In your note upon my last " contribution " in June Gardener's Monthly, I see that you have misunderstood me in regard to the South California palms.

Brahea is a genus of Central Mexico, of a single species so far as I know, B. dulcis Mart us. The palm of South California, before much was known about it, was referred by Cooper, and in the Botany of the Mexican Boundary, doubtfully to the same species. When seed was sent to Europe a few years ago,and it began to be cultivated, Wend-land named it Brahea filamentosa, and it was so known by the few who had it, but it was never published or described, and the reference to Brahea was probably merely a guess on the part of Wendland.

When the Guadelupe specimens came (flowers, fruit and foliage), I studied them up as well as opportunites permitted, and was disposed to call it a Livistonia, but sent it toWendland who named it Brahea edulis, as I have published it. I still think, however, that I was more nearly right, but with deference to Wendland's authority named the second species from the Tantillas mountains in Lower California, Brahea armata, as it was certainly of the same genus with the Guadalupe species.

But if these two are Braheas, what is the old San Diego species? If you had represented me as saying that it is not a Brahea you would have hit it exactly, for in describing the differences in the fruit I intended that that should be inferred-And, in fact, since my paper appeared I learn that Wendland has transferred it to Pritchardia, and that the plant is now for sale under the Catalogue name of P. filamentosa, or as some have it, P. filifera; see May number of the Garden, with a (made up) figure.

Both Dr. Parry and Dr. Palmer are looking into the matter of the palms of our Western coast, and I trust that we will have more perfect knowledge of them by the time that the second volume of the Flora of California is ready for publication.