
          had hit upon a nat. method drawing of the name. I do
not believe this will stand as it is for the next 30 years, &
I should be glad to have [?] system. I care nothing for the
Lin. Method, as the thing itself. I [see?] it supplanted by the
Nat. Method, but can hardly tell why. Sometimes I remember
the French call a certain planet Uranus, &
not Herchell [Herschel], & they may dislike Lin. for as good reasons.
I hope you will not rest till the great improvement is made,
so that it shall not be artificial larger. Now, it does
not unite plants according to their properties, I think, more
than did the Lin. Method.

I have written to Dr. Gray,
& spoken of what would be an improvement, as it seems to
me.

[left column]
A. Flowering Plants.
Group. I. Exogens
Fam. 1. Angiosperms
Fam. 2. Gymnosperms
as Coniferae?
Group II. Endogens.
Fam. 1. Angiosperms
2. Gymnosperms
as Cycadaceae
Group III. Sporogens. 
I have little doubt that future examination
will put that out of this 
plan.

[right column]
B. Flowerless Plants.
Group I. Acrogens.
[Form?] orders or Fam.
Group II. Thallogens
Lichens, Fungi, & algae.
[Those/these?] orders or fam.
Characeae is out if [plan?],
I suspect.

The logic of such an arrangement seems to me [worthy?] better.
Having got so far, & distinguished the Exogens from the Endogens,
by their leaves, according to Gray, tho' I do not see this in your Outlines,
the artificial begins. Now, all this can be [?] &
[?] by anyone, & the artificial Lin. Method used, & be no
more truely artificial than the other. Here the improvement was
to be made. Now, the improvement is to be made in the Nat.
System, by throwing out this artificial, & putting in the natural.
Where I go all benefits, if it be feasible.
The seeds of Cuscuta are destitute of cotyledons, & yet is a dicotyledonous plant.  Is it not a Sporogens?

Two cotyledons are assumed
as the type, &, in monocotyledons, when two are present, one is
small, or abortive, or below, & so two make only one, but in other cases,
        