To George Bentham   21 November 1863

Melbourne bot.

Garden 21/11/63

 

Invoice of Case N. 19, forwarded pr ship "Result" this day.

 

Eremaea, Phymatocarpus & Regelia -.

fasc.

1

Genethyllis


1

Agonis (with subgenera Homalosperm. & Pericalymma

-. -.

1

Astartea & Hypocalymma


1

Memecyleae et Barringtonieae

-. -.

1

Leguminosae et aliae, supplement

-.-.

1

Calycothrix

-. -.

2

Calothamnus

-. -.

2

Myrtus

-. -.

1

Eugenia et Nelitris


1

Beaufortia

-. -.

1

Syncarpia et Backhousia

-. -.

1

Lysicarpus & Metrosideros

-. -.

1

Rhizocarpeae

-. -.

1

total fasc.

161


Xanthostemon I have reduced to Metrosideros as you will see in the Fragmenta.2 About the specific identity of one Careya with the Indian C. arborea I feel not certain; the outer filaments bear all anthers, the most inner ones are short & seemingly without anthers & more slender & tender than the fertile stamens. But as the anthers early drop it is not easy to examine the flowerbuds with a view of ascertaining the presence or absence of anthers in dried specimens.

Homalospermum & Pericalymma I regard as subgenera of Agonis.

The only Memecylon known to me from Australia and which without seeing the flower I brought doubtfully to Myrcia (in the Report on the plants of the Burdekin Expedition)3 is distinct from all the numerous Indian species of the genus, preserved in our Melbourne Collection. I am thus induced to take it as a new species. If Callistemon4

 
 

Agonis

Astartea

Backhousia

Barringtonieae

Beaufortia

Callistemon

Calothamnus

Calycothrix

Careya arborea

Eremaea

Eugenia

Genethyllis

Homalospermum

Hypocalymma

Leguminosae

Lysicarpus

Melaleuca symphyocarpa

Memecyleae

Memecylon

Metrosideros

Myrcia

Myrtus

Nelitris

Pericalymma

Phymatocarpus

Regelia

Rhizocarpeae

Syncarpia

Xanthostemon

 
 
 
The tabulation ends 3 lines from the top of p. 2 of the letter, below which Forwarded also 13 vol of Phycologia for Reeves has been deleted.
B59.13.04, p. 243. Bentham (1863-78), vol. 3, p. 268, argued that despite the close resemblance, there were grounds for maintaining Xanthostemon as a distinct genus.
B60.13.12, p. 7.
The sentence ends at this point with half a sheet left blank.

Please cite as “FVM-63-11-21,” 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 27 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/63-11-21