
          is not C. disperma or C. tenella,
or C. loliacea L. xWahl., Tho' Kunze
states the last is C. gracilis [Ehrh?].

C. disperma is not C. tenella
Schk., as I hope to show; & of
course, it will stand, as these German
writers imply.

I know it is of mighty little
consequence whether the plant has
the name C. disperma D., but it
is of importance that the name be not
altered or given up, till it is proved
it ought to be. I thought our friend
Gray's paper on this point admirable,
[crossed out: on this point], plausible,
but not probable, & less than certain,
& if I can show what it is, I am
sure he will accord because
he intends to [seek?] for & reach the
truth.

I believe I am able to
bring out the matter in [fine lines?].

Dr. Lang makes a fine work
on the Carices of N. of Europe. But
under C. loliacea L. p. 542, he
quotes Schk. car. t. E. [pg/fig?]. 24, as
the same. a more silly mis- [mistake]
        