
          Chesterfield 21 May 23

Sir

Having dispatched a sheet by [Mr. Lupton?] I begin a new one by expressing a wish
to see a specimen of Pyrus [crossed out: ?] ovalis Willd. ii. 1013 in fruit with leaves, being 
inclined to think Michaux must be right in calling it a var. [variety] of P. botryap. [botryapium] w. Ih. b. examining.

5 June
I long to see Trollius americanus. Dec. i. 313, at least a flower to dissect.
"Ilex canadensis Michaux" seems to belong to Winterlia Moench. mast. i. 7 & I hope you
will find it a better specific name than canadensis. What think you of [filipes?] We wait
for a reform of Ilex & Prinos [added: from you,] but I hope you will not divide them from sexual differences].
If I am right in my specimens of P. verticillatus  follii sublus pubescentibus, Prinos. fron. ed. [added: Clay. a]
i & ii can hardly be the plant. Willd. [added: indeed?] en. i. 394 makes P. vert. glabrous & P. padifolius pubs. pubesent
then the latter is described fol. [Crassi?] obtussis! My P. glaber has fol. vitigenrmina.

Nothing excites my astonishment respecting the distribution of plants [added: so much] as the absence of Betula
alba in the American flora. It makes me suspect that Michaux's nana must be [?].
I suspect Pursh [inserted?] [crossed out: ?] nana on the authority of Michaux, & [crossed out: says] [added: adding] that [crossed out: the specimen] he had seen
a dried specimen [added: of the plant] in Mr. Lamberts herbar. [herbarium]

"Ranunculus fascicularis". Dec. i. 291 from Big. [Bigelow] who describes Mifoliola triloba &
laccinia [crossed out: in term] terminalis to ipactito-prinatifida, & latrales trilobae, not in yr. [your] Specimens.
You may say also [added: in Your Flora] whether the phylla are adsurfra.[added: corollae]

"Ranunculus filiformis" Michaux I consider with you [crossed out: & De Candolle] to be scpt. L. which
I hold to be a variety of R. Flammula. I hope you will be able to compare the ripe fruit.
"Aronia latifolia" cannot be Linnaeus's Siberian plant. Does gracilis accord with
the growing plant. Pursh does not say whether Banks's plant was American or Siberian.
"Cerastium amurense" is our plant. Why Pursh wrote "oblufis bofi cilial,"I cannot guess.
Perhaps what he examined was [crossed out: the] B of Bot. m. m. Wahl. carp. says also "obtusinculis."
& Linn. [added: [Vosscona?]] [crossed out: ?] obtussis"! which is not the case with all that that I have examined dried or recent.
Are Wohl. & Shreng. copyists! Scop. long ago said "Fol. non sunt obtussa." i. 321, & Moench.
macb. i. 221. [crossed out: ?] [added: [reaposts it under the form of] the pleonasm of "linnean-lanceolatis acutis."  I shall be obliged to you for
a specimen in ripe fruit. Ours seldom if ever produces more than the seed in a capsule.
[crossed out: ?][added: [crossed out: ?]] the reference to Naill. ii. C. re repeas. L. sh. & Hort. kew. co. tt. iii. 136 [crossed out: ?]
is [crossed out: ?] erroneous, as evident from fig. d. of Vaill. 30. f. 5., as I have long ago remarked in Bot. am. co. II. i. L. 78
[crossed out: ?][added: [crossed out: ?]] "Poa newata Willd." is a beautiful little
thing. Would it not be better to call it Septinovis in which case the name is almost a specific character
though such are phylla Septinovia in Poa equal.

"Briza canad. [candensis]" Michaux i.71 which I received from Dr. Cutler I named Poa glabra not having
then discovered the peduncles to be scabrous perceptibly [added: so] only by a microscope or [added: very] good lens. I will
venture to say it is P. aqualica. Pursh i 80. Michaux's plant found by you & D. C. in N. Engl. &
N. York could hardly escape the searching eye of the American [James] Petiver. My name won't do. I find
the leaves to be scabrous. The epithet brizoides is preoccupied. Will it bear the name of inclinous
or may it not merit the application of glabriflora.If you correspond with Mr Nuttall you may
learn whether the descr. in the errata p. 11 is made from the same plant as the descr. at i. 69 note, & also 
whether at p.69 of h.1 "virens?" means that B. virens has been supposed to be anal. of N. America, or
whether the conjectures B. virens Wll, Parsh i.82 to be the same plant with B. canad. Michaux. I long to
examine some of the Poa & Briza eragrostis of America.

"Poa reptans" Michaux i. 69. vii agrees with [Muhl?] but not with the character of "minati" some
"pubens"; nor is "cafut. sub casuit. falc." characteristic, nor are the spikes to be called long, nor
the flowers [subaristate?] I like Lamarcks name in Pess. ench. i.91. n. L 8 & Rocm. & Schull. ii. 589
of P. hyproides, but then the female spikes, are described "50 - 60 floris", long indeed. [crossedout: ?] The
spikes are microscopically [pubescent?]. His editor perhaps misunderstood Michaux. M. 
Ns expression of "Ambiguous Sh." is ambiguous indeed. If you correspond with him I shall hope to know
whether he considers it as a variation of some of the others. But your flora will I hope remove all ambiguities.

"Trichodium laxiflor." Michaux i. le2. t. 8 is Agrostis scabra L. also for this is as well as Agrostis
anomala L. also has a [added: diphyllous] calyx, though the inner phyllum is minute. These scarcely differ & are
probably varieties. You who have been both growing can better judge. I once cultivated A. anomala.
In your Flora I hope to read at what period of its growth it has the panicula divaricate of Michaux's fig.
Is Walker or Frazer the empiric alluded to by Mr. Nuttall. We call Richardson an enthusiast.
"Lenina asundinacea." & is Agrostis Cinina. Willd. enum. i. 95. I will say what I think it is before I
close my letter.

Agrostis americana. L. [crossed out: ?] is a different plant from Calamagrostis menicana. Nutt. i. le 6.
        