
          canons are little observed in modern nomenclature: and
yet Linnaeus's seem undeniably correc.
But I must conclude. I remain dear sir
most respectfuly + truly yours
E Tuckerman [?]

To Prof. Torrey
New York

PS
I found with "Trichelostylis mucronata "from Louisiana" a little plant - which after
some study I think may be "Isolepis carinata" of your Cyp. It is small, capillary - leaves
with sheaths - the spike "growing from the side of the culm about half an inch below
the summit" - the scales gibbous - & the nut papillated - + triangular. I mention this
since, as it evident it got in by accident, I am not sure you can spare it.
I believe bowever I will venture to return you my thanks for it: especially
as I see by my invaluable copy of the Cyp. by one of the MS. notes you have so kind
ly added, that you have rec'd this Isolepis form "many parts of Louisiana". This is the
way I suppose it got in. But am I wrong in considering it Isolepis carinata?
        