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