
          Ansd. [Answered] Nov. 10th


 Charleston S.C. 13 October 1851


 Prof John Torrey,


 My dear Sir, 


 I spent my vacation Aug & Sept last, in 
 the mountains of No Carolina, amusing myself by collecting 
 plants and measuring heights barometrically. In ascending 
 Mitchells Peak of the Black Mountain No. Ca. [North Carolina] I was struck 
 with a small tree 10 or 15 feet in height, which I had never before 
 seen, which our guide, a lad of 18 or 19 said was a Sumack. As 
 we were near the summit, I determined to collect specimens 
 in our descent, hardly beleiving [believing] it to be a Rhus as I 
 knew the genus pretty well. On reaching the summit soon 
 after I found the same tree at the very highest point and 
 there collected my specimens, taking warning by my 
 guide's remark "that it would poison me", as it really proved 
 to be a Rhus [added: in fruit]. The berries are about the size of those of R. [Rhus] vernix L [Linn�]
 and like them smooth and greenish white.


 I have seen in the living state, R. [Rhus] typhina, 
 R. glabra, R. copallina, R. vernix, R. Toxicodendron, var a vulgare
 Mich. [Michaux], and var B, quercifolium Mich.; I have not seen 
 R. pumila nor R. aromatica, but they are well marked species 
 by the descriptions. The present plant is certainly not 
 one of those just enumerated, and cannot be R. canadense
 Mill. [Miller] the R. viridiflorum Pursh, for you refer it in your 
 Flora to R. typhinum, and Pursh regards as "not much 
 more than a variety" of R. glabrum, both of which species

        