Melbourne bot Garden,
Newyearsday 1870
Allow me to ask you, dear Prof de Candolle, whether you can spare me a small fragment of Ozothamnus adnatus from your illustrious fathers collection.1
Mr Bentham refers O. adnatus to my O. retusus,2 and Dr Sonder (Linnaea 1852, 511)3 to my Ozothamnus decurrens (transact. phil. Inst. Vict. III, 59)4 — The impression left on my mind from reading the diagnosis, is this, that O. adnatus is a state of O. diosmifolius. These doubts can only be dispelled by the analysis of an original specimen.5
Trusting that in the progress of your great labors you enjoy health & happiness, and offering you to the new decennium my best gratulation I remain your regardful
Ferd von Mueller.
Ozothamnus adnatus
Ozothamnus decurrens
Ozothamnus diosmifolius
Ozothamnus retusus
Described in A. P. de Candolle (1837), p. 166.
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 3, pp. 628-9.
Sonder (1852a).
B59.13.02.
The fragment de Candolle sent is belatedly acknowledged in M to A. de Candolle, 20 May 1872 (in this edition as 72-05-20a) and is MEL 2057208. M published his conclusion that the plant was identical with Helichrysum diotophyllum in B73.06.03, p. 46, acknowledging the specimen.
Please cite as “FVM-70-01-01,” 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