
          for what you said about C. Billardi, & I am glad
you are right. "It is a little paradoxical," you say, to
call the stamens "hypogynous." I do not on this, for
a paradox is a truth, but against what seems to be so. Now
is it true in the case before us? If not, it is not paradoxical
a little or any, but wholly false.

Your C. floridana; you follow Schw. in calling
it androgynous; now on all my specimens. the staminate
spike is separate, clearly so, &, I wish you to see,
if on yours some or all are not so. Look carefully.

I can not believe that your C. Wildnowii is the
one in Muh., tho' it be his in the Herbarium. It
is wonderful, careful as he was, that he should have
said not a word of those lower spikes. And, I [?]
believe that no man could believe that your plant is
the one described by him. If a botanist had all the
species before him, he could not say Muh. meant
this, as I think. if you are correct, & you may be,
his description is miserable.

I laughed over what you said of the fig. of
C. setacea. I never meant to praise it. But
I will say, that I can point to ten figs. in
Schk. as bad as that, so that, tho' I laugh at your words, I
can not say, it is so bad. And that the species is [?]
greatly from C. stipota [stipata?] & C. multiflora is too clear
to talk about. It will go, I have no doubt. I shall
have a fig. of C. multiflora, [?]. in the next No., the
one meant by Wohl. tho' under another name. A
part of my figs. have gone. I expect more to go,
perhaps for the next No.

I want a little Potassium greatly, do get
some for yourself, & remember me.

But I must [?] for the present. Let me
hear soon. Your friend ever

C. Dewey

Dr. J. T.
        