To Joseph Hooker   May 1874

[May 1874]1

 

You ask me, dear Dr Hooker, by last mail, whether I still hold Helmholtzia as a distinct genus.2 To this I must give an affirmative answer, as the matter presents itself to me in this way. If Endlicher had not separated Haeteria,3 and if all subsequent writers on Philydreae had not adopted this genus Haeteria, then we could not well separate Helmholtzia, though in habit it is more distinct from the two others, then these two are. if Helmholtzia was not to stand, then it must go into Haeteria, not into Philydrum. In the allied orders of Liliaceae the shape of the anthers is of great moment; instance only Stypandra. Of course it is quite possible that lower India4 and New Guinea may yield us additional Philydreae, and then new changes in the genera may become possible; but as matters stand at present nothing is gained by uniting the three.

I thank you much for the sending of the second (volume or) part of the important "Flora Indica"5 What a treasure that work will be to Indian workers. The plants of Dr Tate are those of Hann's Expedition.6

I think you will find my limitation of the genera of Epacrideae the safest. I have in the VIII vol (pag. 52)7 added to my former schema,8 but omitted Cyathopsis as a section of Styphelia, besides Poiretia ought to take precedence of Sprengelia9 in all fairness, and to this view I have given effect in the first fascicle of the "Educational Collections" just to be issued.10

Prof Agardh writes me that his Cycas has made new roots.11 Let your gardener examine yours.12

With best wishes

Ferd. von Mueller

 

Cyathopsis

Cycas

Epacrideae

Haeteria

Helmholtzia

Liliaceae

Philydreae

Philydrum

Poiretia

Sprengelia

Stypandra

Styphelia

 
1
editorial addition. MS annotation, apparently by Hooker: 'May 1874'. This date is consistent with mention of the 'Educational Collections' which, although apparently not distributed until September, were ready in June (M to T. Ware, 20 June 1874).
2
Letter not found.
3
Hetaeria? Endlicher (1836–40), p. 133.
4
The East Indies (i.e. Indonesia)?
5
Hooker (1872-7), part 2, was published in January 1874.
6
Thomas Tate collected during William Hann's 1872 expedition the Cape York Peninsula, Qld. See also M to J. Hooker, 8 September 1873 (in this edition as 73-09-08b).
7
B73.06.03.
8
B67.09.01.
9
but omitted … Sprenglia is marked in the margin with two vertical lines. Hooker treated the Epacrideae inBentham & Hooker (1862-83), vol. 2, part 2, pp. 608-18, published in May 1876. His scheme followed that already published in December 1868 by Bentham (1863 -1878), vol. 4, pp 142-165, who had rejected M's arguments as unnecessary since M 'does not propose to remodel Brown’s groups, but only to reduce their value in the systematic scale, of which the principal result is an altered nomenclature' (p. 145). See Lucas (2003), pp 269–72.
10
See M to T. Webb Ware, 20 June 1874. For M;s 'Educational Collections' see Lucas, Maroske and Brown-May (2006), pp 34-6 and Maroske (2007).
11
Letter not found.
12
MS annotation by Hooker: 'Thank for Cycas Normanbyana'. See also J. Hooker to M, 6 May 1873.

Please cite as “FVM-74-05-00,” 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 24 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/74-05-00