To George Bentham   21 August 1865

21/8/65

Your letter of the 26 June, dear Mr Bentham, has reached me in due time.¹ I am wondering and amazed, how you are able to carry so much work on within so short a time, even though I assume, that you have but little interruption. Here as Director of a very large Department with multifarious duties I have at all times but little leisure for descriptive Botany, and as my spirit is half broken I cannot muster courage to work regularly often through the evenings or on the whole Sundays as before. However to proceed to the special them[o]s of my letter. I send herewith the only specimen of an apparently new Viscum I have just received,² assuming that you will include the Loranthaceae in the 3. vol. How they can be regarded by any one monochlamydeous is an enigma to me and if the interpretation is given to the parts of Viscum, which I employed in the manuscripts at Kew,³ you will find that the genus well agrees with Loranthus, in which the floral parts are receiving more readily their due value. The calyx of some Loranthi of Australia is especially manifest.

It seems Dr Hooker is acquainted with several genera, which ought to have been inserted in the 2 and 1. vol of the flor. Austr. Bryophyllum I mentioned before.⁴ If you refer to the list if Indo-Australian plants in the preface of the flor. Tasm, you will notice as mentioned: Sandoricum Indicum, Sandoricum nervosum, Laguncularia coccinea (this genus is even noted by RBrown in the appendix to Flinders) — In Endlichers Atakta is a plate of Anamirta Baueriana without letterpress.⁵ It is not an Norfolk Island plant and therefore perhaps Australian; if so it is omitted

Mr Moore writes to me to day and desires, that in the publication of his plants from the Tweed the name of Mr W. Carron should be mentioned along with his own as that of the collector.

I was well aware that Smiths Metrosideros floribunda is an Angophora but his name, Eugenia elliptica, would stand for Acmena. I suppose you noted what I said on the subject in the fragmenta.⁶ I fully agree with you, that the untenable genera, with which Berg has burdened the Myrtaceae, should be abolished.⁷ Great difficulty will arise in limiting the genera of Compositae, which D.C.⁸ and others have far too much multiplied. The Myrtus of the section Rhodomyrtus sent by Hill I have forwarded to you as Myrtus Cuttsiae.⁹

How Rhodamnia & Rhodomyrtus are to be kept up, without also admitting most of Bergs genera I cannot see.

Among baccate Myrtaceae of Australia I admit after a careful examen of all the species here indigenous only Myrtus and Eugenia. Artificial genera are a great plague & render the view over the members of an order very disturbed. I should be glad to have your opinion concerning Eugenia Wilsoni.¹⁰ I trust the supplemental Myrtaceae sent to you will reach you before your printing of the 3 vol. begins. Would it not be well to give with this volume a good map of Australia? The one sent to Sir Will Hooker is nearly complete.¹¹ There is also a beautiful map published lately by Prof. Petermann, on a small scale. It is most excellent & perhaps he would allow it to be copied, or furnish for a trifle the needful number of copies.¹²

The Trichosanthes now transmitted seems new. It is all I have.¹³

Mr Hill has sent me one single seed of Streptosia Hillii, which proves the genus very distinct from Kennedya.¹⁴ I did not like to dissect this single seed & send it to you.

Trusting that you will enjoy good health in the prosecution of your labours I remain your

regardful

Ferd. Mueller

Mr Hill says that the pod of Streptosia is 2-or 3- seeded

Acmena

Anamirta Baueriana

Angophora

Bryophyllum

Compositae

Eugenia elliptica

Eugenia Wilsoni

Kennedya

Laguncularia coccinea

Loranthaceae

Loranthus

Metrosideros floribunda

Myrtaceae

Myrtus

Myrtus Cuttsiae

Rhodamnia

Rhodomyrtus

Sandoricum Indicum

Sandoricum nervosum

Streptosia Hillii

Trichosanthes

Viscum