Melbourne, im botanischen Garten
am 20 Mai 1872.1
Es war seit langer Zeit meine Absicht, edler Herr, mich Ihnen schriftlich zu nahen, aber die Verhältnisse in meiner Anstalt waren seit 2 oder 3 Jahren so ungünstig, dass manches Nothwendige aus Mangel an Zeit und Mitteln unterbleiben musste. So war mein Werk "Fragmenta &c" von März 1872 bis März 1873 gänzlich zum Stillstand gekommen, und ist nun erst wieder begonnen. Die Störungen hier beruhen auf die politischen Verhältnisse einer jungen Colonie mit Selbst-Gouvernement. Vielleicht wuerde ich selbst jetzt noch das Schreiben an Sie verschoben haben, wenn nicht ein besonderer und für Sie vielleicht erfreulicher Umstand mich besonders jetzt dazu veranlasste. By2 Gelegenheit der Herstellung des genus Phyllachne (das noch nicht in Pfeiffers Nomenclator erschienen ist) habe ich ebenfalls Candollea unter den Stylideen hergestellt, wie es schon Ihr grosser verewigter Vater andeutete. Dies giebt nun eine ganze grosse Familie der Candolleaceen, die sich über ganz Australien, mehrere Theile Südasiens und Süd Americas erstreckt. Ich habe dies in der 60. nummer der Fragmenta erörtert, und sende Ihnen die Schrift, hoffend dass diese Änderung Ihre Genehmigung finden wird, obgleich es wohl eine Weile dauern wird, ehe sich die Botaniker und namentlich die Gaertner an eine so weitgreifende Namens Änderung gewoehnen werden. Ich bitte Sie, mir gütig Ihre Ansicht über diese Angelegenheit mitzutheilen. Ich werde stolz darauf sein, wenn es mir zu Theil fiele, das erste Monument, das Labillardière 20 Jahre vor meinem Dasein Ihrem Vater errichtete, so weit auszubauen. Es hat mich gewundert, dass H. & B. das Dilleniaceen genus beibehielten, dass ganz unhaltbar ist. Unsere Freunde B. & H. sind sonst auch nicht unwilling3 gangbare Namen aufzuheben, wie Trachymene zeigt, was nach dem selben Prioritäts Recht auch mit Candollea & Stylidium geschehen muss. Wahrscheinlich wurde die Sache bei Gelegenheit von Marlea übersehen.
An Ihre Agenten, Mess Truebner & Co, Paternoster Row, sind mit dieser Monatspost mehrere Schriften an Sie abgesandt.
Von dem 17 Band des Prodromus habe ich noch nichts erhalten, mich aber über den 16 sehr gefreut. Der VII Band meiner Fragmenta war mir nicht zur Hand, wie ich das andere Fehlende der Fragmenta heute absandte. Er soll mit naechster Post kommen.
Hoffend dass sie in Ihrem glorreichen Wirken sich auch voller Gesundheit erfreuen bleibe ich verehrungsvoll der Ihre
Ferd. von Mueller.
Besten Dank für das Fragment von Ozothamnus adnatus. Die Pflanze ist identisch mit Helichrysum diotophyllum, welches ich aber bloss aus Queensland besass.
Melbourne Botanic Garden,
20 May 1872.4
It has long been my intention, noble Sir, to write to you, but conditions in my institute have been so unfavourable for 2 or 3 years, that much that was needful had to remain unattended to from lack of time and the necessary means. Thus my work Fragmenta &c. had come to a complete halt from March 1872 to March 1873, and has only now been recommenced. The disruptions here are due to the political conditions in a young colony with self-government. Perhaps I would have put off writing to you even now, had not a particular and possibly for you pleasing circumstance given me specific cause to write to you now. On the occasion of erecting the genus Phyllachne5 (which has not yet appeared in Pfeiffer's Nomenclator),6 I have also restored Candollea in the Stylidieae, as your great father7 had already indicated. This results now in the very large family Candolleaceae, which extends over the whole of Australia, several parts of southern Asia and South America. I have discussed this in the 60th number of the Fragmenta,8 and I am sending you this publication in the hope that this change will find your approval, even though it will take some time before botanists and particularly gardeners will get used to such a far-reaching name change. I ask you kindly to communicate to me your views on this matter. I should be proud if it were to fall to me to enlarge to such an extent the first monument that Labillardière erected to your father 20 years before my existence.9 I was surprised that Humboldt and Bonpland retained the Dilleniaceae genus, which is completely untenable.10 Our friends Bentham and Hooker are usually not all that unwilling to set aside commonly used names, as shown with Trachymene,11 and under the same rules of priority the same must be done with Candollea and Stylidium. Probably the matter was overlooked in the case of Marlea.12
Several publications have been sent to you with this month's mail to your agents, Messrs Truebner & Co., Paternoster Row.13
I have not yet received anything of the 17th volume of the Prodromus,14 but was very pleased with the 16th volume. I did not have the 3rd volume of my Fragmenta to hand when I mailed the other lacking parts of the Fragmenta to you today. It shall follow by the next mail.
Hoping that in the midst of your glorious labours you enjoy complete good health, I remain respectfully your
Ferd. von Mueller.
Many thanks for the fragment of Ozothamnus adnatus.15 The plant is identical with Helichrysum diotophyllum, which, however, I had only from Queensland.
Candollea
Candolleaceae
Helichrysum diotophyllum
Marlea
Ozothamnus adnatus
Phyllachne
Stylidieae
Stylidium
Trachymene
From the content of the letter, it is clear that M's '1872' is in error and that the letter was written in 1873.
Bei.
unwillig.
See n. 1.
B73.04.02, p. 39.
Pfeiffer (1873-4).
Augustus Pyramus de Candolle.
See B73.04.02, p. 41.
M commented on this case in a general argument for nomenclatural priority in M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 10 September 1881. Louriero (1790), p. 220, erected Stylidium as the name of a genus in the Cornaceae; Swartz's genus Stylidium in the Stylidiaceae was applied by Willdenow in his edition of Linné (1797-1830), vol. 4, part 1, p. 146 (issued 1805). It was this latter genus that had become associated with Stylidium by usage. M was arguing for a return to using Stylidium to refer to the genus in Cornaceae, thus allowing Labillardière's 1805 name Candollea to be used for the genus in Stylideaceae (which would become Candolleaceae). Candollea had also been used (by Labillardière!) for the name of a genus in the family Dilleniaceae.
The source of M's allusion to Humboldt and Bonpland using Candollea within Dilleniaceae has not been identified.
Bentham & Hooker (1862-83), vol. 1, part 3 (1873), p. 874 suppressed De Candole's Trachymene of 1830 in favour of Reichenbach's Siebera of 1828. However, they maintained (p. 873) Rudge's Trachymene of 1811 as distinct from Siebera.
In their treatment of Cornaceae, Bentham & Hooker (1862-83), vol. 1, part 3 (1873), p. 949, maintained Roxburgh's Marlea of 1820 against Louriero's Stylidium of 1790, therefore preserving Swart's Stylidium in Stylidiaceae. Consequently Candollea was treated as a synonym of Stylidium in Stylidiea (p. 534). M's suppression of Stylidium in favour of Candollea was not accepted, and Stylidium in Stylidiaceae has been formally conserved under the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature (see No. 8724, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Tokyo Code), Electronic version (URL http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/APP3AE_5.HTM, accessed 9 December 2016).
London.
The final part of volume 16 of Candolle's Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis was issued in mid-November 1869; vol. 17 was not issued until 16 October 1873 (TL2).
This fragment is at MEL (MEL 2057208).
Please cite as “FVM-73-05-20a,” 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