Professor Lehmann gives in his monography Potentilla Norvegica as an Australian species.1 Though this is probably an error, some allusion to it would be not misplaced.
In reviewing once more the Hydrocotyles, I find Richard's monography2 a very imperfect treatise, as regards not only the text but still more the plates. In RBr. conception of the species, is in this instance, like many others (I cannot refrain from the remark) no soundness, which causes an immense deal of trouble and useless waste of time to subsequent observers. Of Dr Hookers circumscription of the Tasmanian Hydrocotyle I can also but very partially approve.
I enclose a specimen of the true Callitriche autumnalis, which though perhaps not specifically different from C. verna, represents a form not yet found in Australia[.] Koch's synopsis deals fairly with this plant3
Callitriche autumnalis
Callitriche
Hydrocotyle
Potentilla Norvegica
Lehmann (1856), p. 198, citing Maly (1848), p. 339, refers to P. norvegica as an Austrian species, not Australian.
A. Richard (1820).
W. Koch (1843-5), pp. 271-2.
MS annotation: 'Vol ii'. Bentham is identified as the addressee of this fragment by M's suggestion, not however taken up by Bentham, that Potentilla norvegica be mentioned. M’s comment implies that he is responding to proof sheets including what became Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, p. 429, where Bentham treated Potentilla, calling P. anserina (Linn.) 'the only Australian species'. The item is therefore dated to before October 1864, when the volume was published. M published a number of species of Hydrocotyle in B64.13.03, pp. 178–82, published in or after November 1864.
Please cite as “FVM-64-00-00,” 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