
          But he is not a good critic nor nomenclator, nor Genera-maker!!
his own descr. [description] & fig. [figures] are excellent, not so his discrimination.  He could
have made 25 good  N. Gen in his first Volume, which I must do for
him!  & blended at random the Species, in his Genera Saxifraga, Rhamnus
Senecio, Silene, Trifolium, Phaca, Tanacetum, etc.

He has 100 palpable blunders & omissions in 1st Volume, besides
many more that can only be detected by closer inspection.  Meantime
he has made N. G. in [crossed out:Umbellifera] Crucifera & other families upon the
most trifling characters, yet doesnt admit some of Decandolle etc.

You are his friend & do well to take his part.  I am impartial &
shall render him justice, without being blind to his faults.

As to your Cyperacea it is a fine work, and I wish I could sift
it equaly well.  I fear I cannot.  But certainly you have done me
injustice in stating my Hedychloe 1820! as a synonym of Kyllingia
as if I had changed the name, or knew not K.  While you ought to
have put it as a synonym of [Kyllingia pumila] only!  You know that I
deem stamen in grasses, more essential than bracts [crossed out:& as much} added[which}
we call glumes, or infloresance & reunion of flowers, but your
readers will not know it.  My Hedychloe is a better G. in habit
& character, than Mariscus for instance; but you worship idols &
bow to names.  but I am no idolator! nor respector of blunders.
Thus I shall sadly change all your Genera in due time, leaving you
the merit of assiduity & comparison in N. Species etc.  Nay I have
done so partly already in Neugenyton 1825 of which you take no
notice!  Your Choeto-Cyperus shall be Choetrorchis for me in
spite of your idol Esenbeck: [added:see below] no compound names for me with 1 or 2
syllables added before or behind, nor for Linneus.  Read his philosophia
botanica!  too much neglected nowadays!  Cerate, schenus [Ceratoschoenus] is as bad.
I shall find a good name for it.  The Corex shall be duly cut up into
natural genera in due time if we allow much longer genera of 164
or 270 species, we may as well make the Umbellifera & Crucifera
a single Genus each!  Why dont you? but no idol has set the example.

Meantime there you have a single family of 326 species making
a volume, while the characters of old Sp. are not even given! at this
rate our Flora would fill 10 or 20 volumes[illegible]  Yet it is [crossed out:from][added:on] such
monographs that the science must be based.  Thus I shall give a 
monogr. [monograph] of 100 Gentianea.  You once regretted this increase of species
& new materials, & yet you supply them yourself.  This shows that

[rotate right]
[added: By the by will you admit all his genera of asters?  You laughed at my idea of
dividing asters once!  Yet I have done it & perhaps better than Essenbeck.]
        