25 Wilton Place
London S.W.
Sept. 21 1865
My dear Sir
You will probably have heard by last mail of the great loss we have sustained in the death of Sir William Hooker on the 12th of last month after an illness of three days. He was in the full enjoyment of all his faculties both of body and mind on the Tuesday preceeding and having passed his eightieth year and come to his end without suffering one cannot but feel that there is much to be thankful for. Dr Hooker having gone to sleep in a draught whilst watching his father was laid prostrate by a violent attack of acute rheumatism with fever, he could not leave his bed for above a fortnight and untill last week we were very uneasy about him. He is now much better and is gone today to Buxton where the waters are celebrated for rheumatic complaints and we trust that in a few weeks more he will be able to return to Kew and take up his father's duties. In the mean time he has as yet very little use of his hands and has I believe scarcely yet been able to hold a pen. I have been out of town for the last two months and only came up for Sir William's funeral, and now again to see Dr Hooker before he left — by the end of next week I hope to be fairly at work again.
I have received I believe two of your letters since I last wrote —those of 25 May1 and 11 June — the box per Sussex, with supplementary Myrtaceae, has safely arrived.
I am sorry that you have paid the freight. As I wrote once before2 there are great difficulties here in prepaying the boxes sent from the Establishment at Kew but none in paying the freight on boxes received there. It would be a great deal better for you only to pay for the boxes returned to you and leave us to pay the freight on the boxes you send. As it is, for what is past, if you will let me know what you have paid I will myself send you the amount.
I have examined the two Rubiaceae you send and ask about.3 The one (Dichostachys) is certainly a congener of Antirrhea.4 Whether that genus ought or ought not to be united with Guettarda remains to be ascertained and it will also require further examination to ascertain whether your species is really a new one which I believe it to be. — The other (Woollsia) is a Lasianthus (Mephitidia Blume) very near L. obscura5 Miq. (M. obscura Bl.) if not a variety of that species which is abundant in the Archipelago and somewhat variable.
I have not heard anything of the draft for £100 you mention, but it is of no consequence as it will not be strictly due to me untill next year when the 3d vol. will I hope be out.
It would be a great convenience if you were to give a systematic index to the plants described or commented on in your fragmenta and other papers, for it takes a great deal of time to hunt up the scattered notices6 and after all there is great risk of missing some as is unavoidable with regard to the notices of Australian plants occasionally scattered in more or less obscure periodicals both here and on the Continent
We are going to close our 2d part of the Genera7 with what is now printed that is to the end of Myrtaceae — Dr Hooker had Melastomaceae and all the remaining orders before Umbelliferae ready except the last revision which was not quite finished and which he will not be able to complete for many months yet and we are unwilling that what is in print should remain so long unpublished. This part will therefore be one of 300 pages only and the 3d part (to include all before Compositae) will conclude the 1st vol.
Ever yours sincerely
George Bentham
Dr F. Mueller FRS
&c
Antirrhea
Dichostachys
Guettarda
Lasianthus obscura
Melastomataceae
Mephitidia obscurus
Myrtaceae
Rubiaceae
Umbelliferae
Woollsia
Please cite as “FVM-65-09-21,” 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 27 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/65-09-21