To George Bentham   29 March 1868

29/3/68.

Through his Excellency's Office, dear Mr Bentham, you will receive simultaneously with this letter a small package of Museum plants, selected from 2 fascicles of Monopetaleae, which I was prevented to put into order in time for the large consignment made by the Great Britain.¹ Be so friendly to return a full set from this package of plants, in as much as in some instances I have included all the specimens I had. Drummond's & Preiss's plants I have as a general rule not sent, because you have otherwise access to them already. In the XLV fragment you will find more or less extensive notes on all these plants. The asclepiadeous climber in the parcel seems a new genus. If so, let it bear Mr Thozets name.² I have several very remarkable plants for the XLV[I] Fragment, e.g. an Eastern Hannafordia, a new Aristolochia, Beyera,³ Sowerbaea, Cucurbita, Melodorum & two other new Anonaceae &c I shall be also able to give the characters of the fruit of Hyptandra.⁴ It is strange that neither D.C. nor RBr. saw the 2-seeded fruit of Myoporum platycarpum. I described it as such very many years ago and brought the plant to Disoon.⁵ Dasymalla & Spartothamnus (Teucridium) are truely Verbenaceous. I had in 1856 described Spartothamnus as a second Teucridium.⁶ Lachnostachys I correctly put in 1858 (as a new genus though) into Buettneriaceae,⁷ as I have now amply proved by the embryology. — Of Sapoteae⁸ I have sent you 16 sp — RBr had 5. In reference to Epacrideae it has been most unfortunate to me, that I remained altogether ignorant of Turcz writings thereon! The excellent Dr Sonder has generally kept me supplied with Turczaninows papers; but he also — though a writer on Epacrideae, — must have been unaware of Turcz doings. I cannot describe to you, how I am vexed at thus Michiea sinking to the ground, as the Gentleman to whom the genus was dedicated when he was a Minister of the Crown was very kind to me and as the honorable Gentleman is one of the few really erudite friends I have here and who take an interest in my work.⁹ As regards your intended limitation of the genera of Epacrideae I should think, that when you have finally done all you will find that my work rests on sound ground. I find it moreover difficult to reconcile your views, expressed in your letter on Epacrideae with the principle which guided you in suppressing so many genera & even some orders, which have higher claims on generic separation than these Epacrideae & rested on RBr's high authority also. There are Pleurandra, Hemistemma, Tasmania,¹⁰ Nephrodium and a Host of others, to which in due deference to RBr. (besides that RBr did not attach much value to these Epacrids) no suppression could have been applied; but I beg you kindly to understand that I do not attach any undue weight to my own judgement, but I have utterly failed to see the general guiding principles by which many of your generic groups of species are ruled, I always thought we required some fair character, by which at a moment we could firmly find out the limits of a genus, and also that it is immaterial whether a genus is monotypic, oligo — or pleio — or polytypic, as long as it rests on good perspicuous clear characters. Nature has very many monotypic genera, from Linnaea on in any direction, genera also to which subsequent discoveries are not likely to add. You must pardon me when I speak so frankly on this subject; but there is an impression on my mind that I shall not live long and as you are likely to live many years after I am gone I ventured to give you the result of my own contemplations. I renew also the expression my regre[a]t, though you will kindly perceive without any bitterness, — that you give me again to understand, that you intend to carry the Austr Flora on without me, unless I am always in early readiness with my plants.¹¹ I leave it to your own high minded judgement, whether such a course would be just to me. It is my special territory Australia and my sacrifices in time & substantial means have been enormous to investigate its flora. If I was living in that independence & prosperity, which you yourself so gloriously & well deserved enjoy, I might readily keep pace with you, but when successive disasters of flood & drought, additional toil for Exhibitions of Industry &c &c encroach on my time heavily & finally my health fluctuates, I must crave from your goodness some indulgence, otherwise the losses which I sustain in reference to the Flora will be still larger as they are already.

You remark that you were bound to supply the supporting Governments yearly with a volume. I assure you on behalf of the principle supporting Government & I might say on behalf of South Australia also (because the S. Australians bear my gratuitous labors there for 5 years in grateful remembrance,) that no necessity whatever exists in furnishing them with a volume yearly, and as the subsidy is for the volume & not the year there is so far nothing binding to time. If, as you to my sorrow tell me, the genera are such heavy financial burden, then I should have thought that the Society over which you so worthily preside,¹² would gladly record the remodelled genera of order after order. To you with unrivalled knowledge of the higher plants of the whole globe, the most worthy engagement, I feel, would be if you gave us as the results of that knowledge, timely the genera.

Or otherwise while you allow me a little tranquillity to go on with my Australian work of speciality, the riches of the Kew Museum would make up manyfold for the losses, which you might by concessions to me sustain.

Were it not, that you have given precedence of the flora over the genera, I might next year carry out my long cherished wish to connect my northern, eastern & southern researches with a years investigation in the West. But I am afraid that thus this plan will also be frustrated. It would have been well for my health & the whole of my workings in any afterlife if I could have enjoyed a years bushlife for recreation and to work there with a great final stroke for phytography here; but — as I say — I must dismiss the thought from my mind.

The saddest of saddness we have experienced here is the attempt of that outcast of humanity, who meditated the assassination of poor Prince Alfred. The outburst of horror is universal; and so the joy of the miraculous preservation of the life of his R.H.¹³ — Innocent as Australia is as a whole, we all feel we shall have as a part of a nation here to suffer for the misdeed. I shall never forget the manly friendliness with which on his parting from the garden the Prince pressed my hand.

Trusting you are well I remain your regardful and attached

Ferd. v. Mueller

Should Maccoya prove no genus, pray retain the name for the species. It is a pity to see dedications quite destroyed.¹⁴

Gentianeae ought in my opinion to come immediately after Goodeniaceae

Anonaceae

Aristolochia

Beyera

Buettneriaceae

Cucurbita

Dasymalla

Disoon

Epacrideae

Gentianeae

Goodeniaceae

Hannafordia

Hemistemma

Hyptandra

Lachnostachys

Maccoya

Melodorum

Michiea

Monopetaleae

Myoporum platycarpum

Nephrodium

Pleurandra

Sapoteae

Sowerbaea

Spartothamnus

Spartothamnus

Tasmania

Teucridium