
          Wms. July 10th 1820.

Dear Sir,

Your letter was long in getting to me , but it
was good when it came. I had been expecting it but it was 
ten days older than should be. I meant [sulphint?] of copper, if
I wrote sulphate.  I have none. I should like your plants,
but I want crystals more. Oxyd of tin would be valuable. I
have no specimen.

As to that new mineral, you were
not before me in its analysis because I had done it before
you wrote. At first I thought it might be a new var. of phosphate,
for it could not be a sulphate, from external characters. But I
never told any one it was a phosphate. Soon as I wrote you I dissolved
it in [?] potash & found it out immediately. The solution
was taken up by nitric acid except 1 1/2 gr. of [silex?] in a hundred.
When the earth had been precipitated, nearly all was redissolved by
[?] potash, but a portion was not - & on adding a little sul_
phuric acid, sulphate of lime was found, being a milky mixture,
in a little water. There can be no doubt about the lime. I think
it is a new var. of [Wovillite?]. It [?] carbonate of lime crystals,
but not [?] of lime sp. gr. about 2.4 - the stalactites & the
mamillary masses radiate from the center - infusible by blowpipe
etc. The [?] form alone differs only a little - its general
appearance, some from [Wavillite?]. All those ingredients are in
W. - tho' they seem accidental. And they appear so, in this - for
the [?] varies some - & in your specimen, seems to be entirely
wanting. I had written to Prof. Silliman some account of
this Gray-wacke [?] when I got your letter, & sent
him some amount of this mineral. But it is not of much
consequence, who is first in this discovery - both of us are
independent of others as well as of each other. If it be a
new mineral, I would call it Gibbsite, - would it do for a
[new?] variety?

Emmons has found Topaz ( I think it is) in Middlefield
in Serpentine or in something connected with it, which is disin
tegrating.

Perhaps I can help you very little about the
Ilex. It is clear it is not that genus. I know not what you
will do with Raf.'s description but think you had better
keep his name, if it be tolerable, & give a correct description
I call it so [openly?] & distinctly. Then you will avoid the
evil you apprehend or fear. I knew of his description, but
did not take pains to look it up. I do not like what he often
does.

The moss, I thought to be Neckera, till I examined
it - & could make it nothing but [Moscholocarpus?]. I have
another or two, which I am obliged to call by the same
name, but they are very difft.

I wish I could see that book on Carex a few days.
Of some of mine, I am satisfied well - but of some, I am
wholly in the fog yet & like to be for I find no 
        