6/1/85
No specimen of Ptilotus (Trich.) Roei can be found here, dear Sir Joseph, altho’ it was named from one of the plants of Mr Forest’s first Collection.1 If you have one at Kew, will you cause it kindly to be compared with the byefollowing, which I have temporar[e]ly named Ptilotus (Trichinium) Sewelliae.2 The affinity to P. ae[rv]oides and P. Hoodii is much less pronounced.
Regardfully your
Ferd. von Mueller3
Ptilotus Roei
Ptilotus Sewelliae
Ptilotus aervoides
Ptilotus Hoodii
Trichinium Sewelliae
Trichinium Roei
Trichinium roei was named in Bentham (1863-78), vol. 5, p. 240, preserving M's herbarium name. It was transferred to Ptilotus, without explanation, in B83.03.04, p. 29.
M lists this species in B86.06.03, p. 3, repeated in B89.12.03, p. 48, referring to ‘F. v. M. in Vict. Nat. Jan (1885)’; however, there is no article by M in that issue, nor has mention of this plant be found elsewhere in the volume, nor the next.
MS annotations by D. Oliver: We have no specimen of Trichinium Roei, F M. It must surely have been returned with his He[r]ba[rium]; 'Selaginella ([Mr] Baker’s note enclosed) — specimen to be returned to F. Mueller herewith.' and 'Does Sir F. M. know that his “oak” from Solomon Isld. coll. by [Dr] Guppy is simply a Lauraceae? Guppy no doubt led him astray.' [see M to J. Hooker 10 December 1884, and footnotes thereto.]
MS annotated by W. Thiselton-Dyer: And Feb. 24/85. Letter not found.
Please cite as “FVM-85-01-06,” 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