Our spring is tardy, after a wintry March. Only snowdrops yet out in the Garden, and those in the sunniest place, a lot which I brought with me from England. For primroses we have to look into a cold frame, in which they, with violets, have been blossoming all the latter part of the winter. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. November 15, 1870. MY DEAR DE CANDOLLE,--Many thanks for your most kind letter of the 24th October. Taken along with one from Mr. Bentham of about the same date, it gives me tidings of several of our French confrères, who are now in such great tribulation. What a change since last year, since last summer even; and for Mrs. Gray and me, how fortunate that we had our visit made and over before the deluge! And what can be the end, and when? It is useless to conjecture. And now there is fear that while Germany is holding the Gallic wolf by the ears,--a situation growing daily more uncomfortable and dangerous for Prussia, and England is left quite alone,--Russia is to take a step forward in the Black Sea, etc., which will greatly vex England and Austria, and perhaps send the torch of war all over Europe; and if all closes up soon Europe will feel this powerful Germany. But it may be the better for Switzerland, whose danger is always from France. It used to make me uneasy and indignant to see the French flag on the shore of your Lake, where it has no business to be! The Caruel[86] pamphlet reached me to-day. To the first question the answer is simple and easy. About the second, there is perhaps more to be said. As the publication of a name without a character goes for nothing, why should the dubious proposal of a name with a hypothetical character go for more? And suppose the suggested character does not prove true, and a genus afterwards be founded well upon the same species with a good character, and under another name, must that give place to the conditional name, etc.? Vain the endeavor to settle every such little question by the terms of any positive enactment. One thing I see, that is, that our solitary point of disagreement will erelong disappear. The fact of the publication of a certain name, at a certain date and a certain place, being the main thing, the form (and I add the agent) of publication being a subsidiary consideration, I think you will come to agree that, _e. g._, names proposed by Fischer and published in his name by De Candolle, must be said to be Fischer’s, and cited, in the last resort, as, _e. g._, “A. dasyglottis, Fisch. in DC.,” just as I write “Phlox rigida, Benth. in DC.” For all the rest, I think I agree with you fully. I perfectly agree that, _e. g._, “Diceratium Lag.” is correct only as a generic name, that “Sect. Diceratium DC.” is the only correct way. I myself and others have not followed this proper course always in former times; but should do so hereafter.... Believe me to remain as ever, most cordially yours, ASA GRAY. TO R. W. CHURCH. CAMBRIDGE, October 14, 1870.