From George Bentham   12 October 1863

London Octr 12 1863

My dear Sir

Since I last wrote I have received yours of the 22d & 24th June and 23d July,¹ and on my return to town I found the plants you announced safely arrived — Acacias Jacksonia Gastrolobium miscellaneous Leguminosae — and two bundles Cyperaceae — sent I suppose by mistake shall I send them back? as it will be some years before I come to them

I regret exceedingly that some of the returned packages suffered from damp — but I do not know how to obviate the risk of it.² They were perfectly dry when sent from here. They are always kept in the room where I work in which there is a fire all day five days in the week during autumn winter and spring and I looked over the packages in question just before they were packed up when there was not the slightest sign of mould or damp — the boxes were carefully soldered up — so that how the damp afterwards got in I cannot tell — I sincerely trust there will be no more of it — As to the crumpling the paper that is unavoidable where plants are kept tied up in bundles — their weight alone is sufficient to do it — and if they are not packed rather close they will suffer more from friction and breaking; but I will have them packed with all caution. I regret that a few of the Papilionaceae arrived with insects — We have now I believe quite expelled insects from the Kew herbaria.

I will go over your remarks and corrections with my Flora of which I have an interleaved copy for the purpose

To what you say of illogical adoption of genera such as Phebalium upon a character which is not considered generic in the adjoining genus Boronia I would reply that such a course is necessary throughout the Natural System as distinguished from an Artificial one — Here a character is constantly accompanied by differences in habit and other peculiarities and it is good — close by it is unattended by any others and is therefore bad. No character is generic or ordinal or sectional or even specific per se, its value depends upon circumstances — You may argue that a character is not necessarily generic because it is not so in an adjoining genus, but you cannot go on to say that it must not therefore be generic. And it is this impossibility of telling in a great many cases the a priori value of a character that makes so many monotypic genera which when first created appear to be very distinct, prove worthless as other allied species are discovered. It is never without fear and trembling that I propose a monotypic genus and a great many that I have so proposed have proved untenable. But in this matter of Rutaceae I have in some cases adopted on slight ground old genera because it requires very strong objections to overrule genera universally recognized by Brown Jussieu De Candolle and others of weight and authority. I am unwilling also to make changes not absolutely necessary in the orders which Dr Hooker worked up for our Genera.³

I wrote in my last why I had not sent a copy of the Flora to the Prince of Wales' Library — it would be entirely unheeded and thrown away⁴ — I see you now propose to send one to the Duke of Newcastle.⁵ If you desire it I will send one in your name — but as the Colonial Office entirely threw the Flora overboard I do not see any occasion for the presentation and I certainly should decline to take part in it Out of the £10 there are

6 copies	Genera Plantarum	£5.5.0
3 do	Flora Australiensis sent to Copenhagen 6	2.11.0
		£7.16.0

leaving £2.4.0 of yours in my hands.

I returned to work the first of this month and have done Dillwynia, Hovea and Bossiaea and its allies Hovea includes of course Plagiolobium — H. leiocarpa which I published in Mitchells book⁷ is identical with my H. longipes which I had overlooked — a remarkable species — the other Eastern Hoveas run much one in to the other however I have kept up H. linearis Br and with much doubt as a var or allied species H. heterophylla, H. longifolia Br (including H lanceolata &c) and H. acutifolia Don which you had inadvertently named H. lanceolata — I have also considerably reduced the Western ones having only 11 Hoveas in all. — As to Bossiaea it must include Lalage which comes next to B. eriocarpa and I think Scottea for the flowers of Scottea are those of B. carinalis, and the opposite leaves which you observe in B. cordigera & lenticularis occur also in 3 Western species and in a remarkable unpublished Illawarra one. Platylobium is closely allied but can be kept up by the winged pod different in dehiscence from that of Bossiaea. Templetonia agrees with Hovea in the anthers 5 long and erect 5 shorter and versatile it also differs from Bossiaea in the comparatively elongate lower tooth of the calyx and in the pod but taking these as positive characters, Nematophyllum, Bossiaea stenophylla, B. aculeata, B. sulcata (B. Rossii F Muell) and B. egena must all go into Templetonia — all these have also the peculiar sulcate-striate branches — In the true Bossiaeas as in Platylobium the anthers are all uniformly versatile the lower lobes of the calyx shorter than the upper the pod thin & flat as well as other minor differences

As to other points mentioned in your letters

I have not had much occasion to cite Woolls' specimens as they are chiefly from Paramatta — that is the neighbourhood of Port Jackson from whence I have far too many collections to cite them all I therefore then usually only quote Brown as the first great authority and Sieber on account of his Nos which are in so many European herbaria. Woolls specimens however are generally particularly instructive and you will find him mentioned several times — the best Port Jackson and Blue Mountain specimens are usually Brown's Sieber's Frasers and Richd Cunninghams Miss Atkinson's are excellent

Dr Milligan's plants at the British Museum are amongst the unarranged lumber which I have not time to hunt through.

I think any arrangement about cryptogamia would be at present premature I hope to do the ferns myself if life and health are spared me — Sir W. Hooker is too busy with his great work, besides he would not like the drawing them up in a form which though sanctioned by himself is not what he is used to. Harvey now devotes his whole time to Flora Capensis⁸ — and as to the other branches I must see my way as to preventing that enormous multiplication of genera which threatens to throw cryptogamic botany into utter confusion, before I sanction it for our Flora.

I shall be anxious to hear of the safe arrival of the Prince of Wales I will adopt your suggestion in future of not sending so much in one ship.

Onagrarieae come I think after Myrtaceae and therefore in vol. III. The following are as nearly as I can tell before working them up (Dr Hooker has not quite finished them for Genera Plantarum) the Orders I shall get into vol. II. Rosaceae Saxifrageae including Cunoniaceae &c Droseraceae Crassulaceae Rhizophoreae and Halorageae — but now on adding up the probable amount I find that these altogether with Leguminosae may not extend to much beyond 1000 to 1050 species and therefore I shall be driven after all to dividing Myrtaceae. I value these at above 600 species Dr Hooker thinks I might perhaps get the whole into a thick 2d vol and then it would leave the 3d vol. (including Umbelliferae Compositae & small orders) a rather thin one. I must therefore beg you to send me the Myrtaceae as for the present vol.

Your notes on Acacias are all reserved for when I come to the genus

The specimen you sent of your Mimosa latispinea⁹ looks to me exactly like M. latespinosa¹⁰ Lam. from the Mauritius

16th I have just finished Bossiaea and have had a great deal of trouble with the cephyllous ones — Habit goes for little in Kew for without flowers it is difficult to distinguish Bossiaeas from some Brachysemas or from plants of quite different families — and taking as specific characters the calyx petals and fruit I find the following eventually distinct

The tropical B. platyclada¹¹ F. M. of which Brown has very instructive specimens

B. Walkeri F. Muell. with very different flowers & fr.¹²

B. scolopendria with its broad fruit with much thickened broad sutures etc from NS Wales & Moreton Bay. Of these the N. S. Wales B. ensata may be a smallflowered variety, but the only fruits I have are a little different

B. riparia A. Cunn or the Tasmanian B. ensata of which you have also some Victorian specimens differs in the proportion of petals and esentially in the pod.

B. bracteosa from the Australian Alps is again quite distinct in bracts calyx and other points

B. rufa R. Br. including B. paucifolia Benth B. virgata Hook and B. oxyclada Turcz is near to B. riparia but differs in all its forms in the proportion of the petals the fringed keel and other points It is entirely Western.

I shall be anxious to receive the next of the materials for this vol. as I shall now continue steadily at work and hope to advance rapidly

Yours ever sincerely

George Bentham

Plant names

Acacias

Boronia

Bossiaea aculeata

Bossiaea bracteosa

Bossiaea carinalis

Bossiaea cordigera

Bossiaea egena

Bossiaea ensata

Bossiaea eriocarpa

Bossiaea lenticularis

Bossiaea oxyclada

Bossiaea paucifolia

Bossiaea platyclada

Bossiaea riparia

Bossiaea Rossii

Bossiaea rufa

Bossiaea scolopendria

Bossiaea stenophylla

Bossiaea sulcata

Bossiaea virgata

Bossiaea Walkeri

Brachysema

Compositae

Crassulaceae

Cunoniaceae

Cyperaceae

Dillwynia

Droseraceae

Gastrolobium

Halorageae

Hovea acutifolia

Hovea heterophylla

Hovea lanceolata

Hovea leiocarpa

Hovea linearis

Hovea longifolia

Hovea longipes

Jacksonia

Lalage

Leguminosae

Leguminosae

Mimosa latespinosa

Mimosa latispinea

Myrtaceae

Nematophyllum

Onagrarieae

Papilionaceae

Phebalium

Plagiolobium

Platylobium

Rhizophoreae

Rosaceae

Rutaceae

Saxifrageae

Scottea

Templetonia

Umbelliferae