Drosera macrantha? It would be unsafe to admit this without any critical study. It may be only a form of D. Menziesii.
Coprosma hirtella = young shoot of an Eucalyptus
Pultenaea graveolens Tate; name excellent but I do not venture to give an opinion on this species, without connected examination of allied congeners; the variability of some Pultenaeas is very great. It needs some weeks special study from now much augmented material to revise the whole genus.1
Tatea acaulis; perhaps it would be well to change the name to T. subacaulis, as the latter specimens show the development of a short stem.2
These are the notes, dear Prof Tate, which suggest themselves after reading your kind letter of the 22,3 and after seeing the specimens.
I will return the Spyridium hereafter. You can have the msc. addenda to the Census4 made by me at any time for any summary of yours
Ferd. von Mueller.
The Pteris = P. arguta5 and doubtless spontaneous, as I found the same species on the Vict. coast in little hollows far away from forests
25/5/83.
Coprosma hirtella
Drosera macrantha
Drosera Menziesii
Pteris arguta
Pultenaea graveolens
Spyridium
Tatea acaulis
Tatea subacaulis
Pultenaea graveolens was described in Tate (1885), p. 68.
M to R. Tate, 27 April 1883 (in this edition as 83-04-27a), acknowledged receipt of 'extraprints' of the description of Tatea acaulis (B83.04.07), formally read to the Royal Society of SA on 1 May 1883. M distributed copies: see the specimen at Kew, K1067682, which has a copy attached; there is also a copy (of unknown provenance) in the Australian National Library Botany leaflets (PETHpam 538). Tate made the change requested here and some other corrections in the description and the title, when the paper was formally published (B83.12.04). However, in his Census supplement (B84.03.06) and subsequently in B89.12.03), he listed the species as Tatea acaulis, citing the journal details. This caused later confusion about the name: 'The title of the article in the accompanied leaflet (no page number) differs from the title of [the journal article]. Also, the specific epithet in the original publication is Tatea subacaulis whereas in this leaflet it is "Tatea acaulis". This has misled many botanist[s]. A. A. Munir 29.11.1983' (note attached to K1067682, accessed 31 March 2023).
i.e. R. Tate to M, 22 May 1883.
B83.03.04.
Also reported in M to R. Tate, 22 May 1883.
Please cite as “FVM-83-05-25a,” 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