To George Bentham   28 February 1872

Melbourne

bot Garden

28/2/72

 

The next consignment will go to you, dear Mr Bentham, by the steamer Northumberland in the middle of March and will reach you therefore probably in May. If I even sent this consignment now by a clipper, it would not come earlier, whereas thus I gain time to hear from you by the next mail in answer to several questions concerning the material required by you for volume 6.

The consignment will include supplements of Euphorbiaceae,

Santalaceae, Urticeae, Thymeleae &c. Among the plants is a new Laportea, a new Boehmeria, a new Pimelea, a Phyllanthus near to one from Java of the Scepasma section and several other Euphorbiaceae,1 not in my former collection. I hope you will keep up Callitris and Zamia in their widest sense. In the Kew conservatories and Museum you will be able to judge, whether any distinction between Zamia and Encephalartos can be kept up. I think not; but my material from America is here for comparison very imperfect. As regards Callitris I think it has been too far broken up into new genera, just like Cupressus, to which (in the appendix to the Report of our Acclim Society)2 I have brought back Retinospora and Chamaecyparis

Possibly a few more Casuarinas exist as good species, than those admitted by me into the fragmenta. I have had no good opportunity to study them in a living state. Several of the species from W. Austr and N.S. Wales, which I had in the garden were destroyed during the intrusion on my horticultural administration. At Adelaide only 2 species occur, near Melbourne only 3. — Miquel has however the Casuarinae as much over-rated as Parlatore the Frenelas.3

The case contains also some supplemental Fungi for Berkeley.4 If the Rev Gentleman could soon finish them and return me a set for comparison, it will be a boon, as the total absense of fungi in the Australian division of my Museum hinders all studies here and discontentedness may thus arise by the public at any time. Everyone is eager to find here fault. I shall be quite willing to remit monetary means to Berkeley out of my private purse, if that will expedite the examination.

Your very regardful

Ferd. von Mueller.

 

Drymispermum is now of course Phaleria.5

 

6The seniority of Phaleria over Drymispermum was not known to me, until I saw page 5787 of the illustrations of the Bot. Magazine. Of course the generic name of my three Australian species must now be changed. Dr Hooker, when reestablishing Phaleria, quite overlooked, that I had shown the occurrence of the genus in Australia already early in 1865.

 

Boehmeria

Callitris

Casuarina

Chamaecyparis

Cupressus

Drymispermum

Encephalartos

Euphorbiaceae

Frenela

Laportea

Phaleria.

Phyllanthus

Pimelea

Retinospora

Santalaceae

Scepasma

Thymeleae

Urticeae

Zamia

1
New species in these genera were described as follows: Boehmeria calophleba (B72.03.01, p. 11), Pimelea congesta (B72.03.01, p. 9). Others were not new species but were new records for Australia: for example Laportea moroides for which locality data are given in B74.10.01, p. 248.
2
B71.06.02.
3
Miquel (1868); Parlatore (1868), in which for Frenela see pp. 445-52.
4
In addition to the material mentioned, the case also included a consignment of 'algae for Dickie' (Notebook recording despatch of plants for Flora Australiensis, RB, MSS M44, Library, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne). Presumably George Dickie of Aberdeen.
5
The postscript is written in the margin.
6
The following text, from RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller,1858-70, f. 39, is added here as it is an expansion of the marginal footnote. The footnote could not be a response to G. Bentham to M, 25 January 1872 (in this edition as 72-01-25a), in which Bentham commented 'I am obliged to adopt the name of Phaleria for Drymispermum', since that letter is unlikely to have reached M before mid-March. In M to J. Hooker, 10 October 1869, M reported that he had seen J. Hooker (1869a), where the priority of Phaleria was pointed out; he published the correction in B72.03.01, p. 9.

Please cite as “FVM-72-02-28,” 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 20 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/72-02-28