From Friedrich Miquel1    23 May 1869

Utrecht 23 Mai 1869

Verehrtester Freund!

Ich habe Ihre Scaevol. mit unsern beiden aus den Molukken verglichen und das Resultat ist folgendes.

1. Ihre Sc. enantophylla ist eine neue Art, wenigstens nicht die Sc. oppositifolia Roxb. — Ihr Exemplar war leider sehr unvollständig und part VI der Fragm. Ph. fehlt mir.

2. von Ternate habe ich die echte S. oppositifolia Roxb., die ganz übereinstimmt mit den übrigen sehr kurzen Diagnosen Roxburgh's. — Die Kelchzipfel sind lang lineal. — Sie finden das Nähere in Vol. I der Annales Mus. b. L. B. wo ich diese und die folgende beschrieben habe.

3. die seq. "Scandens" n. 1981 Herb. Bogor. ist von Amboin und ist l. c. von mir als S amboinensis beschrieben.

Da Roxburgh grade2 von Ternate Pfl. erhielt, ist es wahrscheinlich dass seine Pfl. (n. 5213) Herb. Bog. die echte oppositifolia ist. Im ganzen doch scheint dies genus nur spärlich in den Molukken aufzutreten, als ein letzter Odem Zug New Holl. Luft — Ich lege ein Fragment dieser Scandens in diesen Brief. — Bessere könnte vielleicht Teysmann schicken.

Ist sie von Roxb.'s Pfl. verschieden, so repraesentirt sie eine neue Art, aber ich glaub das kaum.

Heute Morgen erhielt ich Ihren zweiten Brief. Beide haben mir grosse Freude gemacht, und im Voraus schon sage ich Ihnen Dank für die herrliche Pfl. Sendung. — Meinerseits sind 5 Hefte Annal. für Sie auf der Reise.

Sehr gerne will ich die indischen typen der Nord Austr. Flora vergleichen mit unsern Indo-Archip., möchte aber bitten mir dazu die Exenplare familienweise direct nach Utrecht zu schicken. In England bleiben die Sachen oft lange liegen. — In den Heften der Annal. werden Sie über einige Meliaceen schon Andeutungen zu Austral. Affin oder Identität finden.

Für die Gesellschaft d Wiss. werde ich sorgen, aber für dieses Jahr ist es zu spät. Die Candid. Listen sind schon geschlossen.

Herzlich grüsst

ganz der Ihrige

F. A. W. Miquel

 

Dürfte ich bitten gelegentlich, si fieri potest, pt. VI Frag. mir zu schicken

 
 
 

Utrecht, 23 May 1869.3

Most esteemed friend,

I have compared your Scaevola with our two from the Moluccas and the result is as follows.

1. Your Scaevola enantophylla is a new species,4 at least not the S. oppositifolia Roxb. — Your specimen was unfortunately very incomplete, and I lack volume 6 of the Fragmenta phytographiae Australiae.5

2. I have the true S. oppositifolia Roxb. from Ternate,6 which agrees completely with Roxburgh's7 very short diagnoses. — The calyx lobes are long lineal. — You will find more details in vol. 1 of the Ann. Bot. Lugd.-Bat.,8 where I described this and the following.

3. The following 'Scandens' n. 1981 (Herbarium Bogor) is from Ambon9 and has been described by me l.c.10 as S. amboinensis.

As Roxburgh had just received plants from Ternate, it is probable that his plant (n. 5213) Herb. Bog. is the true S. oppositifolia. In the whole area this species seems to occur only sparsely in the Moluccas and then, as a last gasp, in the New Holland air. — I enclose a fragment of this 'Scandens'11 with this letter. — Teiysman12 could perhaps send you better material.

If it differs from Roxburgh's plant, it represents a new species. But I doubt it.

This morning I received your second letter.13 Both gave me great pleasure, and I thank you already in advance for the wonderful plants you dispatched. — From my end 5 numbers of the Annales 14 are on the way.

I am very happy to compare the Indian types of your North Australian flora with that of our Indian Archipelago,15 and would only like to ask that you send the specimens sorted into families and directly to Utrecht. Things often remain lying in England for a long time. — In the numbers of the Annales you will already find a few hints on Australian affinities or identifications in a number of Meliaceae.

I will take care of the Society of Sciences,16 but it is too late for this year. The lists of candidates are already closed.

With sincere regards

your

F. A. W. Miquel.

May I ask that you send me volume 6 of the Fragmenta phytographiae Australiaesome time, if it can be done.17

 

Meliaceae

Scaevola amboinensis

Scaevola enantophylla

Scaevola oppositifolia

1
MS found with a specimen MEL 1520054 marked ‘Scaevola oppositifolia Roxb. Ternate, dedit Miquel'.
2
i.e. gerade.
3
For reply see M to F. Miquel, 14 August 1869.
4
Scaevola enantophylla F. Muell., B73.06.03, p. 58. M refers in this account to the specimen he received from Miquel with this letter.
5
M discussed the Goodeniaceae in B67.07.05, pp. 6-16; Scaevola is discussed on pp. 15-16.
6
A volcano on a small island adjacent to Halmahera Is. in the Moluccas, Indonesia, formerly a Dutch colony. Miquel (1864) cites a collection by Teijsman and De Vriese from the summit of Ternate, at 5,000 feet altitude, of which he enclosed a fragment with this letter to M.
7
William Roxburgh.
8
Annales Musei Botanici Lugduno-Batavi, vol. 1, 1864, p. 210. Miquel was editor of the journal.
9
Indonesia.
10
loc. cit.
11
MS annotation interlined by M: 'S. oppositifolia! Miq. ann. I, 210.' (cf. M in B68.12.02, p. 225).
12
J. E. Teijsman.
13
Letters not found.
14
Annales musei botanici lugduno-batav i.
15
i.e. Indonesia; see discussion in Maroske (2012).
16
Probably the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen), of which Miquel was a senior member but to which M was never elected.
17
Although the main text of vol. 6 of the Fragmenta had been completed by December 1868, the index was not expected to be printed until March 1869 (M to J. Decaisne, 28 February 1869 [in this edition as 69-02-28d]). It had still not been printed by the end of April (M to F. Parlatore, 24 April 1869 [in this edition as 69-04-24b]), but it was available by August (M to A. Tulk, 7 August 1869 [in this edition as 69-08-07a]).

Please cite as “FVM-69-05-23,” 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/69-05-23