Melbourne
12/2/74
It was extremely generous, honored and venerable friend, that you sent me your only specimen of Restio pilisepalus, which (as I anticipated in fragm, VIII, 99)1 does not belong to the genus Restio and which, as I now see from your specimen, does not even belong to the order, but belongs to Cyperoideae and most probably to the genus Chaetospora. I did not venture to dissect more than one spikelet, in which I found one male and one bisexual flower. Steudel took the filaments (of which there however three) together with the hypogynous plumous setulae (of which there are six) for sepals. The fruit is not broad and 2 or three celled and dehiscent, as in Restio, but a one seeded caryopsis. Doubltless the petioles are not slit in this plant, but unopened cylindrical; this however cannot be ascertained from the material at your disposal. I now return gratefully the whole specimen, and thank you for the disinterested manner, in which you sent me this precious exemplar.2
May providence give you yet many years life and strength to continue your luminous path in science; that is the ardent wish of your regardful
Ferd. von Mueller
Chaetospora
Cyperoideae
Restio pilisepalus
B73.08.01. M acknowledged Decaisne's specimen in B74.09.02, p. 236, where he confirms that it is closer to Chaetospora.
MS is accompanied by two labels. One, presumably Steudel's, identifies the specimen as Restio pilisoptem; the other, in M's hand, reads 'Chaetospora nisi genus vicinum [or neighbouring genus]'.
Please cite as “FVM-74-02-12a,” 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