25. WILTON PLACE, S.W.
March 18661
My dear Sir
Your second box of Compositae (Aster etc) has safely arrived per Yorkshire and has reached Kew.
Your letter of the 25th Decr2 reached me the day after last post day — In reply I find I cannot dispense with Compositae for the third volume — and I must say considering my age and the consequent precariousness of my life it is better that I should proceed as far as I can with the Flora which must in the first instance be worked up in this country for the sake of identifying old species, than to delay it for supplements which are the less wanted as you have been publishing the novelties to be added in your Fragmenta — and which at any rate you can do at least as well as myself.
Euphorbiaceae and Laurineae under our arrangement cannot possibly come into the third volume — and besides it would be very inconsiderate to meddle with Euphorbiaceae till the volume of the Prodromus now printing is out.3
The Melaleuca you sent a specimen of from the Melbourne garden as M. Moorei is the commonest form of M. pentagona (with narrow leaves)4
The Eugenias will be returned in a box now packing with Umbelliferae Araliaceae etc. I have not altered the E. Wilsoni5
I fear it is too late now to alter Eucalyptus diversicolor into E. colossea — the former name being published in your Fragmenta will be adopted by botanists whatever name may be subsequently given to it and a new name would only add to the confusion of the overcharged synonymy.
You send a plant as Homalium ?pentandrum.6 I find the ovary 2-celled with 2 erect ovules in each cell. It appears to me to be a Celastrus very near C. bilocularis but a little different in petals and inflorescence, the specimen is however not sufficient to speak with certainty
I put Astrotriche in Araliaceae but cannot agree with Seemann in removing Hydrocotyle from Umbelliferae.7
Your Mackinlaya is I think a very good genus although monotypic — but Irvingia is much better in Hedera where you first put it. As to what Seemann says of the ovary being more inferior than in Hedera helix8 I have had vertical sections of the two side by side without detecting the slightest difference in this respect. — Seemann has a good deal of cleverness and writes well but dissects very little and takes a good deal upon credit or from external examination.
19th March
The box I mentioned was sent off a few days ago. I presume the bill of lading will be sent to you this mail.
I must beg you to make one correction in the Umbelliferae — It having been shown that Didiscus DC (including Dimetopia) is the true Trachymene Rudge I was obliged to adopt that name but I had overlooked that Dimetopia pusilla is Trachymene pilosa Sm. consequently Didiscus pilosa which I had called T. pilosa must have another specific name and I have now called it T. australis
I have finished the greater part of Rubiaceae and hope to get through the remainder this week so as to commence upon Compositae next week
I took the Myrtaceae to the printers three days since and hope to have already three or four sheets to send you next mail — after the first fortnight I expect to get two sheets a week through the press
Yours very sincerely
George Bentham
Dr Mueller
I trust if the remaining Compositae are not yet sent off you will kindly do so immediately in order not to delay the volume.
Araliaceae
Aster
Astrotriche
Celastrus bilocularis
Compositae
Didiscus pilosa
Didisus
Dimetopia pusilla
Eucalyptus colossea
Eucalyptus diversicolor
Eugenia Wilsoni
Euphorbiaceae
Hedera helix
Homalium pentandrum
Hydrocotyle
Irvingia
Laurineae
Mackinlaya
Melaleuca Moorei
Melaleuca pentagona
Myrtaceae
Rubiaceae
Trachymene australis
Trachymene pilosa
Umbelliferae
Please cite as “FVM-66-03-19,” 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 28 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/66-03-19