Dear old D,

I scarce ventured to hope to see you here.¹

Are you sure that your B. unguis is rightly named? There are no limits to the misplacement of labels amongst gardeners.²

Scott is off & I hope happily— my only fear is that he is a timid man, but I am sure he ought to & will do well— I saw too little of him, being overwhelmed with work.³

I am very sure that it is not worth your while nor expedient for you to answer Kollicker.⁴ It would not be dignified for the author of so great a book to enter into a discussion upon it in a weekly periodical— You cannot fancy Lyell answering an attack on the principles of the Principles in such an ephemeral periodical— (No offence to the Reader which I like & approve).⁵ Kollicker is extraordinary weak—& his grounds preoccupied— Then too Owen may attack him for taking his idea up, & a pretty duel ensue.⁶ No my dear old D. let it alone. I should not object to a third party answering it.—but in truth it is not worth answering. It is a sort of article of which no one will recollect the arguments after 6 days.

If you do run down to Kew on Thursday afternoon or evening you will find Falconer, G. Wallich & H. Christy⁷ in the Gardens who eat at my house at 7 PM.

I spent as usual a delightful Sunday with Lubbock—which is my “little Down”.⁸

Ever yrs | J D Hooker

Referring to Herb^m. I find that young states of 2 or 3 sp. (allies of unguis) may be confounded with B. unguis—& that without Flower it would be difficult to identify them.⁹