22/6/90
Let me say, dear Prof. Tate, that your goodeniac. plant N. 1 from Cox's peninsula1 is Calogyne purpurea in a larger state, than that, from which the species became originally established. You may have ascertained this already yourself; but as I am just describing some few novelties from Holtze's later collections, I found this now out, he having sent a still more divergent form.
I shall on this occasion attend to some few more of your plants from Arnhem's Land.2
Of the Helipterum Fitzgibboni I have sent a diagnosis with some other descriptions to the "Vict. Naturalist", as the dedication was to a Vict. Gentleman long ago.3 I have however already used, from the msc., sent to you, the dedicatory words, so that the whole rest of the notes on that Helipterum would remain original as a suppl. for our essay.
I hope, you were pleased with the lithograms of the Babbagias.4 Did you give up the Kochia pentatropis?
Regardfully
your
Ferd. von Mueller
I wrote before that the Potamogeton was not P. natans, but that in the absense of fruit it could not be named.5
The incessent interruptions here bring me sometimes as a phytographer almost to despair! Have you any good specimens of Blyxa from S. Australia?
The Good.6 from Pine-Creek7 is also a Calogyne, it may be an other variety
Babbagia
Blyxa
Calogyne purpurea
Helipterum Fitzgibboni
Kochia pentatropis
Potamogeton natans
Please cite as “FVM-90-06-22,” 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