I HAVE REAo| YOUR OAK PAPER FE£L8rsiCLY A^4D WITH GREAT INTEREST* I AM 
GLAO TO SEE YOU ^EFT THE WAY OPEN FOR A DISTINCTION BETWEEN G* TINCT* 
AND COCCINEA^ FOfR THEY ARE MOST ASSUROOLY AS MUCH SO AS ANY TWO ALUED-^ 
ONES CAN BE. I SPOKff TO KELLOGG ABOUT IT THE OTHER DAY, AND HE LAUGHED 
and said: *»THAT is one of the mistakes THAT NO ONE WOULD TH I fSllC---OF-Ti^Ai^^ 
IN THE FIELD! — WHY, THERE ISN’T A LITTLE NIGGER BOY DOES NOT KNOW ONE 
FROM the OTHER, AND THAT THE COCCINEA SPLITS TWICE AS EASILY AND MAKES 
A POORER FIRE.’’ AS I SAID BEFORE, YOU CAN DISTINGUISH THE TREE A MILE 
AWAY, BY ITS LIGHT GREEN FOLIAGE, AND TALL BLUIGH-GRAY TRUNK; ANcT WHILE 
FREQUENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH TINCTORIA, IT NEVERTHELESS INVARIABLY DENOTES 
A POORER, LIGHT SOIL WHERE IT PREVAILS, A.NO ITS PRESENCE IS A DEPRESSING 
FACTOR IN THE PRICE OF LAND; SO THAT ITS SPECIFIC CHARACTER IS ACTUALLY 
VOUCHED FOR BY THAT ULTIMA RATIO, THE LAND-OWNER’S POCKETS. I REMEMBER 
ONLY ONE CASE IN WHICH I FELT A OOilBT AS TO WHICH OF THE TWO J HAD BE- 
FORE me; IT WAS IN ABOTTOM OF SOUTH Ml SSI,, DENSELY WOODEX U Sg ,JH AT klA 
TRLES had TALL TRUNKS, WITH SCARCELY ANY BORKE. ITS BARK WAS TOO YELLOW 
FOR COCCINEA, BUT ITS LEAVES HAD THE PECULIAR SUB-GLABROUS LOWER SURFACE 
WHICH I CONSIDER AS ONE OF THE SURE MARKS OF COCC.; MOREO'vE^ THE HABI- 
TAT WAS ONE IN WHICH COCC. IS NEVER FOUND IN Ml SSI, BOTH OAKS GREW ON 
THE adjoining UPLANDS, AND I TOOK IT FOR A HYBRID. 
I AM VERY MUCH INTERESTED ABOUT O. LAURIFOLIA. I NEVER COULD MAKE 
UP MY mind to CONSIDERING ALL THESE FORMS AS SPORTS OR HYBRIDS OF AOUA- 
TICa; they ARE OF TOO FREQUENT AND EXTENSIVE OCCURRENCE. STILL , THE 
YOUNG SMOOTS OF AOUATICA DO NOT CONFORM TO YOUR RULE THAT ALL LEAVES ARE 
± OBTUSE OR CUNEATE, AND THEY HAVE FORMS WHICH FOILED MY EFFORTS TO DIS- 
TING I SH THEM FROM WHAT 1 SUPPOSED OUGHT TO BE LAURIFOLIA MICH. I HAVE 
YWO SPECIMENS LABELED BY YOU •’LAURIFOLIA”, AS UNLIKE AS POSSIBLE -- 
THE ONE FROM THE SEA-SHORE, AMONG Q, VIRENS, WHICH YOU MENTION; THE OTMB 
CORRESPONDING TO THE FIGURE OF HETEROPH YLLA . 
P. S. -JAN. 1877. I THINK THERE MUiaT BE A MISTAKE ABOUT THE 
locality of your Q. VIRENS FROM KEMPER CO., MISS. A PORTION OF THAT 
SAME tree, at least, HA^j LEAVES DISTINCTLY LOBEq; AND THERE IS NO Q. 
VIRENS EVEN 100 MILES FARTHER SOUTH OF KEMPER, BUT ON THE SEa-SH 5RE 
THERE 00 SEEM TO ME TO BE n«0 VARIETIES AT LEAST OF VIRENS, ’SO DISTINCT 
I'- 'ABIT THAT I COULD NEVER MAKE UP MY MING THAT THEY WE RE. MOT-H^I ST I N CT . 
. SPECIE:>. ONE HAS SMALL, CORIACEOUS, USUALLY CUPPED LEAVES; THE OTHER 
Mis:‘T PE ta::en for q , cine re a var., t.he leaves BEINQ larger'^ not truly 
. coriaceous, and THF 'WHOLE HABIT OF THE TREE MORE LIKE AOUATI CA THAN VI- 
RENS. probably more hybrid complications! I have A MIND TO SEND YOU 
Tf-IOSE MISS. SPECIME'iS AQA I N FOR FARHTER COMPARISON, 
c-issou^i 
SeORSE ■ I-.- SLivi.--F'! ’ER- 
Botanical 
cm copyright reserved garden 
