
          as [Chester] Dewey's publication was not
 until 1 Septr. [September] last, & from what
 you say, I suppose that some copies
 of your Ste. Fl. [State Flora] (vol. 2) were in
 circulation before that date. I cannot
 with propriety put down Kunth's [Karl Sigismund Kunth]
 C. Steudel. [Carex steudelii, now Carex jamesii] in order to restore the
 name of Schw. [Louis David von Schweinitz] as he (even admitting
 the sufficiency of the original descrip'n [description] which
 is rather questionable) virtually suppressed
 the species himself by omitting
 to take any notice of it in the subsequent
 Mon. Car. [Monograph of the North American species of the genus Carex, by Louis David von Schweinitz, edited by John Torrey] which you published
 with him, & more recently in your
 own Mon. Cyp. [Monograph of North American Cyperaceae] you adduce C. Jamesii [Carex jamesii]
 as a syn. [synonym] under C. Willd. [Carex willdenowii] with the 
 authoritative (!)* In the State Fl. you
 omit it altogether, & also the Syn. of
 Kunth. Upon the whole, then, I think
 Kth. has a right to consider his plant
 undescribed, & [added with caret: that we are bound to respect] his name,


 [line drawn across page here]


 *& elsewhere (p. 399) you assert the identity of
 the two, & establish a new C. Jamesii which must
 have been retained if a good species.
        