
          remarks I wished to make on the Monograph. And
those I make, are not to find fault, but to do good, for
I really wish the Man. should be excellent. Sometimes
too the remarks will be to elicit an answer to satisfy me
of your views, & perhaps to correct my errors or mistakes or
ignorance.

In the Gen. description you say, "Flowers, - generally
monoicous (never perfect)" etc. Now C. [Bllardi?] in Schk. tab. D. 16,
is represented [added: as] perfect, & the spike is said to be (p. 12) hermaphrodite.
Is not this a perfect flower? & it is even named C. hermaphrodita
by more than [our authors?]. And you say too, "stamens hypogynous",
can this be in any flowers but perfect ones? The
distinction of seeds, I think untenable, as I said to you, for in
looking over Schk. you see seeds figd. in all stages from flat
compared to fully 3-sided, the gradation being marked distinctly,
but no more so after all than the [phrasis?] subtriangular-[?],
& triquitrous, will admit, the former running into
the latter. This remark, as well as the thing, is indeed of little
consequence.

In the [conspectus?] I think several species are omitted. I
know the difficulty of getting all, &, perhaps, I am mistaken.
I will mention C. longifolia, Hast. & C. glauca, [Gooden?].

Will you not send me C. sterilis? It is a[?] remark of Schw.
that C. varia has been mistaken for it, as from Schk. fig,
it is utterly impossible, unless before the fruit is developed at all,
which is no time for examination, & 20 other species might as well
be mistaken.

Will you not send me a bare specimen of C. Wormskioldiana?
The resemblance between this sp. & C. dioica & C. Dorolliana [davalliana?]
ir terrible, infinitely more than C. setacea to C. multiflora
& C. [stiprota?].

You description of C. Wildenovii [willdenowii?] would not show it to be
Muh. plant, I think. And I wish to know whether it is
so, & if it is C. [famisii?], Schw.. And I can hardly believe that 
my C. Willd. can be concluded from the description to become
a var. of C. polytrichoides. Still it may be.

Is not Erht. name for C. pauciflora older than [Lightpot's?]?
It seems to me to be according to Wahl. & Schk.

C. retroflexa is often larger than C. [visia?], & especially the var.
radiata of Wahl. By the way is C. [coprinata?] Wahl, the same
        