
          here, fine & full. Nothing is clear to
me than it is not C. oligocapa  [oligocarpa] Schk. Perhaps,
that plant will [now?] be found,
& certainly, or have no right to call this
it, because we do not find it out.

The print of C. oligocarpa in Schk. has
the description that corresponds to his figure.
You know it is like this _ [two penciled drawings of wide achenes], obovate &
hardly [beaked?]. That of C. Hitch. is like this [two penciled drawings of narrower achenes],
& does not begin to be like the others. Even
the little one found by Sartwell is wholly
difft. from Schk's fig. & language. I am
satisfied too, that our C. digitalis, is
not that sp. of Willd. Fruit most obtuse
or very obtuse, & [scale?] oblong, which ours
has neither.

In the spikes & fine pedicels,
& [?], it agrees, & so does C. flexilis,
but is in all else far removed. In Muh.
description, the scale & fruit agree not with our
plant. He says too, it grows "in [latin word?]", & I
now find it near one. It must be something
else. What [we have/is here?] called C. oligocarpa, I
have long been satisfied, is not Schk's, tho'
specimens of it are in Muh'sl herbarium, with
C. oligoa. [oligocarpa]. I have no doubt that C. oligocarpa is
yet unknown to us, the other must be called
C. [VanMeckii?] Schw. C. Hitch. is very like C.
depauperata.

Let me have Carices soon,
& tell me what you want. I have just [rcvd?] some
from Tuckerman. Cordially yours C. Dewey
        