From George Bentham   26 October 1862

London

Oct 26/62

My dear Sir,

Since I wrote by the ordinary mail¹ I have received yours of the 26 Augt² — Your uneasiness about the boxes pr Dover Castle will have been long since removed — but when once a vessel has arrived in London there is no further occasion for anxiety — boxes do not get lost in London but it often takes some time before they are cleared — Agents have always a good deal to do and probably Dr Thomson on arriving had other things to attend to. The Roxburgh Castle is not yet arrived.

The boxes per Kent duly reached Kew and I am at work at Sterculiaceae which I have nearly finished — Examining carefully every species makes modifications necessary in generic characters[.]³ I had a little misunderstood Hannafordia the specimens we had (Drummonds with a fragment of yours) were in fruit with very bad flowers in which I found very few staminodia and thought the petals much flatter than they prove to be. The plant is intermediate between Buettneria and Lasiopetalum but still nearer the latter.

I still think that Guichenotia must include Sarotes and makes a natural genus of 5 sp. G. ledifolia, G. macrantha, G. semihastata (Sarotes F. Muell Ditomostrophe Turcz) G. sarotes (S. ledifolia Lindl.) and G. micrantha (Sarotes micrantha Steetz Thomasia pogonanthera F. Muell.)⁴

I find we had specimens of your Lysiosepalum — with larger flowers than yours but the same species It is Thomasia involucrata Turcz but I adopt your genus name.

I still think that Seringia must be restricted to S. platyphylla Gay, so different in habit and calyx from the others — perhaps S. lanceolata may be included but our specimens (Cunninghams) are not good — I shall see Brown's

I found in your cover of Rulingia pannosa a sheet with 2 specimens of Leichhardts of quite a new Commersonia. The New England plant which you had thought Rulingia cristifolia is not that sp. but R. rugosa Steetz of which I have only seen these and Cunninghams specimens. The fruit is quite different from that of R. pannosa.

R. cistifolia (a blunder for R. cristifolia Cunn.) is the common narrow leaved hermanniaefolia.

Your Melbourne Bot Gard specimens marked R. parviflora W. Austr are not R. parviflora Endl. They are exactly like luxuriant specimens of R. hermanniaefolia from N.S. Wales (the common form is R. oblongifolia Steetz) Is there not some mistake as to their origin? R. parviflora Endl. is not in your collection

The Pterospermum in your collection marked Illawara? Vernon⁵ is an interesting addition. The specimen is insufficient absolutely to determine the species but I have little doubt but that it is P. acerifolium and if it be really extra tropical it is a remarkable station for it.

The Calophyllum from Leichhardt in your collection adds a new Order to the Flora. I had as yet no Guttifera and have not now any Ternstroemiacea.

The Urena is an addition I had expected it is U. lobata I have similar long involucred varieties from various places

Your Emmenospermum is a plant we had very good flowering specimens of but no fruit. Dr Hooker who did the Rhamneae generally could not find anything to distinguish it from Alphitonia I will examine again when I come to it⁶

Your Cryptandra longistaminea was in a collection we received in spring gathered in New England I believe by the man Stuart who supplied you

With regard to the limits of species I quite agree with you in the necessity of reducing the large number of bad species published of Australian plants — but as to fixing definitively the limits of any one I think it hopeless — I have studied species living — wild & in cultivation — and dry since 1819, for the first two or three years I was always detecting new species à la Jordan ⁷ then observing the same species in a living state at differences of latitude of about 15 degrees first opened my eyes as to the variability of species the next 30 years gradually convinced me of the possibility of fixing definitive limits if taken comprehensive enough — but the last eight or ten years have very much shaken these convictions and the great number of facts brought to light by the Darwinian controversy necessitate the reconsideration of a great many points which I had thought settled. We must therefore be particularly cautious in uniting as species forms which have that degree of apparent permanency which will justify the majority of botanists in maintaining them distinct.

I will carefully examine the Hymenanthera question again — I thought I saw other characters besides the prevalent foliage — but if one passes into the other in cultivation it is a question of luxuriance and not even of variety. I will look again and adopt you views unless I see positive reason to the contrary.⁸

Ever yours truly

George Bentham

I have been hunting up Turczaninow's wretched determinations and have some necessary changes to make in the names of a few of Drummond's Pittosporeae & some others in which he has the priority. Commersonia pulchella & crispa which he afterwards put into Rulingia are true Commersonias near Gaudichaudi but different in staminodia as well as in foliage — they are not amongst yours.

Alphitonia

Buettneria

Calophyllum

Commersonia Gaudichaudi

Commersonia pulchella

Cryptandra longistaminea

Ditomostrophe

Emmenospermum

Guichenotia Ledifolia

Guichenotia macrantha

Guichenotia micrantha

Guichenotia sarotes

Guichenotia semihastata

Guttifera

Hannafordia

Hymenanthera

Lasiopetalum

Lysiosepalum

Pittosporeae

Pterospermum acerifolium

Rhamneae

Rulingia cistifolia

Rulingia cristifolia

Rulingia hermanniaefolia

Rulingia oblongifolia

Rulingia pannosa

Rulingia parviflora

Rulingia rugosa

Sarotes ledifolia

Sarotes micrantha

Seringia lanceolata

Seringia platyphylla

Sterculiaceae

Ternstroemiacea

Thomasia involucrata

Thomasia pogonanthera

Urena lobata