
          this you will do , if you take hold of the work
but I [fear?], you have too much Botany on hand &
going forth to the publish, to enable you to do it.
And the thing should be very will done, very
well indeed. And there seems to be no reason
for the changes above mentioned, & which he
regrets. He was misled by old sp. from Muhl.
which he did not infer that Muhl. found out
he was mistaken, and made the changes required
by the very [?]. I have [never?] a doubt
that C.ovalis has not yet been found, in
our country. And it is very certain that
C. leporina Michx. is C. scoparia of Muhl. *
not C. ovalis of Europe, certainly not C.
leporina of Sweden &  [?] C.ovolis [Goodin?.],
if the English Bot. know that plant.
Certainly the plant sent to me by Schw. [Schweinitz], for C.
ovalis is C. scoparia & [now?] I have seen some
in our country is like C. ovalis or c. leporina of
Europe - & and [mark?] I suspect that these two are
not the same sp., [C.A.] Agardh etc. to the contrary
not withstanding. For tho' Agardh & others prove
that Good. was mistaken in calling C. leporina
of Sweden an alpine plant, they do not
proven that C.ovalis Good. is the same
with this - they do not even offer an arg. [argument]
for it. And the [p...?] had to no such
conclusion.
        