25, WILTON PLACE. S.W.
March 10 /72
My dear Sir
I write a few lines to say that a box is packed and I believe sent off to you from Kew containing — besides some parcels which were lying there for you, — your Thymeleae and Santalaceae which I trust you will receive safely
I am now in the midst of Euphorbiaceae.1 I have done Euphorbia Poranthera and Micrantheum I cannot say I quite approve of what Baillon has done as to your species2 I consider his E. chamoesyce3 E. Ferdinandi and E. Dallachyana as all referrible to E. Drummondii a species spread over all Australia and which there replaces our E. chamoesyce but in which I by no means recognise the true E. chamoesyce with which I am so familiar — the latter is strictly annual almost always pubescent and has a different aspect owing to the prevailing shape and texture of the leaves from the Australian one which is constantly glabrous forms after the first year a perennial stock and has rather thickish leaves. I do not think you have the true chamoesyce in Australia even as a weed of cultivation Baillon's E. Sharkoensis is the typical E. myrtoides E. vaccaria Baill. does not appear to me to differ from E. australis. Boissier (who had not seen typical specimens) mistook Hooker and Arnott's E. ramosissima which is Boissier's E. Chamissonis and Boissier's E. ramosissima must retain his former name of E. Sparrmani4 I cannot guess at what Boissiers E. Brownii can be5
I do not at all agree with Muell. Arg [&] Baillon in distinguishing Micranthea hexandra generically from M ericoides6 — both have carunculate seeds — the position of the lobes of the rudimentary ovary of M ericoides is merely the result of the nondevelopment of three of the stamens the relative position of the lobes of the ovary in the female flowers is the same in both species M hexandra varies with 6 to 9 stamens and in the number and shape of the lobes of the rudimentary ovary
I shall have to include in the present volume Monocotyledons as far as Orchideae and perhaps Orchideae themselves and should feel much obliged by your forwarding the specimens I shall not however get on very rapidly for I have many other things on hand
We have received at times most of the numbers of your 7th vol of Fragmenta and proof slips of what I suppose is the whole of the remainder but no complete copy, and what is in slips is of course uncorrected and unpaged so that it cannot be quoted.7
Trusting your affairs that troubled you so much are now going on satisfactorily believe me
Ever yours sincerely
George Bentham
The true American E. hypericifolia is not as far as I can see in Australia8
Baron F. v. Mueller
Euphorbia australis
Euphorbia Brownii
Euphorbia Chamissonis
Euphorbia chamoesyce
Euphorbia Dallachyana
Euphorbia Drummondii
Euphorbia Ferdinandi
Euphorbia myrtoides
Euphorbia ramosissima
Euphorbia Sharkoensis
Euphorbia Sparmanni
Euphorbia vaccaria
Euphorbiaceae
Micranthea ericoides
Micranthea hexandra
Micrantheum
Orchideae
Poranthera
Santalaceae
Thymeleae
Years later, Joseph Hooker told Henry Hance that Bentham found M's work on Euphorbiaceae 'terribly bad' in places; Hance expressed himself surprised because he expected M's work to be sound, though he conceded that he had the 'continental predilection for multiplying genera' (H. Hance to J. Hooker, 15 October 1878, RBG Kew, Directors' Correspondence 150/553-554). M differed with both Bentham and Hooker about the systematic position of Euphorbiaceae, arguing that it was artificial to maintain them among the Monochlamydeae: see, for example, M to G. Bentham, 24 February 1865; G. Bentham to M, 25 April 1865 (in this edition as 65-04-25a); M to G Bentham, 8 November 1882; and M to J. Hooker, 1 October 1882.
Baillon (1866).
E. chamaesyce?
E. Sparrmanni? cf. Boissier (1862), p. 14.
Error for Baillon's? See Baillon (1866), pp 290-1, and Bentham (1863-78) vol. 6, p. 46.
J. Müller (1866), p. 195 and Baillon (1866), p. 326 place M. hexandra in Caletia.
B71.12.03 was the final part of Volume 7; the index, B71.13.08, is undated.
Sentence written separately at top of p. 2 of letter.
Please cite as “FVM-72-03-10,” 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