Melbourne
bot Garden
18/3/72
By the steamship "Northumberland,"1 dear Mr Bentham, I have at last sent a case with more plants for your use. This is the first sending after nearly three years!, owing principly to the harrassing persecution, to which I was subjected by two or three of the employees of Mr Edw. Wilson's and Mr M'Kinnon's papers.2
I have limited the sending to supplemental Monochlamydeae this time. It is clear that for some months you will not be able to enter yet on Monocotyledoneae, if they at all are to be touched in the 6th volume. I would rather advise a supplement of Dicotyledoneae as regards new species and if you acquies[s] will furnish them all at once. It is now 10 years since we commenced on Dicotyledoneae and it will be probably 5 years before the Monocotyledoneae are done. Hence a supplement would come now handy, and a second supplement can follow and successively others. However your own views in this matter must give the decision.
Ficus will give you great trouble, unless Dr Bureau has finished his monography and did it well.3
| Now sent: | fasc | |
| Santalaceae | suppl. | 1 |
| Euphorbiaceae | " | 4 |
| Thymeleae | " | 1 |
| Coniferae | " | 1 |
| Cycadeae | " | 1 |
| fasc4 | ||
| Urticeae Suppl | 1 | |
| Casuarinae | 1 | |
| Small families | 1 | |
| Total. | 11 |
The box contains also several parcels of Fungi for the Rev. J M Berkeley. it is 20 years ago!! when my first fungi were sent to the Rev Gentleman. As yet he has published none. Can I expedite the work by a monetary remittance for clerical work?
For Prof Dr Dickie I also sent 2 parcel containing dry phanerogamae and crude Algae
With best regards
Ferd von Mueller.
Several new species are among the suppl parcels, a new Boehmeria &c &c5
6Would it not be best for you to take the Orchideae first, instead of miscellaneous small orders?, if at all Monocotyledoneae and Dicotyledoneae are to be mixed up in the same volume. Orchideae stand much by themselves and will fill perhaps nearly half a volume, whereas Palmeae should certainly not stand in one volume and Junceae, Xerotideae [...]7
It is very inconvenient to look for closely allied orders in different volumes. I experience this with Monopetaleae.
An other little matter I would suggest, namely that Mess Reeve's firm should not bind up their advertisements with the volumes, as it swells the bulk unneccessarily.
I trust you will not use the term achenes for urticeae, as Weddell and others have done. It ought to be entirely restricted to Compositae. Urticeae have of course only true carpels (carpidia sine caryops[e]s)
Algae
Boehmeria
Casuarinae
Compositae
Coniferae
Cycadeae
Dicotyledoneae
Euphorbiaceae
Fungi
Junceae
Monochlamydeae
Monocotyledoneae
Orchideae
Palmeae
Phanerogamae
Santalaceae
Thymeleae
Urticeae
Xerotideae
The case was despatched 23 March 1872 (Notebook recording despatch of plants for Flora Australiensis, RB, MSS M44, Library, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne).
Lauchlan Mackinnon; employees not identified.
See G. Bentham to M, 17 April 1872. Bureau (1873) was not used by Bentham in his account of the genus in Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, pp. 160-78; see G. Bentham to M, 17 December 1872. Bureau (1873), p. 287 cites Bentham's vol. 6, which was published three weeks before his treatment; presumably he had seen early sheets of Bentham's work (Bentham volume published 23 September 1873, Bureau 16 October (TL2)).
Heading on a new page of the letter.
The postscript is written in the margin of the letter. Boehmeria calophleba (B72.03.01, p. 11), Pimelea congesta (B72.03.01, p. 9). 'New' may mean new records for Australia: see footnotes to M to G. Bentham, 28 February 1872.
The remaining text is filed at RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1858-70, f. 41. It is annotated in an unknown hand 'Vol. VI', i.e. Bentham (1863-78, vol. 6), presumably by an archivist when the MSS were being sorted for binding. The correspondent is identified as Bentham by the references to the production of the Flora australiensis. The fragment is placed here on the basis of G. Bentham to M, 12 June 1872, which responds both to M's suggestions about supplementary volumes and to the suggestion that Reeves omit their advertisements from the bound volumes.
Five or six words obscured by binding.
Please cite as “FVM-72-03-18a,” 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