
          Recd. [Received] Sept. 20th


 Philadelphia, Septr. 18.38. [September 18, 1838.] 


 Dear Sir,


 You do not say, but must no doubt have
 received the missing manuscript of Leguminosae. Rhamnus
 Shortii has oval-lanc. [lanceolate] leaves conspicuously acuminate not merely
 acute. "[Sabtus? scuberculileus?]" and the form of the leaves applies equaly [equally]
 to R. [Rhamnus] [candlei?] of wh [which] in Herb. Schw. [Herbarium Schweinitz] it stands as a variety. could
 Pursh have been so drunk as also to forget to notice that the
 fls. [flowers] are not umbellated, merely agregate. Upon the whole Phs. [Pursh's] plant
 seems to me very nearly a nonentity. of Ceanothus. it is necessary
 to see a larger suit of specimens, than are before you, probably
 to decide on their distinctive species. The 2 species allied
 to cuneatus, (macrocarpus and tuberculosus,) you will find occupy
 different geographic ranges. the latter 3 or 4° south of macrocarpus
 The tubercles on the stem with serrated leaves are constant in the
 one, not in the other. The protuberances on the fruit, like
 all other marks occupy a relative value with each other
 the fruit, of course, being in the same state. I think from all I
 have seen, the Ceanothi, now proposed, will be found quite as
 distinct, (one or two perhaps excepted) as any now printed.


 I, of course, knew nothing about Spach's paper, & must
 adopt his Aesculus californicus [Aesculus californica] (§. Pavia)
        