
          [tro...?] me, for I can not on the [looks or books?] By the 
way can not you get Schk. for me by Spring, and
let me have it early. I would gladly give 10 or 12 
dollars for it.  I could not put up minonols for you
and send [them] upon the [? ?]. I am [?]
but so it is.
I have made out a little paper for Silliman
on the Conicus, that is to say on a few [opuis?],
from my observations. It will not interfere with
any thing of  [ Schwinite?] to be [illegible?] , but [make?]
his the {mon?] [mapony?].  It is not Botan. [dsmp.?]
but history and {?] and some [?], I expect
it in the next No. of [Till]. By a late letter from
[Schen.?], I see [illegible?] do not differ greatly on those I [have?]
remarked upon.
In your [Fl.], you follow the mode of Wohl.,
and Rus. [Cyr.] in putting the [scientific or species?] [name?] [after?]
the initail of the genus, and not {at?] one side, as in
[Mx. and Oj. and c.?]. this ought ever to be the case.
When the description was to be the specific name
the other was the mode- but after sp. [names?]
were introduced it become [indis..?].  I
am glad to see you do it- for wisdom's 
sake.
Do you expect to publish [Schk.?]
whole work on Conicus, or only the [Anslyt.?]
Index in your  [Annols-could this be annuals?] I hope you will
do both. It will do you much good,
if you do publish both, with a little change
of types, you can print a few copies of
        