
          of that other Dr. F. Wurdemann had not been attached to
even one of the plants he was instrumental in making
known, although I had distinctly mentioned his name
as the collector, and that I had done nothing but keep and
transfer them to those who could use them. All these matters
of botany or science in general, and the fame or reputation
attending their pursuit, I hold, in comparison with the momentous 
interests of Religion and Eternity as trifles scarcely 
worth talking about, certainly not worth contending for,
but honestry and justice, are something higher, and I do not
wish to seem dishonest or unjust even unintentionally, or
to appear so eagerly grasping after these trifles, as to cast aside
all considerations of delicacy and modesty.

Gray says, in a letter to me, "could we show, what
I think is far most probable, that it was your Rhus that poisoned
poor Lyon, it would be well to call it R. Lyoni [Rhus lyoni], as you decline
to have a poison thing bear your name." I have no objection
that it should bear Lyons name, but Pursh says, vol. I,
page 204, that on Lyon's own statement it was R. Pumila [Rhus pumila]
that poisoned him. I however am relieved from all further concern
in the matter, by turning it all over to yourself. All I ask
is, when you publish, be so good as to send me a copy of the description.

Gray gives me th gratifying news that he hopes,
and has some prospect of finishing the 2nd vol of the Flora of N.A. [North America]

I am dear Sir, very sincerely yours
Lewis R. Gibbes.

Dr. John Torrey, New York.
        