Discusses English 'Mentha': received 'Mentha villosa' [Hudson] "Fl[ora] Ang[lica]" from [Samuel] Goodenough which confirms that 'Mentha villosa' [Ray] "Syn[opsis methodica]" 233.1 is not the true one and is probably related to 'Mentha viridis', sends specimen to Smith and makes his own observations, asks how Linnaeus has marked it and 'Mentha verticillata' in his copy of Ray's book. Requests specimen of 'Mentha sativa'; asks if Ray's 'Mentha verticillata' is same as Linnaeus'; [John] Lightfoot found only 'Mentha gentilis' around Hackney and Peckham, encloses a Norfolk specimen of it [extant]. Lightfoot believes 'Mentha viridis' is related to 'Mentha sylvestris'. Believes botanists might be wrong to disregard the length of 'Mentha' stamina.

[On separate folio] Further observations on [William] Hudson's descriptions of 'Mentha villosa', 'M. sylvestris and 'M. rotundifolia', 'M. aquatica', 'M. gentilis', 'M. arvensis', and 'M. satvia'.

Specimen of 'Mentha gentilis', label states it is from William Sole.

Discouraged by Smith's mention of the difficulties of settling the mints, but not yet abandoning his intention; sending Smith all his specimens, discusses 'Mentha sativa', 'M. gentilis', 'M. exigua', 'M. villosa', and 'M. sylvestris'.

Compliments to [James] Sowerby, intends to take his "little work" ["English botany"], "the botanist searches in vain for something to feast upon". Compliments Smith's "Icones pictae" but unable to purchase it. Encloses two 'Squilla' for determination.

Believes the specimens of [William] Hudson's 'Mentha villosa' he received from [Samuel] Goodenough are 'Mentha sylvestris', confirmed by Linnaeus and Ray in "Historiae plantarum"; further observations on it. Received 'Mentha sativa' from Bath from Goodenough, who believes Pitchford's garden 'M. satvia' is 'M. gentilis'. Confusion over figures of 'M. sylvestris' and other 'Mentha' species in "the old authors" Hudson, [John] Gerard [(1545-1612)], [John] Ray, and [John] Parkinson [(1567-1650)]. Has thirteen customers for [James] Sowerby's work [presumably "English Botany"], and one for [James] Dickson's "Plan[tarum] Crypt[ogamicarum]". Dickson sent him '[Acrostichum] ilvense', thinks it different from the Swedish specimen. Will consult [William] Sole on 'Mentha'. Received 'Sium repens' from Dr Randolph of Oxford, found by [John] Sibthorp, new to England, asks if it is also a new Linnaean one.

Returns Smith's 'Mentha gentilis', believes it the plant of Linnaeus and wild although [Edmund] Davall not as as specific as he would wish, makes his own observations including reference to [John] Ray's "Hist[oriae plantarum]", only needs to see [Philip] Miller's 'M. gentilis' and 'M. sativa' specimens to complete his work. Observations on the 'M. corolla', believes it will help distinguish most species. Observations on Smith's notes of the different specimens: 'M. arvensis', 'M. sativa', 'M. sylvestris', 'M. rotundifolia', 'Menthiastic aquatici'; hopes [Samuel] Goodenough has conceded that his 'Mentha villosa' is 'M. sylvestris'; further observations on these in postscript. Explains errors is Fuschius' figures. Thanks Smith for specimen of 'Schoenus ferrugineus'. Miller's 'Mentha gentilis'.

Disputes the 'Mentha' Smith and Goodenough determined as 'M. sativa'; convinced that all 'Mentha' can be found both hairy and smooth on the underleaf depending on soil and situation; discussion of other 'Mentha' including 'M. arvensis', 'M. gentilis', M. rotundifolis', 'M. sylvestris', 'M. villosa'; desires to see [Edmund] Davall's specimens and to hear from [William] Hudson on subject.

Pleased to hear that [Samuel] Goodenough now concedes that the Linnaeus' 'Carex caespitosa' is the same as the London 'C. caespitosa'. Requests specimen of 'Cerastium alpinum'. Congratulates Smith on escape from fire at the Pantheon, [Oxford Street, London].

[Note on separate piece of paper] an article in January [1792] edition of "Monthly Magazine" proposes an explanation for the formation of "fairy rings", brief summary.

Concerned to hear of weak state of [William] Hudson; intends to write to him on subject of 'Mentha villosa', which needs to be "fully cleared up", as does 'M. sylvestris'; observations, including on differences in length of stamina depending on condition; 'M. gentilis'. Thanks Smith for mentioining his name to a Parisian Natural History Society who sent him a prospectus for a new periodical work.

Congratulates Smith on appointment as the Queen's [Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744-1818)] botanist, pleased he will have opportunity to look over [John] Lightfoot's plants; errors for Smith to look out for in his letters to Lightfoot, if they are extant, including on 'Carex' and 'Salix'.

Notes on Lightfoot's confounding of 'C. caespitosa' with 'C. recurva'.

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.

Remarks on the 'Carex laevigata' Smith gave him this morning: may be [William] Hudson's 'C. inflata', observations. Criticises [Samuel] Goodenough's quoting of Hudson's 'C. inflata' for his 'C. vescicaria'. Offers Smith specimens of 'C. axillaris'.

Arrangements for [Charles] Bryant [(d 1799)] to be paid for the collection of grasses Bryant is sending [Samuel] Goodenough. He has corresponded with Goodenough on Linnaeus' 'Carex actua', they have found it is his 'C. stricata'; observations. Condolences to Smith on death of François [Borone].

Congratulates Smith on his marriage. [James] Crowe has lent him his herbarium, but there are "very few good things" as he was so liberal in giving to his friends and unenthusiastic about collecting, though the cryptogamics are more valuable, mostly from [James] Dickson. Visited by [Henry] Bryant, who gave him 'Lichen miniatus', and who has a number of cryptogamic plants for Smith. No longer has any objections to joining the Linnean Society.