Thanks Smith for 'Carex incurva'. Received 'Thlaspi hirtum' of "Fl[ora] Ang[lica]" from [Dawson] Turner, it is possibly 'Thlaspi vaccaria' of Ray "Syn[opsis methodica]" 305.5, believes Hudson wrong. [Thomas] Woodward and himself believe Linnaeus wrong in 'Ligusticum cornubiense' because of cramped figure in Ray's "Synopsis". Summarises his observations on the 'Mentha' genus, as transmitted to Edward Forster junior: [William] Hudson correct on 'Mentha sativa' and 'M. gentilis' but wrong on 'M. sylvestris' and 'M. villosa'; 'M. arvensis'; makes other observations including comparisons across Linnaeus, [John] Ray, [William] Withering, and [Johann Adam] Pollich. Hopes for figure of Edward Forster's 'Mentha sativa' next autumn, concedes it is too late for 'Saxifraga oppositifolia'.

Thanks for '[Mentha] exigua', on comparing it with 'Mentha pulegium' convinced it is idential to Linnaeus' one [Smith has briefly annotated one of Pitchford's observations], believes he will have to give up his description of 'Mentha' on account of not being able to settle how to distinguish them. Believes it impossible to get a new species out of variations of leaf in 'Mentha gentilis' as Edward Forster has claimed to do with ['Mentha exigua'], and that [Thomas] Woodward is also wrong supposing it a rediscovery of [John] Ray's 'Mentha aquatica exigua', believes 'M. exigua' is simply 'M. pulegium'. Condolonces to Smith family on their loss. Asks [James] Sowerby to send Sir William Jerningham [6th Baronet (1736-1809)] "English Botany" from number 24 onwards.

Discusses whether 'Mentha exigua' is distinct from 'Mentha pulegium' with observations on a specimen received from Sutton, a letter from [Thomas] Woodward on it, and comparison of the calyx. Fears Dr Lubbock has typhus.