To William Thiselton-Dyer   31 January 1891

31/1/91 1

 

Can you kindly aid, dear Mr Dyer, from your grand Kew “Herbier” in settling, whether Cochlospermum heteronemum 2 (not C. heteroneurum, as Bentham wrote) is identical with C. Fraseri. 3 The indument of the latter may be variable; but from studying C. heteronemum in its living state, I could not miss seeing the characteristic of the biformous filaments, on which I mainly rested the diagnosis in Hooker's Kew Misc. IX, 15 (1857). 4 This would be a crucial test for the identity or the diversity of these two plants, the indument being perhaps variable. After attention is directed to the character of the stamens, it is easily perceived even in dried specimens.

I send an Isoetes 5 which Mr Baker would be sure gladly to compare.

With regardful remembrance your

Ferd. von Mueller.

 

I omitted C. heteronemum in the last Census 6 but perhaps wrongly so.

In Mr J. R. Jackson’s excellent book “Commercial Botany of the 19th Century” 7 the figure, intended for Euc. globulus, represents E. tereticornis with the fruit of E. corymbosa. 8

 

Cochlospermum Fraseri

Cochlospermum heteronemum

Eucalyptus corymbosa

Eucalyptus globulus

Eucalyptus tereticornis

Isoetes

Stamped Royal Gardens Kew 10. Mar. 91. Annotated by Thiselton-Dyer in lead pencil: And 29.3.31 and in red ink: Ackd. 11 3/91. { Letters not found .]

The annotation, 4849/11, in lead pencil by ( ? ) has the form of a herbarium reference in use at Kew in the nineteenth century, although none of the sheets of Cochlospermum heteronemum or of Australian and Pacific Isoetes available as images in the on-line catalogue ( viewed 7 January 2015 ) bear this number.

heteronemum is underlned in blue pencil.
Fraseri is underlined in blue pencil, and there is an annotation I think identical/WBH [ i.e. W. Hemsley ] next to the passage ' is identical ... be variable'.
B57.01.01.
Isoetes is underlined in blue pencil in the MS.
B89.13.12, but the species was included in B82.03.04.
Jackson (1890). The erroneous composite figure is on p. 93.
Annotated in lead pencil below the second postscript: The blocks were not selected by me but were supplied by the publishers. I have noted Baron Mueller's correction | J.R.J. 26/3/91.

Please cite as “FVM-91-01-31a,” in Ɛpsilon: The Ferdinand von Mueller Collection accessed on 27 November 2021, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/91-01-31a