
          Charlestown May 5th 1834

And July 18th 1834

Dear Sir,

An opportunity offering to send to New York I take
the liberty of transmitting a plant which I overlooked in making
up the package sent by Schr. Pequot, and about which some
doubts have arisen. I collected this specimen at Charleston S.C.
but have others from N. Carolinea. -- Do you consider Poa 
autumnalis, Ell.  & P. pungens[Poa pungens], Nutt. identical species?

By an examination of the genus Galega, of which I
have all the species in the U.S. that are described, I am induced
to believe that it is confused, & that two species are included
under G. hispidula [Galega hispidula]. The G. gracilis [Galega gracilis] , Nutt. of which I sent you a 
specimen, is evidently G. hispidula, Mx. The G. hispidula of
Ph.  & Ell, I think is a different species. The characters of this
[?], uniform in hundreds of specimens which I carefully ob[se]rved
two seasons, are as follows.

Stem  Hecumbent, pubescent, angled; Leaves 5-6 inches
long, the peticle naked about a third of its length; (Leaves subsissle in H. hispidula, MX.) Leaflets  4-7 pair & an odd one, truly
cuneate, obovate or oblong, 10-15 lines long, 4-8 broad, truncately 
obtuse, generally emarginate, with a short rigid mucro, smooth
above, more or less pubescent beneath, strongly veined, &
somewhat ribbed beneath, veins colored. Peduncles [Pedunculus] large, 
flattened, somewhat 2 edged, about as long as the leaves,
partial ones 3-4 lines long. Legume mostly falcate, with a 
short but thick whitish pubescence.

The flower & fruit of these two plants present differences
in a comparison of specimens, but a description cannot be
very well drawn which will accurately define them. The expressions 
"foliolis parvulis"  & " pedunculis elongatis" [Pedunculus elongatis] of Michaux
cannot apply to the plant here described; but they well describe
the plant which I sent you as G. gracilis. Yet Nuttall says
peduncles about the length of the leaves" under G. gracilis, &
this seems to me the only ground he could have had for separating 
it from G. hispidula, Mx. ; his other verbal differences
may be easily reconciled. But may he not hav edescribed
from a young or imperfect specimen? That his preparation
        