To [George Bentham]1    1864

[Before October 1864]2

 

Professor Lehmann gives in his monography Potentilla Norvegica as an Australian species.3 Though this is probably an error, some allusion to it would be not misplaced.

In reviewing once more the Hydrocotyles, I find Richard's monography4 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 plant5

 

Callitriche autumnalis

Callitriche

Hydrocotyle

Potentilla Norvegica

MS annotation: 'Vol ii'. Bentham is identified as the addressee of this fragment by M's suggestion that Potentilla norvegica be mentioned, a comment implying that M is responding to proof sheets. The species is notreferred to in Flora australiensis, where Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, p. 429, calls P. anserina(Linn.) 'the only Australian species'.
editorial addition. Dating is based upon the fact that Potentillais dealt with in Flora australiensis vol. 2, p. 429, and it appears that M was commenting on proof sheets. M published a number of species of Hydrocotyle in B64.13.03, pp. 178–82, published in or after November 1864.
Lehmann (1856, p. 198), citing Maly (1848, p. 339) refers to P. norvegica as an Austrian species, not Australian.
Richard (1820).
Koch (1843-5), 2nd ed., pp. 271-2.

Please cite as “FVM-64-00-00c,” 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 29 March 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/64-00-00c