20/2/84.
Let me thank you, dear Prof. Gray, for your lucid remarks on D.C's last publication concerning nomenclature.1 I had written some notes for the bot. Centralblatt2 soon after receiving the work from M. Alph. de Candolle himself. I may be induced to write still further on the subject; but on this occasion I would merely remark, that I agree with you on nearly all points. You have however overlooked one important moment in regard to the special case of Stylidium, Marlea and Candollea; it is this: Hibbertia absorbs Candollea; so we would still need a genus for the great name of D.C., and where is the fixity without priority? Stylidium is for this a good instance to point to.
Let me hope, that in serenity of mind and firm health you continue your great labors.
Regardfully your
Ferd. von Mueller.
I have only Rays method in the second edition,3 but on enquiry in Europe I was told, that he already in the first (1682) used the terms Di- and Monocotyledonae.4 Hence I put them that way in the "Census".5
Could you not give us a Census for the U.S. as a precursor and facilitator of a new universal Flora?
Candollea
Hibbertia
Marlea
Monocotyledonae
Stylidium
A. Gray (1883), commenting on A. de Candolle (1883).
B84.04.05.
Ray (1703). The copy at the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne, which was presumably M's though it bears no marks of his ownership, is of the 1710 Amsterdam reprinting of this edition.
See M to B. Daydon Jackson, 25 December 1881 and M to B. Daydon Jackson, 22 November 1882 (in this edition as 82-11-22b).
B83.03.04.
Please cite as “FVM-84-02-20,” 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