28/1/83
It is not very faultful, my dear Sir Joseph, that I did not identify the supposed new Didymocarpus with Baea Treubii, as these two genera do not differ in flower, and as I had no fruit. Indeed I indicated in the footnote to my description, that it might be a Baea.1
To the objections, which may be raised against my merging the Monochlamydeae into the other series, I have replied in the preface, and I trust in dignified wording.2 Instead of creating difficulties for beginners, I hope to have simplified their study; and am aware as much as any one, that affinities are reticular, and for that very reason we cannot have a perfect & complete natural system, until all plants will be known. What little deviation I have adopted is trifling to those of Lindley, Fries, Eichler, [J.] Mueller and Caruel. The sequence adopted in the Census3 is the same as that followed in my "native plants of Victoria."4
Regardfully your
Ferd. Von Mueller.
I hope, that Ottelia ovalifolia flowered & fruited at Kew, so that a drawing could be made from the fresh plant.5
A bound copy of the Census will go to you by next mail or the one after that. The index is just passing through the press, after some delay, over which I had no control. You have the census of the genera, as printed in Sydney in 1881.6
Baea Treubii
Didymocarpus
Monochlamydeae
Ottelia ovalifolia
Please cite as “FVM-83-01-28,” 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