
          Gambell?] has sent me the 4th of Nuttalls
 paper on his plants, and solicts me to take a set
 of about 200, which he can spare.  I tell him
 he may send them, and that if you arrange to
 take them I will turn them over to you. I suppose
 I shall get much [?] for a large portion
 of Nuttalls new sp. in his paper are marked as from
 his own collection. Perhaps there are other new things
 which Nuttall has not touched.


 The Lathyrus 568 (which I have put for return in
 your pigeon hole) is I suppose a L. palustris, the lower
 leaves of which frequently have almost no tendril. You
 see it is a standing


 Malva obtusa [Fries?] &  Gray is a good species ([sida?]
 var. of M. rotundifolia). I have it dry & alive from Santa
 Fe, Fendler. But it is M. borealis [?] ex Fries
 [?] - Koch - Babington - see the char. in Babington
 if you have not the other works. Linnaeus confounded 2 species.


 So had you done up the family for Expl. Exped, and not
 found out that Sida malvaeflora & its allies have ascending
 seeds radicle inferior! _ and moreover there is no reason
 for thinking that Lindley's plant is that of DC (Fl. Mex. [?].)
 at all.


 Malva fasciculata = M. [?] 
 I think, but will tell you certainly soon.


 Judging from memory, you have not the real Malva

        