To George Bentham   22 June 1863

Melbourne botan.

Garden, 22 Jun. 1863.

Dear Sir.

Since writing to you an other letter,¹ forwarded by this mail, I had the pleasure of receiving your kind lines, which accompanied the 12 proofsheets² of your work on Australian plants.³ I have with great interest looked over the latter and am gratified seing the work advance with such rapidity. As it cannot be otherwise, than that some discrepancy of opinion should exist between us on some plants, I have hurriedly noted down some remarks, which suggested themselfes to me when I read your pages. I did send by last mail likewise some memoranda, on what then was forwarded to me, and anticipate that these will be not unwelcome to you for consideration, when supplements have to be given. Most forcibly was I struck with the circumstance, that you uphold Phebalium, as it would appear to me mainly on its character of aestivation, whilst in the neighbouring genus Boronia you regard that character only of sectional value. I was perhaps wrong in abolishing Zieria, but I think logically I should then have been obliged to elevate my section Dimorphanthera of Boronia (pl. Vict. 110) to generic rank. You have shared this disinclination, but have on the other hand retained Drummondita as distinct from Philotheca. That the length of the beards of the anthers in Philotheca varies seems to me sufficient ground to leave Crowea only as a section of Eriostemon. In considering Geleznowia I thought the proportionate length of the sepals was of no avail for a generic mark, when it did not hold good in Boronia. If Nematolepis is to be kept up as a genus I feel convinced that my N. Euphemiae belongs to it. The artist⁴ has not very well expressed the bearded scales on the filaments in the plant, furnished for the 3. vol. of the Fragmenta. They are however present, as you will observe from my description, and the corolla is quite as much gamopetalous as in the typical admitted species. But it is quite an other question, whether Nematolepis should not form a section of Eriostemon, since we have in Eriostemon Ralstonii a considerably lengthened corolla. As regards Asterolasia, I am not inclined to attach so much importance to the length of the stigmas, as this is a variable note in Correa, irrespective of the great variety of forms of stigmas in Boronia. The calyx of some Astrolasiae is quite as much developed as in some Eriostemons, and it seems to me, that if in that genus a reduction of carpels is admissable, Microcybe cannot stand as a genus upon that note. I verily believe, that for practical working the following genera are quite sufficient: Correa, Zieria, Boronia, Acradenia, Diplolaena, Nematolepis?, Philotheca?, Eriostemon, Geijera. — Geijera has however the broad cotyledons of the Xanthoxyleae, and can not be consociated with the Boronieae. — Nevertheless genera are not established in nature, as Diosmeae well demonstrate; hence I respect always the individual opinions of others, even of much less high authority as your own. That I cannot see the possibility of abolishing with justice Bracychiton I have said before. An important oversight of marked charcters is that of B. Gregorii. It has the small pods of Delabechea, and is in no way closely allied to B. populneum⁵ — the latter is moreover absolutely restricted to the east part of the country, the other to the western; both are hardly tropical rather extra- or subtropical; and the tropical species alone range from East to West. — Bergia tripetala proves to be perennial. It is found at Coopers Creek: vide report on Howitts plants.⁶

Sida calyxhymenia. To this belongs Dampiers figure.⁷ The identification of Nitraria Schoberi[i] is interesting, Now probably the Lycium Australe will also be identified with a mediterranean species. The careful ordination of the synonym, by you effected, is a most important & lastingly useful work & now we learn what actually is known of the flora and can in future with ease insert new species. For many acts of generosity shown by you in these pages I have to express my cordial thank[s]. By this mail I send two sheets of the flora of Vict on Acaciae and more is under press.⁸ I find the work of establishing diagnoses, which will stand the future field-tests very difficult in Acaciae, altho' this does not for a moment shake my persuasion of stability of species. We have as yet too imperfect material before,⁹ to judge of the precise limits of each specific form When I commenced publishing the Acaciae, our carpological specimens were mislaid; they have since been found and I have in pencil added notes. A. Sentis can certainly not be identified with A. decora, if we have no further evidence than Reichenbachs plate, which I have repeatedly & carefully consulted. His is not likely a desert species. But should this plant not be placed into Armatae? The funicles appear to furnish excellent characters of the species. A. salicina grows certainly in W. Australia also. Are not the stipules always present in Acaciae when young, altho' in a diminutive state?

I am just packing case N. 13 for the Roxburgh Castle Case N. 12 went pr Anglesey. The consignments are Acaciae, and one or two boxes more will have to be sent, before this genus is done. With the British Material before you, you will now no doubt effect large reductions in the species.

Ever yours with

Kindest regards

Ferd. Mueller

Acacia argyrophylla and A. dictyocarpa are identical

Acacia argyrophylla

Acacia decora

Acacia dictyocarpa

Acacia salicina

Acacia sect. Armatae

Acacia Sentis

Acradenia

Asterolasia

Bergia tripetala

Boronia

Boronia sect. Dimorphanthera

Boronieae

Bracychiton Gregorii

Bracychiton populneum

Correa

Crowea

Delabechea

Diosmeae

Diplolaena

Drummondita

Eriostemon Ralstonii

Geijera

Geleznowia

Lycium Australe

Microcybe

Nematolepis Euphemiae

Nitraria Schoberii

Phebalium

Philotheca

Sida calyxhymenia

Xanthoxyleae

Zieria