21/12/82
Your discovery of Calochilus in N.Z. is very interesting, dear Mr Buchanan,1 and as I happened to pass the description of an other orchid through the press, I took at once notice of this Calochilus.2 It may be identical with C. paludosus, as you suggest, but the inner segments of the calyx are shorter and the anther is less blunt; still that may be ascribable to variation, and I must confess, that I am not clear about positive distinction between C. campestris, C. Robertsoni & C. paludosus, perhaps because only one form seems to have come in Victoria fresh under my notice, and the others I know only from dried & not very instructive N. S. Wales specimens. It would be well, if a little more material of the N.Z. congener could be procured, and best of all, if several flowers were fresh put into Alcohol.3
The other plant I have not yet soaked; seems from external appearance Stylidium subulatum or a closely allied species. You will be aware, that I simply placed it in Phyllachne, while Professor Berggren established a genus (Oreostylidium) for it. Yours is congeneric to that plant, if not identical but I will soak the few flowers & try to make out their structure, & let you know the result. I wished your friends in the Nelson-District would procure more specimens, & place flowers in Alcohol. The prospect of getting through you specimens soon of Epiblema is very pleasing.
Regardfully your
Ferd von Mueller.
Happy new year to you.
Calochilus campestris
Calochilus paludosus
Calochilus Robertsoni
Epiblema
Oreostylidium
Phyllachne
Stylidium subulatum
John Buchanan (1819-1898); see J. Buchanan to M, 11 December 1882.
B82.11.02, under Eria fitzalani.
A very slightly modified version of this paragraph (B83.05.06) appeared as a quotation in the final paragraph in Buchanan (1883), p. 340, where the collection was reported as having been made by H. H. Travers in the 'Collingwood district', in the far north-west of the South Island of New Zealand. The article is stated to have been 'read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 9 December 1882'; the section on this species was presumably added to Buchanan's article prior to the volume in which this appeared being issued in May 1883.
Please cite as “FVM-82-12-21,” 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