
          Dr John Torrey
Philadelphia 1st May 1819
New York

Dear Friend

I have rec'd [received] yours of the 24th April & your catalogue.  I am sorry that you should
not be better acquainted with post office regulations; by enclosing several slips of the
Vicia mitchelli in yr [your] letter (which I did not require, as I wished you to send it with the
other plants) I have been charged treble postage ! and the plant has been broken to
pieces in the bargain.  2y [Secondly] It was useless to unbind yr [your] catalogue, since bound books
are carried by the Mail at the same rate than sheet books, paying by the sheets.

I have wrote you two letters, the first on a whole sheet by mail, thesecond by
a friend who has put it in the N.Y. post-office.  You do not answer all the parts of
my first letter, [crossed out:yet as] nor tell me that you rec'd [received] it, but as you answer some parts
I conclude you have got it in due time.

I have perused yr. [your] Catalogue with much pleasure, the elaborate synonymical
part is valuable, and the notes a real addition to knowledge.  You must be well aware
however that I cannot approve of the mistakes & blunders already criticised in Pursh
& Nuttall, such for instances as the abominable name Epifagus exactly in the same
predicament than Ammyrsine, nor Spartina, nor Smilacina, etc.  I have no objection
to stand [crossed out:as][added:among the] synonyms where it ought to be, but I ought to have been quoted as author
of the species in Callitriche terrestris, which I was the first to describe & yet I am not
mentioned at all ! & so on.  What astonishes me most, is the omission of may well
known New York plants, & among them all my new ones lately described in the 
M Magaz. except the Lemna dimidiata, although some were comunicated [communicated] to you
and for the others, if my eyes are not to be deemed as good as yours [crossed out:you must][added:you ought then to] allow
me, or any body else, if willing, to doubt [added:also] of your own accuracy.  Why omit my beautiful
Asclepias maritima so common near Grovesend? my Atriplex dioica & my
Atriplex mucronata which was published before A. arenaria (Atriplex arenaria] of Nuttall although the
same plant!  My fine distinction of the N sp [new species] of Euphorbia, Arabis, Turritis, Celtis
etc are unnoticed, yet you have an Euph. depress [Euphorbia depressa] without quoting any author, which
is perhaps my E. supina [Euphorbia supina] !  You have many plants of the Highlands  & omit my
Spirea obovata etc.  I think I could make out a small suplement [supplement] to your Catale [catalogue]
of abt [about] 100 species.  I may send it to [crossed out:the] Silliman's, for publication if I find leasure [leisure]

I wish I knew on whose authority you have blended my Vicia mitchelli [Vicia michelli] with the
Ervum hirsutum of Europe [added:How & from whence did you get the ? how did you not see] [crossed out:Ho must have been blind not to] see the bearded stigma of my
Vicia?  here are the comparative distinctions of the two plants, see flora Danica, etc

Ervum hirsutum
Stigma smooth! leaves linear  obtuse.
Calix and corolla smooth, seeds globose
pods pendulous etc

Vicia mitchelli
Stigma bearded underneath! leaves oblong cuneate
retuse mucronate, calix pilvia, vexillum
hairy, pods nodding, seeds lenticular or rather
slightly con?

        