
          Will you also send in letter a single perigynium from each 
of these plants

C. Wilkesii Torr. [Carex wilsonii Torr.] N.S. Ex. Ex.[New States?][Exploring Expedition] Lower Sacramento Cal [California]
C. Jamesii Doct [Doctor] James in Long. 1st Ex. [Expedition]

Although Doct [Doctor] Boott in Ill. has given a very correct figures
of the perigyniua of C. Jamesii [Carex jamesii], he did not judging by his
letter seem to fully understand the plant as so late in
Apr 1865 he named for Bower No. 218, a plant with
upright glaucous leaves, [?] sheaths & entire perigynia
[drawing: perigynia] C. Jamesii [Carex Jamesii]. This and some other found found near San
Francisco. I [without?] much doubt refer C. [shicta?]
Goos (nub of Lurn nw C. angulata Boott..[Carex angulata]

I shall soon be ready to name the seven doubtful
specimens New Mexican Cal 7c.[etc.] that I sent back
without placing in any specie [?] acutae group.

I have been perhaps too blind a follower of Doct [Doctor] Boott
in Carex. The lumping process exhibited by him in Part IV
ie. Carex vulgaris would diminish species very largely
but what gain would there be in this? The smoothness
or hispidness of the sheathing leaves of the culm is between
C. stricta Good [Carex stricta Good] & C. senta Boott [Carex senta Boott] so late as Apr 1863 &
earlier between C. Hitchcockiana [Carex Hitchcockiana] & oligocarpa [Carex oligocarpa], and the
geographical range of a plant ie. page [173?] between
C. stricta Good [Carex stricta Good] & C. angulata Boott [Carex angulata Boott] seems to have more
weight with him in discriminating species than the 
[part?] or perigynia.
        