Botanic Gardens, Melbourne,
18. October 1853
Sir
The departure of his Excellency Governor Latrobe to England, an event which I deeply regret, affords me an opportunity of forwarding some collections, manuscripts and at lenght an answer to your kind letter,1 which has been to me the source of great delight, not only for the benignant judgement of some of my labours, but also for the manyfold encouragements, which it contained. I have to thank you like-wise, Sir William, for the publication of the two general articles2 on the Australian Flora as well as for the transmission of your last valuable report, regarding the progress of your far famed gardens.3
I regret that, pressed by the want of time, I can not extend this communication as far as I desired, but I considered it more essential to finish for transmission to you, Sir William, this time as much manuscript on our flora as I could. It was my original plan to give of all yet undescribed plants an ample description; but after the Thalamiflorae, Corolliflorae and some Monochlamydeae were in this manner elaborated I perceived that I would be obliged to abandon the task this year, and either leave a considerable part of my collections untouched, or to adopt, as I did, a more speedy plan of operation. I have, accordingly, to get a clearer general view of our vegetation entered with regard to Calyciflorae part of Monochlamydeae, Monocotyledoneae & Acotyledoneae only into a more superficial examination for the purpose of drawing up an Index of what I had discovered this year.
Considering that this office was entrusted to me, when already the best part of the flower-season had passed,4 and that I was before only able to devote a spare hour now and then to my botanical pursuits, I trust, that you will be not quite uncontent with what is accomplished this year. I hope further that my next six-months expedition, for which I am preparing now, will bring the greatest part of the Victoria-Flora into my possession, and that by the ample means, which his Excellency has been pleased to devote to this journey, I shall have an opportunity of collecting on a larger scale, as I could before. I beg you will excuse, that amongst the specimens many are wanting, which are enumerated in my report.5 This had its reason either in the flower- and fruitless state of many plants at the time when I observed them, enabling me only to write their names down in my journal, or they had been previously collected by me in South Australia and were therefore not procured once more this first year. A considerable number of Duplicates from this Colony has been long before my appointment sent away to Dr Sonder on account of the want of room.
This collections as well as Mr Stuarts Tasmanian and my own extensive South Australian will be, I trust, of particular interest to you, and if Dr J. Hooker could spare a week or two for a trip to Hamburgh, I feel convinced, that out of Mr Charles Stuarts herbarium he would receive ample additional materials for his Flora of V. D. L.,6 and it will cause me great pleasure, if Dr Hooker will select a specimen of all those plants, which are of interest or new to him for your collections, may they be from Tasmania, N. Zealand or this continent.
My numerous letters besides to Dr Sonder7 will enable this gentleman to give ample information on many species. Had not, most unfortunately a large set of manuscripts been lost in the wreck of the Sir R. Peel8 there would have been published by this time diagnoses of all new V. D. L and S. Australian plants. Some few descriptions of them I have restored this year from my scattered notes and I think the might be very properly annexed to the Victoria plants in the manner, as Mr Bentham has given publication to some of Bauers in Huegel enumeration.9
With regard to the transmitted manuscripts I beg to observe, that all those parts, on which you, Sir William, may have some scruples, should be for the present omitted from publication, and for this reason I have not numbered the pages, which always easily could be arranged in the printing office according to the Index, which accompanies my report.10
How much I diverge in my opinion on the limits of many species will be proved by the numerous reductions. In nearly all this instances I either possess or have seen a complete series of intermediate specimens or I was according to the best of my believe, entitled to my conclusions by clear analogies. In the same degree as I continue to watch the indigenous plants in their polymorphous state, in the same manner I become convinced that in all natural orders the species are multiplied far above their natural limits. Reichenbach once observed, that if a certain species of his were not acknowledged, 20 000 others must be also abolished and he has, I think, spoken the truth against his intention.
I must further candidly confess, that I think Dunals last 900 Solana would be more naturally collected in 500 species.11 —
No one can feel better than myself, how much my notes must be improved yet year after year or even before they pass through the press here and there by your masterhand; still I confidently hope, that I shall enjoy the indulgence of the botanists, as I stand here perfectly alone, without any aid, only scantily provided with books, without access to authentic specimens and even without a magnifying-glass, powerful enough to examine the anther appendices of Angianthea or the Embryon of many Pittosporae. In South Australia I was generally so little at liberty to pay attention to our favourite science, that for the sake of a general classification I was sometimes obliged to abstain from very special examinations and during the first years of my stay there I was also not aware, that your celebrated son had already described so many Tasmanian plants, which I believed to be unknown. But of all what I have written up to this time I can say truely it is my own; for I received only remarks from Dr Sonder on hardly more than a dozen of species, chiefly Compositae, having not yet received his monographia of my Compositae, which will be surely exquisite.12 I have however certainly to give additional remarks to their descriptions.
I beg to give an enumeration of those works, which were here to my command for my researches, as I would take the liberty in asking from your great kindness, to order for me such as would prove invaluable for me in the continuation of my labours. I possess: Kunth. en I-IV, R Br. I-V, Mitch. trop. Austr., DC prodr. I-XIII, DC syst. I-II, Walp. Sys. I-VI, Walp. ann. I-II, III 1-4, Hook. Lond. journ I, (1842), Hueg. enum, G. Don gen syst I-IV, Lehm pl. Preiss I-II. Pers. syn. I-II, Koch syn I-III — To vol. I-IV of the first series of your valuable journal and to vol. I-IV of your beautiful icones, in possession of a friend I have access. What I above all require, are the papers written by Asa Gray and by Turczaninow on Drummonds Compositae, then the 5th vol of Kunths enum, and all new special papers on Australian botany.13 If you, Sir William, would send a requisition of these to some of your booksellers, that they may forward them to a merchants house here, to which I could pay the amount, I would feel deeply obliged; and I would certainly thus receive them much quicker as from the continent.
Of the diagnoses which I have forwarded this time, a few have been also send to Hamburg last year; but even if these should have been published by Dr Sonder, I think they might be well reprinted in any of your esteemed periodicals, to have the series of communications on the Victoria Flora complete in one work. Amongst the rarities, which I have send this time, two lay more on my heart; i.e. Grevillea Victoriae and Basileophyta Friderici Augusti.14 The first is the most brilliant shrub, that I ever discovered (12' high and higher and I would venture to adorn it as a token of my loyality with the name of our most gracious Majesty, should this step be honored by the Queens sanction. The second is a most singular plant, but of which beauty the dried specimens convey only a very unsufficient idea. Should it not have been described after Nees Monographia15 appears I would feel exceedingly proud if Dr J. Hooker would spare an hour for giving an analysis to the drawing, which has been prepared by Mr Bateman, a splendid artist.16
The enclosed letter to the King of Saxony is intended to pray for his Majesty's permission, that his royal name might be bestowed on the plant and I would humbly desire that this letter accompanied by a dried specimen through the Ambassador should be forwarded and after his Majesty's consent a copy of the printed description and an illustration should be transmitted.17
I have despatched to Dr Sonder also lately a set of duplicates from my last journey, to be distributed occasionally and respectively amongst monographers, but I have send no manuscripts, being by no means content, that so many errors occurred in the printing of my diagnoses in the Linnaea (where for instance Picrophyta received instead of a 5-parted calyx a fourparted one).18 But as you Sir William, as well as your great son and the ingenious Bentham and Lindley are so fully occupied, I think it will be desirable that Dr Sonder or Prof. Kuetzing should describe the Algae and Mr Hampe the Mosses and Lichens,19 and I feel sure, that these gentlemen will be happy to communicate their observations to that periodical of yours, into which you will be pleased to receive my notes.
Dr J Hooker will assuredly be agreably surprised, that I succeeded in discovering so many of his Tasmanian plants also in this continent and even a species of his antarctic Anisotome. On the identity of my Symphyomera Filicula with his I have some doubts, having not yet seen the Tasmanian plant. Should it show important differences, please let it be called S. Hookeri. My Tecoma Latrobei will be most likely drawn to Tecoma Australis, for which I shall be so very sorry as I have named it in acknowledgement of the kind support I received from my patron.20 I had, when I first named this plant no idea, that it is so extremely variable as I afterwards found it to be.
The intricate genus Eucalyptus requires great attention yet, and I think it is almost impossible to discriminate many species well without studiing them in this country. I have a great desire of preparing a monographia of this genus,21 could I only get authentic specimens. Could Dr J. Hooker spare some months for finishing such a monographia I will devote as much time to their investigation as I possibly can. Mr [Swain]son22 has been engaged in their examination for years; but our views with regard to the limits of the species diverge so wi[dely]23 that we could not cooperate, as I otherwise would have sincerely desired.24
Amongst my ferns occurs a Polypodium new to me but very likely described by Dr J Hooker in the Flora of N. Zeeland, as it is native of that island too. I called it P. Kippistianum as a warm acknowledgement for the trouble this obliging gentleman took in translating so beautifully the two papers of mine.25
I shall feel greatly indebted to Mr Bentham who kindly undertook to describe my Leguminosae if he would send me some copies of my papers thereon for distribution.26
I have the honor to subscribe myself,
Sir William, your most
admiring and devoted servant
Ferd Mueller
Sir W. Hooker, K. H. &c &c
I beg to enclose the berry of Basileophyta Friderici Augusti, praying Dr J Hooker would examine the position of the embryo, as I have in vain tried to come to safe conclusion. My magnifying glass proved this time to be not powerful enough. Should the generic name of Cryptostemon already exist, I would propose its being altered in Strumistylus.27
Perhaps his Excellency the Saxonian Ambassador would oblige me, by conveying his majesty's resolution regarding the Basileophyta to you, Sir William, so that the least possible delay may be caused for giving publicity to that interesting plant.28
Acotyledoneae
Angianthus
Anisotome
Basileophyta Friderici
Augusti
Calyciflorae
Compositae
Corolliflorae
Eucalyptus
Grevillea Victoriae
Leguminosae
Monochlamydeae
Monocotyledoneae
Picrophyta
Pittosporum
Polypodium Kippistianum
Solanum
Symphyomera Filicula
Symphyomera Hookeri
Tecoma Australis
Tecoma Latrobei
Thalamiflorae
W. Hooker to M, 15 June 1853. La Trobe had submitted his resignation in December 1852. When M wrote the present letter he was about to depart on his second botanical exploration as Government Botanist, and he would have expected La Trobe to have left the colony long before he returned to Melbourne. In the event, however, La Trobe was not relieved of duty at once and was not able to sail for England until 6 May 1854. See also M to W. Hooker, 28 April 1854.
B53.03.01 and B53.04.02.
This report has not been positively identified, but a new edition of the 'popular guide' had been issued as W. Hooker (1852), the preface of which, dated 1 August 1852, emphasises the rapid development of the Gardens.
M was appointed on 26 January 1853; see W. Lonsdale to M, 26 January 1853.
B53.10.01.
Van Diemen's Land. J. Hooker (1860), of which the first fascicle was published in 1855.
Letters not found.
In M to A. Gray, 6 June 1854, M recalled that Sir Robert Peel was wrecked on the 'Capcoast' in 1851. The port of Cape Coast Castle in present-day Ghana is referred to in some sources as 'Cap-coast' or 'Kapcoast'. The barque Sir Robert Peel was advertised to carry mail to Great Britain by 'Batavia and Overland' (South Australian gazette, 20 November 1851, p. 2) and sailed from Adelaide for Batavia on 22 November (South Australian gazette, 20 November 1851, p. 2), but there is no record of its having been wrecked or stranded. There is evidence of another vessel of that name carrying a letter postmarked 18 June 1851 'Per Blue Belle via Cape Town' and then on the steamer Sir Robert Peel from Cape Town, arriving in London on 10 November (postal history auction report, https://www.spink.com/lot/20040000091, accessed 15 May 2026). Blue Belle left Adelaide on the date of the postmark (South Australian register, 19 June 1851, p. 2). If, as M told Gray, the shipment was lost in 1851, the departure date of June would be more consistent with the reported content of his letter to W. Sonder, 1 August 1853, that the manuscripts had been put together during some months', than in November, when M would have just returned from his long collecting trip to the Flinders Ranges (Grandison (1990)). However, while the steamer Sir Robert Peel did experience trouble in 1851 in Sierra Leonne, this was on its outward journey from London to Cape Town ('Arrival of the Sir Robert Peel', London evening standard, 10 November 1851, p. 3), when it would not have been carrying mail from Adelaide.
If M was mistaken in the year of the loss, and it was 1852, it could have occurred during the period that the steamer Sir Robert Peel was active on the route between Natal and the Cape of Good Hope, when in November it broke its crank shaft and was delayed (http://www.historic-shipping.co.uk/gsssco/Sir%20Robert%20Peel.html, accessed 15 May 2026); packages may have been off-loaded while the ship was being repaired, and some may have been lost. Blue Belle was still engaged between Adelaide and Cape Town in 1852, but no direct evidence has been found that it continued to carry mail.
In Endlicher et al. (1837), Bentham and other authors added footnotes to the enumeration of plants collected by C. von Hügel to draw attention to species, including some from parts of Australia not included in Hügel’s itinerary, collected by Ferdinand Bauer, Robert Brown, Alan Cunningham, Franz Sieber and others. Some of these species, if not published by other authors, were described in these notes, e.g., from Bauer collections: Boronia lanuginosa in Endlicher (1837), p. 16; Spyridium eriocephalum in Fenzl (1837), p. 24; Acacia sublanata in Bentham (1837b), p. 42.
The Index is probably that published in B53.10.01; the manuscripts mentioned have not been identified.
Dunal (1852).
Sonder (1852a).
The works mentioned are: Kunth (1833-50), R. Brown (1825-34), Mitchell (1848), A. P. de Candolle (1823-73), A. P. de Candolle (1818-21), Walpers (1842-8), Walpers (1848-71),W. Hooker (1842-8), Endlicher (1837), G. Don (1831-8), Lehmann (1844-7), Persoon (1805-7), W. Koch (1843-5), W. Hooker (1834-42), W. Hooker (1836-54), A. Gray (1852). For details of the series of papers containing descriptions of J. Drummond's plants published by Turczaninow see Marchant (1990).
M later recognised Basiloephyta friderici-augusta to have been Cunningham's Fieldia australis of 1825. See M to W. Hooker, 27 May 1854.
TL2 does not list any 'monographia' published by C. Nees von Esenbeck after 1841.
The drawing by E. La Trobe Bateman has not been found at Kew.
Letter not found.
See B53.04.01, p. 421. There are similar complaints, and a request that a list of errors be corrected in a Corrigendum, in M to W. Sonder, 1 August 1853. Schlechtendal printed corrections in Linnaea, vol. 25, p. 722, following Braun (1852), the last if the Plantae Muellerianae papers in that volume.
Sonder and Hampe described M's algae, mosses and lichens in a series of instalments under the title 'Plantae Muellerianae' in Linnaea.
No valid publication of the name Tecoma latrobei haas been found, but it is listed in B53.10.01, p.16, and as a name given by M for a herbarium specimen in Teijsman & Binnendjik (1866), p. 154, presumably from named live or dried plants or grown from seeds provided by M as part of his exchange programme (see, for example, M to J. O'Shanassy, 24 October 1858).
M published the first decade of Eucalyptographia in 1879 (B79.13.11).
editorial addition — obscured by binding strip.
editorial addition — obscured by binding strip.
W. Hooker did not rate Swainson highly. Commenting on M's first report, he wrote: 'We have Govt Botanists in ... Colonies, but not one has done so much in so short a space of time, combining the Science with the economical & commercial uses of plants, as Dr Müller. I wish I could say as much in favor of Mr Swainson's Report, of which the Governor himself speaks doubtfully. It is matter of congratulation, however, that the term of Mr Swainson's engagement with the Colony had expired.' (W. Hooker to Duke of Newcastle, 6 March 1854, Public Record Office, London, CO 309/29, ff. 323-4).
Writing privately to W. Harvey, W. Hooker was more forthright: '[Müller's] first Report on the Vegetation of Victoria has just been sent me by the Colonial Office and it does him great credit. Not so Mr Swainson's. It is all balderdash. Müller honestly enumerates about a dozen species of Eucalyptus in Victoria. Swainson makes 300 new species and receives pay as may be £3 per species from the Govt!! You will find him I suspect in Van Dieman's Land, and the Governor is goose enough there to employ him in the same errand.' (W. Hooker to W. Harvey, 7 April 1854, RBG Kew, W. Hooker to W. Harvey 1832-60, f. 283).
For Lieut. Governor La Trobe's carefully neutral comments on Swainson's report on the Eucalypts of Victoria, see Public Record Office London, CO 309/19, ff.191-194. See also Maroske & Cohn (1992).
R. Kippist, Librarian of the Linnean Society of London, translated the papers published as B53.03.01 and B53.04.02. Polypodium kippistianum was M's herbarium name, quoted as such in Mettenius (1856-1858), p. 400, under Aspidium velutinum. The relevant part was issued in August 1858 (TL2). MEL 2164599, recorded as 'Polypodium L.', is M's specimen dated 20 April 1853, originally labelled as Polypodium kippistiamum (AVH, accessed 14 October 2023).
Bentham (1853) described some of M's specimens.
I beg to enclose … Strumistylus is a loose note on similar paper to the body of the letter. Cryptostemon (C. ericaeus) was erected by M and Miquel, in Miquel (1856), p. 114.
Perhaps his Excellency … interesting plant is written on blue paper, pasted on to the text of the letter. The MS also includes a folded spill of blue paper, bearing the label in M's hand 'Basileophyta Friderici Augusti', containing the remains of a plant specimen.
MS annotation: 'Recd Aug 1854'.
Please cite as “FVM-53-10-18,” in Correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller, edited by R.W. Home, Thomas A. Darragh, A.M. Lucas, Sara Maroske, D.M. Sinkora†, J.H. Voigt† and Monika Wells accessed on