleases with them.

I find I have yet a few of Wight's distributed plants 
lying by me for you, but [?][?] [wish?] to send them
till I [read?] Nees v. Esenbeck's report on this Cyperacea 
I sent him last year, and others now [aside?] to be sent 
to him when I shall send you specimens of these 
also.

You ask me for instructions to Dr. Gray on his voyage. 
If I were to presume to give any they would be systematic 
on my part of idleness and worse than folly.
If Gray were a novice and had not you at his elbow
        