
          so far I should be proud to own it, but then the tout ensemble 
of it is so entirely solidagineous that it seems almost to require 
violence to sever it from that genus. A reference to its
pappus would, however, justify this; but can it with equal
propriety be removes from Brachyris? In what respect does
it differ from that genus, as characterized by Nuttall, except in
the number of its paleae? And since you advocate of the natural
order pay so little attention to the number of stamens, why should
you regard this small difference in the mere number of these far
less important appendages? However, be this as it may, I have
a goodly stock of the plant, gather'd in the best stage for examination, 
which I will send you; and will for the present conclude
my remarks on it by observing that should it prove sufficiently
distinct both from Solidago and Brachyris to form a new genus
another individual has a better claim to it than myself. Rafinesque, 
as you are aware, sent specimens of it to Decandolle [De Candolle] in
1824 and although I have less confidence (entre nous) in that 
individual's pretensions than you seem to entertain, still as the original 
discoverer of the plant in question, he is entitled to any 
honor it may confer. I am not aware that any genus has
yet been named after him, and if his admits of being sufficiently
euphonized, by all means crown him with this "golden wreath."

In relation to the North Carolina plant which you refer'd
to in a former letter, I know absolutely nothing except what
you have told me. Should it turn out to be something new
has not Mr. Curtis a better claim to apotheosis from it than
I. He has certainly done much more for the cause of 
Caro [Carolinian]
        