
          My Aristida stricta Mx [Michaux], I still consider as Michaux' plant
as his habitat and description, as far as it goes, apply exactly.
Elliott's plant of that name must be at least a flat leaved
var. [variant] and I have supposed was the other plant which I sent
you; and possibly the flat leaved var. [variant] of Mich. [Michaux] may be it. 
The A. stricta, Muhl. [Muhlenberg] Gram. appears to be A. spiciformis, E.
A. stricta, Ph. applies well enough, except the habitat. The
habit of my plant is very distinct from any other Aristida
I am acquainted with and can be recognised as far
as it can be seen. The other Aristida (marked A stricta, E.)
I deemed a nov. spec. [nova species] and shall give it as such unless you 
dissent. As you appear to have seen Mich.'s Herb. [Michaux's herbarium] will you 
inform me if I am correct in the above reference. I feel myself
exposed to err in proposing new species because I have 
not the means of extended comparison of specimens, or of
reference to the herbaria of authors and accurate botanists. 
Therefore it is that I solicit your sanction in any that
I may offer. Most of the new species I shall give up
to yourself for description, which I will make known
to you hereafter, as they will not form a part of my
present paper. I shall propose but a few new ones in this, 
say three or four.  The Aristida I intend for one of them, and 
shall therefore be glad of your opinion about it. A Galega,
and a Galactia will have new names, probably no more, 
Michaux' Convolvulus sagittaefolius is interfered with by
[James Edward] Smith's C. sagittifolius, Flor. Graec. [Flora graeca] published two or three years
later. Would it be well to substitute an earlier name from 
Catesby (C. carolinensis) for Mich's [Michaux's] plant? Your Convolvulus
arenarius has been anticipated by Vahl, who
has a plant of that name from the Azores. Will you 
allow me to call it by another name, viz. C. Torreyi [Convolvulus torreyi]?

My Kyllingia [Kyllinga] has turned out as I expected to be no Kyllingia [Kyllinga], 
but I really knew nothing what to do with it. Its aspect
is very different from any Scripus I ever saw, & I did not think
of putting to that genus. Is it not monandrous? Ranunculus 
I referred as you have. I found it in a garden, appearing
as if introduced. The root was fibrous.
        