To George Bentham   24 January 1862

Melbourne bot & zool. Garden

24 Jan. 62.

My dear Mr Bentham.

I am highly gratified with your very kind communication received by last mail and the interesting remarks on Australian Botany, which your letter embodies.¹

Eight years ago I wrote very fully my views on the form of an Australian Flora to our venerable friend Sir Will. Hooker, and I have little to alter in my opinion of what form would be the most advisable, except that I then recommended that New Zealand should be included.² The tree vegetation however characterizes a country more fully as regards its botanical features than any other portion of its vegetation, and hence we can under the almost total absence of identical trees in New Zealand & New Holland certainly not combine their flora, altho' much of the frutescent and herbaceous vegetation is identical.

Your Hong Kong flora³ is a model for the new work you propose to crown your labors with. If I am allowed to suggest any alterations, I would recommend the separation of measurements from diagnostic remarks. In reference to your wish of suggesting the best manner in which each colony could be noticed under the species, I would draw your attention to the plan, adopted by Koch in his Synops. Fl. Germ. & Helvet.,⁴ for distinguishing by adding to the descriptions the letters B. G. I & H., to indicate, whether a plant was growing in Prussia, Universal Germany, Istria or Helvetia. Perhaps T. might indicate Tasmania, V. Victoria, N.S.W., New South Wales, QL. Queensland, S.A. South Australia, W.A. West Australia, as colonies or colonial territories, to which significations might be added C.A. for Central Australia and N.A. for North Australia.

Your remarks on the limits of the genera o[f] Australian Dilleniaceae interest me much. I fear however that notwithstanding your reductions the genera will still remain very artificial. But on genera phytologists will be always entertaining varied opinions, on species we should not! — You will receive soon after the arrival of this letter my series of Dilleniaceae, the examination of which will probably induce you to modify your views still in some points. There are for instance coast varieties of Pleurandra ovata with completely monadelphous stamens. If the position of the staminodia in any of the genera [&] species should prove constant, it would be doubly interesting, because we could not anticipate them being so in an order with indefinite stamens. Otherwise it is in the orders with definite stamens, such as Rutaceae, in which the staminodia have number & position & function precisely assigned to them. Mollugineae seem to me an other example of how little can be relied on the position of staminodia unless in genera with fixed number of stamens. Speaking here especially of Glinus you as the recent author of the order,⁵ will perhaps be interested in my remarks divulged in the plants of Victoria.⁶ I find for instance no spiral embryo in that genus and that the "circumflexed funicles" are no funicles but processes (altho arising from the funiclar cord) belonging to the strophiole. The discovery of a new Glinus here you will no doubt regard as an interesting one.⁷

I will gladly prepare as you suggest all the material for Eucalyptus. If no unforeseen hindrances arise I shall employ our artist⁸ for the next two years principly in furnishing the plates (in large folio) of the Eucalypti for my monograph, probably 100 plates. These trees become, as you will see by products & educts at the Exhibition now of such vast importance to the manufactures in this country.

That I have sent the Apocarpous Thalamiflorae and Rhoeadeae you will observe by the enclosed bill of loading. The Parietinae, Sapindinae, and possibly also the Rutinae will follow by the "Great Britain" or one of the next ships and the rest of the Thalamiflorae in two consignments soon afterwards.

Unfortunately I can send not yet by this mail the first vol of "the plants of Victoria"⁹ as the printer has not completed the last sheets It will be 220 pages & 22 plates. The 2. vol of the Fragmenta¹⁰ is since weeks in the binders hands, but is also not yet ready for distribution, but both will certainly be sent by next mail.

Meanwhile I have sent all the ready sheets to Sir Will. Hooker.

Your classification of the curvembryonate plants, as enunciated in Lindleys Gardeners Chronicle¹¹ has my perfect concurrence, except that I regard Mollugineae inseparable from Thalamiflorae, also Phytolacceae. And should even only one member of the Paronychieae (Corrigiola) be petaliferous it would be for me sufficient reason for asigning to that order a place in the Calyciflorae. But it would undoubtedly be a good work, if with exception of Amentaceae Cycadeae & Coniferae all the Monochlamydeae of DC (or the apetalous Dicotyledonae of Jussieu) were distributed over the petaliferous divisions of the system, whereby the most artificial portion of Candolles & Jussieus classification would be render natural. — We would then have Salsolaceae, Polygoneae, Amaranthaceae Nycta[gin]eae next to Portulaceae and Ficoideae in Calyciflorae &c &c. Such a rearrangement has engaged my thoughts since many years & I beg to recommend it to your & Dr Hookers superior consideration for the Genera plantarum [.] How Euphorbiaceae, Laurineae &c &c, which are so highly developed plants, can rank near Coniferae & Cupuliferae has been always to me an enigma. Have I been right in referring Stylobasium to Phytolacceae? Would it not be well to arrange the orders under Classes in the Australian flora? it seems to me to facilitate vastly the glance over the whole orders. I do not know whether I mentioned, as I intended, that if I could be favored with proof sheets of the genera plantarum and the Austr. flora, I will gladly give my humble aid in adding & suggesting alterations for supplements. Did you in revising Phytolacceae observe, that Prof Moquin, whom I however regard as a very acute & generally reliable observer, has been misled by probably wrong-matched specimens in describing the flowers of Gyrostemon ramulosus as those of Tersonia? the latter having uniseriate stamens, like Didymotheca (Cyclotheca) and Codonocarpus! Gyrostemon cotinifolius is a true Codonocarpus; as Endlicher suspected.

I shall furnish you in the future sendings with more manuscript notes as hereto before, as there will be more unworked plants amongst them.

I have just to go through my annual report. When that done & the 1 vol of flora of Vict. seen through, which will be in about 2 weeks, I shall be free for regular work for you.

Looking forward with much delight to your future regular correspondence

I remain, your attached

Ferd Mueller¹²

Amaranthaceae

Amentaceae

Calyciflorae

Codonocarpus

Coniferae

Corrigiola

Cupuliferae

Cycadeae

Cyclotheca

Dicotyledonae

Didymotheca

Dilleniaceae

Eucalyptus

Euphorbiaceae

Ficoideae

Glinus

Gyrostemon cotinifolius

Gyrostemon ramulosus

Laurineae

Mollugineae

Monochlamydeae

Nyctagineae

Parietinae

Paronychieae

Phytolacceae

Pleurandra ovata

Polygoneae

Portulaceae

Rhoeadeae

Rutaceae

Rutinae

Salsolaceae

Sapindinae

Stylobasium

Tersonia

Thalamiflorae