From George Bentham¹    19 November 1865

25, WILTON PLACE, S.W.

Novr 19/65

My dear Sir

The Australian mail having arrived earlier than usual I have before me yours of the 22 Sept. as well as that of the 21 Augt received since I last wrote In reply

I have taken note of Sandoricum indicum for enquiry — I had overlooked J. D. Hookers mention of it.²

Anamirta Baueriana is I believe not taken from an Australian specimen.

Laguncularia coccinea is an old name for Lumnitzera coccinea W. & Arn. (Fl. Austral ll. 509)³

The genus Polygala itself contains species with thick fleshy albumen and thin foliaceous cotyledons and others with thick fleshy cotyledons and little or no albumen and many intermediates⁴

As to Pithecolobium Vaillantii I had understood from your description that the leaves were simply pinnate. As they are bipinnate I suppose we must adopt the new genus you propose — it will then differ from Pithecolobium as Affonsea does from Inga in the plurality of carpels and from Affonsea as Pithecolobium does from Inga in the bipinnate leaves. These are artificial distinctions but there are no others in the whole group of Mimoseae which might be reunited in the great genus Mimosa were it not for the great number of species. Now that we know more of the pods they prove to be one of the worst characters for generic distinction the most dissimilar passing so gradually into each other through intermediate forms however constant they may be in species. That of Affonsea is all but unknown having only been seen in a young state in one species.

I duly received the £100 early this month

I have now been six weeks steadily working at Eucalyptus and have only just begun upon the Western species[.]⁵ I have grouped them as well as I am able chiefly from the anthers inflorescence and fruit but am not at all satisfied with my arrangement. The bark may as you say very likely give good characters but wholly unavailable to me as the specimens never show it and the notes of collectors when given are most bewildering especially for those who have never seen the trees growing — and the majority of specimens are unaccompanied by any note of the bark. I suppose I have another months work with them. I shall then revise the Myrtaceae and go on with the following orders

I foresee it will require about 500 Compositae to make up the required number for the 3d vol. so that I must contrive to get all in.

I do not think I should be justified in filling up the volume with Supplements for you publish what you receive as new in your Fragmenta and it is mere compilers work to refer to your Fragmenta in my Flora. At my age with the little time I am likely to have before me for work I think it best bestowed on getting on as much as I can with the consolidation of old and new species so as in my Flora to establish a groundwork for the future elaboration of a more detailed and accurate and comprehensive account of Australian plants in which you will be able to apply with advantage your acquaintance with the living individuals — which I have always found so important in my work on the European Flora.

My calculations for the 3d vol are

Myrtaceae	600 species
Lythrarieae Onagrarieae Cucurbitaceae Umbelliferae Rubiaceae and small families	300
Compositae	500
	1400 species

which is the number I ought to get into the volume.

I am afraid I cannot afford the expense of a map which would all have to come out of my own pocket

Ever yours sincerely

George Bentham

Affonsea

Anamirta Baueriana

Compositae

Cucurbitaceae

Eucalyptus

Inga

Laguncularia coccinea

Lumnitzera coccinea

Lythrarieae

Mimosa

Mimoseae

Onagrarieae

Pithecolobium Vaillantii

Polygala

Rubiaceae

Sandoricum indicum

Umbelliferae