
          Washington City July 17th 1850.

Dr [Doctor] Torrey

My dear Sir.

I have just now found time to reply
to you your kind letter of the 8th. I regret that my bad Mss. [Manuscript]
should give you so much trouble, but I do not know of
any one who could overhaul it so well for me. Mr. Drayton 
has just received another batch of it; with proofs of the 
drawings belonging to the same, to deliver to you; and with the 
exception of the Lycopodaceae (which will be written up as soon
as possible, and may amount to 25 pages) this will be the last of 
the work.

Not being Latin scholar enough, I did not foresee that there 
would be difficulty in translating Mr J. Smith's nomenclature 
of venation into that language. The veins of Mr Smith I 
do not think can be regarded as secondary Costae[?] of Presl, for
the latter has primary and secondary "Verulae", and 
his secondary "Verulae" I consider as equivalent to Mr Smith's
"Veinlets." If you will turn to Hook. [Hooker] Gen. [Genera] Fil. [Filicum] F.[?]
qz.[?] you will find that authors translation of the Gen. Cher 
of Photenopteris, J. Sm. where the three kinds of venation
are embraced.

With regards to the "obscurity" of the detailed description of Goniopteris,
I shall have to examine it on return of Mss. [Manuscript.] I cannot imagine 
how the specific Char. [Character?] of Polypodium indentation should be 
incomplete, the species being one of Hook. [Hooker] and Arnotts in Bot. [Botany] of
Beech. [Beech's] voy. [voyage]. I thought that their Spec. [Species?] Char. [Character?] had been improved by 
by me. Our specimens of the plant being better than what theirs 
appears to have been. Please to mark with a lead pencil, when
there is a failure of this kind, and you will oblige me much.
        