
          myself of the approved descriptive language
 of my predecessors: but it is my intention to describe
 nothing which I do not myself see, or think I see,
 in any plant.  My remarks must be superficial,
 because I have not had the opportunity to acquire
 that profound & intimate knowledge of plants 
 which is [preferred?] by the DeCandolle, Browns, Harkins,
 & Lindleys of the age: but I do not mean to take
 any thing for granted, which I can examine - so
 far, at least, as external & obvious characters are
 concerned.  Even this much will be a severe task
 for one in my situation - & I will necessarily occupy
 much time.  All I can promise, is, to be
 industrious, & do the best I can.
     I do hope De Candolles 5th vol. will reach
 me before I reach the [illegible] plants:
 and yet I dread to encounter  a host of new
 and unpronounceable names, of genera that I
 have known by their titles.  The mere [illegible] of
 Botany is becoming a grievous encumbrance, & a fright-
 ful task to the learner.  I propose in my flora, to take Dr.
 Beck's work for my standard - & for the most part to ad-
 here rigidly to his nomenclature.  I know not what better
 to do; although he had admitted some (so I think) rather
 uncouth novelties.  For instance, Harpalyce for our
 old friend Prenanthes.  This name, Harpalyce is also
 used by De Candolle for a Leguminous plant, making addition-
 al confusion and I see Dr. Hooker calls Prenantes by the
 new name of Nabalus, or Narbulus! I know not which is the
 right word- one is used in the text & the other in the plate.  I am
 sorry we have losst the old name; but I suppose we must
 submit to it.  I am pretty well prepared to follow any respectable
 authority for the sake of uniformity - if it could be had.
                         In haste, Dear Sir, truly yours, Wm. Darlington
 Dr. Jn. Torrey, New York

        