
          I am glad you have seen my brother. We look
much alike, & differ much too.

I know not
when Mr. W. will find you, if you have shifted quarters_
but I hope, if the [?] can not find you, he may.

Schwinitz sent me a list of his Carices & I
do not like it all. I hope it will not go yet to proofs it
needs some altering I fear. The Carices from Schwinitz,
are fine - but several wrong, as he wrote me afterwards,
& as I well know. So far as we have compared by what
I sent him, & his [?] of his to me, we will agree.
But his new C. castola is here, so like C. [?], &
could not call it otherwise. There are also, some others, to
which I can not now turn. His C. [graillima?] is what
I saw was near C. [Mictichoprii?], & what you call
C. digitalis but can it be the last? And is not it what
I called it? See the the ragged end of of the capsule, & it is not
allways androgynous on the upper spike. C. digitalis
must [resemble?] C. loxiflora far more. Do compare
the capsules & [?] of C. dispermia & C. loliacea. They
differ more than those of C. tintanulata & C. hystinina [hystericina?],
[?] a round disloration [dislocation?]. The fruit of [either/neither?] agrees with
C. loliacea; but that of C. disperma & the stem of
C. loliacea put together are much [?]. Mr. [?] &
I could not bring them together after a long look.
do send me C. [miclichopii?].  C. alba can not be
doubted, Collins to the contrary. The sp. too was poor.
It is Schk. in [?]. C. olprstris [alpestris?] has the foot
[?] on very many - but in [?], I took
off many of them, as I saw afterwards, & could get
no more, tho' I may next year. I did think I
never saw a better resemblance to the fig. I intend
to inclose one to you for your examination. 
        