24/4/62
Dear Dr Hooker.
When Mr Ch. Moore sent me of some of his timbertrees of which he exhibits the wood,2 specimens for examination, I fell into an error in declaring that the tulip wood was Owenia; this owes to the circumstance that I had only a small flower — & fruitless branchlet to look at & did not compare it in the herbarium at the time. I afterwards found however that it is a Harpulia 3 (similar in leaf to Owenia venosa) but I cannot say, whether it is H. pendula or H. Hillii. But as the error has been propagated in the Sydney Catalogue4 will you kindly alter it?
Sir Redm. Barry will supply you, no doubt, with the report on the veg. substances sent for the Exhibition from Melbourne. 5 I have therefore not burdended the consignment sent by this mail through the Colonial Office with the volume, but I beg to direct your particular attention to it, as I regard the document of the highest importance.
Mr Osborne was appointed by me juror, & examined the oils, which on my suggestion were distilled, also the resins gums & the specific gravity of the woods. He has received leave of absence from his Office as Head of the superb photolithographic office, — where he introduced his new superior process,6 — with a view of studying the exhibits at London. I gave him a letter of introduction to you.7 He is by marriage related to Prof All[mann]8
your attached
Ferd. Mueller
Harpulia Hillii
Harpulia pendula
Owenia venosa
Please cite as “FVM-62-04-24a,” 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 19 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/62-04-24a