
          With regard to the little Iris which I sent you, you
request me to state in what respects it differs from
I. pumila. I believe I mentioned that my description
was somewhat imperfect from the circumstances that
it was drawn up some time after the specimens
were dried, & at a time when I had no specimens
containing fruit — However, the chief points of difference
that appeared to me to exist when comparing the
dried specimens were as follows— In the plant which
I have taken for I. pumila, the flower-bearing stem,
(scape as is is called by some,) has a single pair of equitant
leaves which are situated near its base— the flower is
solitary & terminal-tube of the perianth short [insert: divisions bearded—] While
in my Virginia plant, the flower-bearing stem has
several alternate sheathing leaves — flowers usually
two in number, though occasionally only one as in
the specimen I sent you—tube of the perianth very
long (about 2 inches,) & slender, almost filiform — divisions
of the perianth not bearded— It would seem from the
alternate sheathing leaves of the flower-bearing stem, that
the normal form of the inflorescence of my plant would
be a spike if fully developed — In general the leaves
of this plant are broader & shorter than those of I. pumila.
I do not recollect of ever having noticed in any other
species of Iris those barren leafy stems or branches which
are so abundant in this plant
        