
          of this genus was hasty and not well diegested may be fairly 
argued, not only from his adopting this species as distinct from 
Michaux' plant, but from his describing G. pancifolia Mx as a 
new plant, while there is no doubt of its being G. villosa, Mx. 
which he referred to g. chrysophylla, Ph. -- The confusion
which he has occasioned in the genus Galactia also shows
that he is not always accurate in his observations. I have
no intention of detracting from the merits of Mr Nuttall, since
I owe more to his work for the little knowledge I have of Botany
than to any other. But Homer sometimes napped.

These two plants grow abundantly about Wilmington N. C. 
and as my attention was early called to them I had every opportunity of comparing them. Then [added: distinctive] characters, whether they prove 
specific or not, are permanent so far as I have observed.
The G. gracilis is usually erect, the other never.  Both are more
or less pubescent according to age and exposure. I regret
that I did not send you a specimen of each, but in my haste
I overlooked the one I have described, though I presume you
have it. If not, and you wish it, I will send you one.

I presume you have received the box of plants which 
I sent to you, but as I have never heard from you I 
felt somewhat anxious about it. I repeat the offer of plants from my collection which you might like to see, though
I have not idea that I possess any which you do not.

Excuse the liberty I have taken in presenting the above
remarks. They are the substance of what I had intended to
embody in a review of this genus, and I am desirous of
having them confirmed or [crossed out: disputed] by better authority than
mine before committing myself.

Yours respectfully

Moses A Curtis

Dr John Torrey
New York           
        