To Henry Ridley   21 September 1886

21/9/86.

In reply to your letter of the 11. Aug, dear Mr Ridley,¹ let me say, that it seems best, not to disturbe the sets of Mr Forbes’s plants for my benefit there. I will attend to the Dicotyledoneae so far as I have them here, except Euphorbiaceae, Urticeae and a few others (unless Ficus) as mentioned in my letter to your excellent Chief;² to my observations then additions could later be made from the ampler material at your establishment. If you and your honored Colleagues will attend to the Mono- and Acotyledoneae meanwhile, we shall have in time a complete elaboration of Mr Forbes’s plants. I am anxiously awaiting the results of his collecting in the vicinity of Dinner-island,³ as these additions may complete in many instances the material of his first collecting, so many of the plants then being found only in flower or only in fruit. You will be aware yourself, that the determining of species with conscientious accuracy is a matter of time and patient research, and a full list of Mr Forbes’s plants could therefore not be issued for a very considerable period. All that early could be done (particularly from the often incomplete material) would be, to name in many cases only the genera. In disposing of Mr Forbes’s set of plants, it should be made a condition, that the elaboration of the Dicotyledoneae - (with some exceptions) is reserved for Melbourne, so as to avoid clashing, and this arrangement is surely fair, when it is considered, what heaps of undescribed plants from nearly all parts of the world are available for British Phytographers in your country. Of course, bona fide Monographers would always assert their claims. It should also be borne in mind, that Mr Forbes — without the Austral. geograph Society voting him £500 –"- " on my proposition last year, — could never have held his ground through the season in New Guinea.

I look forward with some interest to your opinion on my observations on the vaccineaceous Ericeae, and hope the notes sent by me will appear in Mr Britten’s journal.⁴

I do not at all well understand the limits adopted for Agapetes and some other genera in recent works, and feel convinced, that they should from augmenting material be recast, which you are sure to do in your excellent way for Ericeae soon.

I am now just working on the few as yet known Papuan Ternstroemiaceae. In reference to your question, when and where the publication of Mr F’s plants should take place, let me say, that only one course is open to us, that of publishing any fragmentary elaboration whenever ready in some journals (an excellent one Mr Trimens)⁵ and to collect these fragments finally for a complete elaboration.

With regardful remembrance

your

Ferd. von Mueller.

Acotyledoneae

Agapetes

Dicotyledoneae

Ericeae

Euphorbiaceae

Ficus

Monocotyledoneae

Ternstroemiaceae

Urticeae

Vaccineaceae