21/6/89.1
May I suggest, dear Mr Dyer, that the 2 tropical African species of Pittosporum be compared with the plant of P. ferrugineum in the botanic Magazine 2075. That picture seems much better referable to P. Abyssinicum or perhaps P. Manni,2 than to the plant from India and Australia, now generally called P. Ferrugineum. DC already expressed his doubts about the identity of the Moluccan plants; and the Earl of Tankerville may just as easily "before 1787" (See Aiton) have obtained seeds from West-Africa than from insular India.3
Regardfully your
Ferd von Mueller
I wrote on this subject to Bentham already, when the first vol. of the Flora Austral. appeared; but I believe the enigma has never been solved.4 I think, Aiton got the seeds or plant really from Guinea.
Of course, the name could easily got transferred to the Indian plant in European conservatories, that being so closely allied to the W. Afr. species.
As no longer any impressions of the "Census" are purchaseable in the Gov. Printing Office here, and as it is almost impossible to use the first additions5 with all the suppl. to advantage,6 a new edition7 became necessary. I will send you sheet after sheet, as they pass through the press.
Pittosporum ferrugineum
Pittosporum Abyssinicum
Pittosporum Manni
Curtis (1787-1826), vol. 46, in the text accompanying plate 2075 ( P. ferrugineum ), states that the plant is 'Native of Guinea … Introduced before 1787 by the … Earl of Tankerville.' The comment is taken from the description in Aiton (1810-13), vol. 2, p. 27.
The text of f. 281, the Kew memorandum bound after this letter, includes comments from J. Baker and D. Oliver as follows:
Subject: Pittosporrum ferrugineum, Ait.
I have compared the specimen of Pittosporum Mannii Hook. fil. & P. abyssinicum, Hochst, with the Bot. Mag. figure (tab. 2075) of P. ferrugineum Ait. They are all three nearly allied, but in the African plants the inflorescence is different from that shown in the figure, the pedicels are naked, & the petals longer in proportion to the calyx; they are clearly not the same species
J G B
Kew, July 29 1889
It is very difficult to decide anything about the plant figd. by Aiton. It may be a poor figure of the W. African species after all. Hook. Fl. Ind. says it was ascribed to Guinea by mistake & of course he adopts the name (P. ferrugineum) for the Indian plant, which the plate may be said inadequately to represent.
D.O.
Please cite as “FVM-89-06-21,” 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 19 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/89-06-21