From Ferdinand von Mueller to William Hooker   22 July 1855

On board the Monarch, off Moreton Bay, 22 July 1855

In a former letter1 addressed to you, I had only time to inform you that I was on leave of absence for eighteen months, without support from the Victoria Government, to resume my labours in Melbourne at the beginning of 1857. My favourite plan was to traverse, at my own expense, the interior districts of Eastern Subtropical Australia in the meanwhile, when I hoped to advance a little further our knowledge of Australian plants. Since however my private resources are reduced to almost nothing, I accepted the appointment as Botanist for the North Australian Expedition, which his Excellency the Governor-General had been pleased to confer upon me. Still I am far from expressing herewith, that financial reflections influenced me to embark in an expedition into tropical Australia. In fact it has been with very great reluctance that I accepted the appointment, dangerous as it is, not only with regard to our personal safety, but also perhaps to my position as a botanist. For if in any degree a comparison will be drawn between the results probably arising from botany in this expedition, and those which are generally gained in tropical peregrinations, I feel sure that I shall by no means satisfy your expectations. The scanty means of carrying the collections, the well-known hostility of the natives, and above all the aridity of the country, are likely to be so many obstacles in accumulating large collections of plants; nor can the share of new plants be great, if we are not able to reach elevated mountains in the interior, as the coast vegetation is already so well known through Robert Brown and Allan Cunningham. It is however my utmost desire to get together as much of the treasures of the North Australian Flora as I possibly can; and I trust only that Providence will grant me life and health to bear the tropical heat, and the privations and fatigues which are inseparable from such journeys of discovery.

I left Melbourne in the beginning of this month, and might have collected at that favourable season hundreds of plants in the environs of Sydney; but as only a few days were allotted to me for making my preparations, I was almost entirely deprived of the pleasure of botanical wanderings over the classical ground traversed by Banks and Solander and Robert Brown, where so much extensive information may be gained by studying the plants on the places where they were first discovered; and although you are so closely acquainted with every one of them, I think I may venture a few remarks on the specimens which I gathered in a walk on the north shore and along Botany Bay; for to any one who only saw the Flora of Victoria or South Australia, the increase of the diversity of Epacrideae, Diosmeae, Proteaceae, Restiaceae, and Cyperiodeae must be striking; nor can he fail to be surprised by the paucity of Compositae. This remark can however only apply to the near vicinity of Sydney, for Mr. Moore,2 from whom I have gained much valuable information and manifold assistance during my brief stay, informs me that Compositae are abundant to the westward, as may be reasonably expected. A large proportion of the plants, described at the beginning of this century, I saw for the first time then; and should the Flora of Victoria ever be continued by myself, it will be highly interesting to proceed from Sydney to Cape Howe, in order to trace the southern limits of many of the New South Wales plants. The boggy nature of the country, between the Snowy River and Cape Howe, frustrated my attempt to go so far east from Victoria. Of all natural orders in Australia Diosmeae and Proteaceae produce the most restricted plants as regards localities. Thus, all the following I had, for the first time, an opportunity of observing here:— Zieria pauciflora, revoluta, Boronia ledifolia, B. pinnata, Crowea saligna, Eriostemon salicifolius, E. laxifolius,3 Philotheca, Conospermum longiflium,4 C. laxifolium, Isopogon anethifolius, I. anemonifolius, Petrophila pedunculata, Lomatia silaifolia, Xylomelum pyriforme, several very fine Grevilleas and Persoonias, Hakea gibbosa, etc. The examination of these plants has not been without use to me; for instance, I found that my Zieria pauciflora, from Mount Maridon,5 differs from the true species, and may be named Z. oligantha.6 Also the Leucopogon lanceolatus, from Sydney, is distinct from L. lanceolatus, from Mount William (L. neurophyllus); but these discrepancies are not to be recognized by the perusal of the respective diagnoses. Touching here upon some alterations to be made in the names of former plants of my collections, I may at once also observe, that I had the good luck to review an incomplete set of Sir Thomas Mitchell's plants from tropical Australia, under care of Mr. Moore. Eriostemon rhombeus is identical with E. gracilis, Ferd. Muell. (an Graham?)7; the name is however hardly applicable to the general forms of this curious plant. Conospermum Dallachii8 appears to be your C. sphacelatum, and has therefore a range from subtropical Australia to beyond 38° S. To return to my Sydney plants, I may mention, as apparently rarer species, Phyllanthus scaber, Monotaxis sp., Micranthemum ericoides, Hemigenia purpurea, Lycopodium laterale, Drosera spathulata (exceedingly rare in Victoria), Mitrasacme polymorpha, Epacris purpurascens (never seen in South Australia or Victoria), Aristida ramosa, Prasophyllum striatum, Pterostylis acuminata, P. concinna, Acianthus fornicatus, Cyrtostylis reniformis, Lagenophora pachyrhiza, Leptomeria acida, Leucopogon appressus, Styphelia longifolia, S. viridiflora, S. tubiflora (this is really a charming bush), Xerotes flexifolia, Leucopogon microphyllus, Darwinia fascicularis, Tetratheca ericaefolia, Polycarpon alsinifolium, Lasiopetalum ferrugineum, Marsdenia suaveolens, Callicoma serrata,9 Ceratopetalum, Angophora, etc.

The Cyperoideae and Grasses were to me very interesting. Carpha deusta, which exhibits such singular structure, I dissected with pleasure. Chorizandra sphaerocephala, Chaetospora paludosa, C. turbinata, and others, I had never seen before. Amongst a few Grasses received from Richmond River, I observed Sporobolus elongatus, Panicum Crusgalli, Cenchrus Australis. Galinsoga parviflora is now also an Australian plant, being a troublesome weed in the gardens of Sydney.

The Norfolk Island Pines in the Sydney Botanical Gardens are truly deserving admiration. Amongst the many fine trees of that establishment, I must not fail to notice the finest of all Proteaceae which I know, namely Stenocarpus Cunninghamii, a small tree, embellished in this season with its superb flowers.

I have lately seen what I take to be the true Goodenia hederacea; it widely differs from G. cordifolia, which I think, as being truly alpine (a rare occurrence in the Order), deserves publication, unless De Vriese's new monograph10 should include it already.

By the last Sydney mail I had the pleasure of forwarding a reprint of the botanical articles printed in 1854 and 1855 by the Victorian Institute and the Philosophical Society.11 Another copy will be brought to Kew by Mr. Winter.12 In the article on the alpine plants13 I omitted Eurybia alpicola and E. megalophylla, both not less beautiful than distinct. By the 'Francis Henty,' from Melbourne, I forwarded last month a complete set of specimens, including the Duttonia, which you promised to figure.14 A box was sent before by the 'George Marshall,' under care of a friend, Mr. Balfour Steward.15 Of the safe arrival of the sundries, per 'Great Britain,' I am anxious to hear. Any communications, please let be directed to C. Moore, Esq., Sydney Botanical Gardens, who will forward them to me, as my return to Melbourne may be uncertain for some time.

My next letter to you will be despatched from the Victoria River,16 as the transport vessel is leaving us there to sail for Singapore, of which opportunity I will avail myself to report on my botanical results about Moreton Bay, and to give a sketch of the place of our disembarkation, such as the first impression may be able to convey.

The third year's Report17 is with the Government, but not yet printed. Professor Harvey will return from his cruise in about a month.

Ferd. Mueller.

Acianthus fornicatus

Angophora

Aristida ramosa

Boronia ledifolia

Boronia pinnata

Callicoma serrata

Carpha deusta

Cenchrus Australis

Ceratopetalum

Chaetospora paludosa

Chaetospora turbinata

Chorizandra sphaerocephala

Compositae

Conospermum Dallachii

Conospermum laxifolium

Conospermumlongiflium

Conospermum sphacelatum

Crowea saligna

Cyperiodeae

Cyperoideae

Cyrtostylis reniformis

Darwinia fascicularis

Diosmeae

Drosera spathulata

Duttonia

Epacrideae

Epacris purpurascens

Eriostemon gracilis

Eriostemon laxifolius

Eriostemon rhombeus

Eriostemon salicifolius

Eurybia alpicola

Eurybia megalophylla

Galinsoga parviflora

Goodenia cordifolia

Goodenia hederacea

Hakea gibbosa

Hemigenia purpurea

Isopogon anemonifolius

Isopogon anethifolius

Lagenophora pachyrhiza

Lasiopetalum ferrugineum

Leptomeria acida

Leucopogon appressus

Leucopogon lanceolatus

Leucopogon microphyllus

Leucopogon neurophyllus

Lomatia silaifolia

Lycopodium laterale

Marsdenia suaveolens

Micranthemum ericoides

Mitrasacme polymorpha

Monotaxis

Panicum Crusgalli

Persoonia

Petrophila pedunculata

Philotheca

Phyllanthus scaber

Polycarpon alsinifolium

Prasophyllum striatum

Proteaceae

Pterostylis acuminata

Pterostylis concinna

Restiaceae

Sporobolus elongatus

Stenocarpus Cunninghamii

Styphelia longifolia

Styphelia tubiflora

Styphelia viridiflora

Tetratheca ericaefolia

Xerotes flexifolia

Xylomelum pyriforme

Zieria oligantha

Zieria pauciflora

Zieria pauciflora

Zieria revoluta

M to W. Hooker, 12 July 1855.

Charles Moore.

Eriostemon lancifolius?

Conospermum linifolium or C. laniflorum?

Macedon.

The name has not been found other than in this letter, and is thus not validly published as it has no description.

Interpolation by Hooker, suggesting that the plant is probably that published by Robert Graham in 1834 as Eriostemon gracile. In B54.10.01, p. 10, M listed Eriostemon gracilis Graham; no publication of that name attributing it to M has been found. see also B62.03.03, p. 123 for M's considered synonymy of E. rhombeus.

APNI lists no Conospermum dallachii published by M. M used it as an herbarium name, see K 736712 and MEL 8589, and listed the name in B58.11.02.

Callicoma serratifolia?

Vriese (1854).

B55.09.03, B54.13.06, B55.13.05, B55.13.06, B55.13.07.

None of the letters in the Kew Archives from any of the three Winters who corresponded with W. Hooker mentions returning from Melbourne with material from M.

B55.09.03.

B56.03.01, pl. 1.

See M to W. Hooker, 9 May 1855.

M to W. Hooker, 3 September 1855.

B55.11.01.

Letter not found. For the text given here, see B56.01.01.

On publishing the letter Hooker commented in a footnote: 'A second letter on this subject from Dr. Mueller, — showing that even in the environs of Sydney, in the midst of the bustle of preparation for a long and hazardous journey, he can collect information, if it be only in relation to the geographical limits of Australian plants, — will afford some interesting extracts.'

Hooker also mentioned a letter from John Kent read at the Royal Geographical Society, 10 December 1855, giving details of the departure of the expedition. In the letter Kent commented: 'the patience and resignation of Dr. Müller have been tested by a seat for three days up a gum-tree awaiting the subsidence of a flood. he is a German botanical enthusiast, which will account for this incident in his experience'. See Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society (1855-7), p. 11.

Please cite as “FVM-55-07-22,” 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 5 June 2025, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/55-07-22