
          Hooker had not received the 8th vol. [volume] of DC. [De Candolle's] Prodr. [Prodromus] in February last 


 Cambridge Monday Morning, 25th March.


 My Dear Friend 


 Yours of the 19th & 20th I have just taken 
 from the P. [Post] Office: I having been detained in town all
 Saturday afternoon & late in the evening. It is astonishing 
 how long letters are coming from New York. As I have 
 a few moments' leisure this morning I will commence 
 my reply, tho' as regards to the Vaccinia, as you 
 have all my notes, I doubt whether I can answer your
 questions, all of them, explicitly. 


 There is no doubt with me that Vac. [Vaccinium] histellum is only 
 a var. [variant] of V. [Vaccinium] dumosum, by no means constant. You find my 
 opinion in the [crossed out: notes?] [added: mss. [manuscript]] on Vaccinieae in your hands. But 
 why do you say the former name is the oldest? Since 
 it was only given in 1811 [added: (Hort. kew. Ed. 2.)[Hortus Kewensis Edition 2]: while V. [Vaccinium] dumosum  Andr. bot. rep. [Andrews's Botanist's repository]
 vol. [volume] 2. was published in 1800. (See a part of a copy in [added: Society] Library of
 New York)


 I believe my mss. [manuscript] states that DC. [De Candolle] has wrongly placed 
 V. [Vaccinium] arboreum in his subdiv. [subdivision] antheris muticis. I had 
 not seen its ripe dry fruit when I wrote. But only young.
 I have since gathered it right. I still think it should 
 best be placed with V. [Vaccinium] stamineum: but the latter might 
 be kept in a separate section, on account of its few seeds, 
 which is the only difference. Nuttall's making them 
 genera is rank nonsense. Nuttall's works in botany 
 with a reckless, dishonest heart, and is of course always 
 doing harm, even when he makes good hits. 


 My observations last summer confirm my conclusion 
 (in mss. [manuscript], which I thought agreed with yours) that V. [Vaccinium] elevatum
 is not distinct. His Florida species is the same 
 thing undeveloped. I have a bit of it within reach in 
 Herb. [Herbarium] Greene.


 Fortunately the 1st vol. [volume] of Lam. dict. [Lamarck's dictionary] (1783) is older than 
 Hort. Kew. ed. 1 [Hortus Kewensis, edition 1] (1789) so that V. [Vaccinium] Pennsylvanicum may have 
 priority. (Lamarck's original character leaves an obscure point;
 but I think we must consider it his.)


 I think the [nassma?] leaved alpine plant, which is 
 V. [Vaccinium] angustifolium, Ait. [Aiton] (& therefore H. Kew. [Hortus Kewensis]) (but not V. [Vaccinium] angustifolium. 
 [Wats. dundr.?] at all) is only a variety. but I am not sure.
        