To [George Bentham]1    October 1864

Is Acacia petiolaris really = A. pycnantha. Lehmann raised it from W. Australian seeds.2

Acacia dura I have from Cape Arid

Is A. leprosa = A. dodonaeifolia? Willdenows original specimen could alone prove it. Lindleys plate of A. leprosa3 belongs evidently to A. stricta.

A latipes seems to me only a variety of A. cochlearis.

 

Acacia cochlearis

Acacia dodonaeifolia

Acacia dura

Acacia latipes

Acacia leprosa

Acacia petiolaris

Acacia pycnantha

Acacia stricta

 

The addressee is assumed to be Bentham, as M wrote many such notes commenting on the proof sheets of Flora Australiensis as they were sent to him before publication. The note could not have been written until after the proof sheets containing the Acacia pages of Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, were received. The species mentioned here were treated between pp. 324 and 358. Each proof sheet contained 16 pages, so the section containing the descriptions of these species would have been contained in the sheets posted in August (pp. 305–400); see G. Bentham to M, 23 August 1864). The note could not have been written before October.

Annotation in an unknown hand: Vol ii. (i.e. Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2).

Lehmann (1852), p. 306: ‘Habitat in Colonia ad flumen Cygnorum, unde semina sine nomine accepimus’.
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, p. 358 cited plate 1441 in Edwards (1815 -47), vol 17, 1831, adding the comment ‘(rather doubtful)’.

Please cite as “FVM-64-10-00a,” 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 26 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/64-10-00a