
          Prof. [Professor] John Torrey, N. Y. [New York]


 My dear sir,


 I sent you a few days ago the first attempt to botanical
 description of Dr Hilgard and myself, imperfect as it is.


 We were so much hurried, on one side by Dr Heermam
 who was on the eve of starting for another exploration and on the
 other by the publishing commaths of the Academy, who had the present
 number of their journal under press, that we had no time to revise 
 our work conjointly and had not even finished our microscopical enquires.
 We will, I hope, do better next time.


 Herein you will find a specimen of what you supposed to be 
 your Eriogonum Semproni (E angulosum, Benth.) Dr Hilard has
 examined it with a good microscrope and is inclined to think that it differs
 from yours in having no stipules. This is what he writes to me in this regard.


 "At the Buseal tuff of leaves and at the solitary leaves still
 lower, I find not a trace of either stipules or brancts. At one of the tuffs an
 appearance of a bract is produced by ar part of the base of a withered leaf
 being severed by the increase of the stalk and thus placed sidewise by a
 collimous break in the first bark swing to the increase of time beneath.
 Above the whorl, as probably in the infloresence of all Eriogona, the bracts
 commence in whorls of three present at each node infellibly whatever be
 the number of leaves. In the (orginial) E. tomenlosum the bracts appear
 leaf like and in the plant we have called angulosum there are generally.
 two leaves alternating to three bratcs (in our roseum one left & three bracts,
 except at the trifurcation- whorl where there are 3 leaves alternating with 3 bracts)
        