Hobart,
Sept. 27th /92.
Dear Baron,
Some months ago I had numerous specimens of Actinotus bellidioides sent me from Mt. Dundas.1 They were easily sortable into two varieties identical with the figures in Hook. Fl. Tas.2 as var. suffocata & var. fulva (but never with petals).
I have been submitting them lately to a careful examination & find that though the latter variety corresponds thoroughly with the type the variety suffocata, in every instance I examined differed in two remarkable features namely even in the youngest flowers there was no trace of a calyx-limb & the stamens were reduced to two & inserted into notches at the foot of the enlarged base of the style on the dorsal aspect of the carpels.
Unfortunately all the best specimens I sent away some time ago trusting to procure more, but the opportunity has passed & I may be unable to procure more for years I enclose however what I have not already destroyed together with a copy of details of the plant drawn from microscopic observation.3
I trust that I am not wasting your time over a matter of little consequence.
Believe me
Yours Faithfully
L. Rodway.

Actinotus bellidioides var fulva
Actinotus bellidioides var suffocata
Tas.
J. Hooker (1860), part 1, p. 158, and tab. 36, as Hemiphues bellidioides.
MS is accompanied by a small square of paper with several pencil sketches, now very faint, that are reproduced here; see 92-09-27_image01.jpg (in the original, the drawing labelled 'nat size' is 26 mm high). Rodway (1894), p. 180 and plate 2, figs 1-5 discusses the issue and raises Hooker's variety suffocata to species rank. The published drawings are very similar to equivalent ones given here.
MS found with a specimen of Actinotus bellidioides var. suffocata (MEL 230045). MS annotations by M: 'Seneca' and 'Answ 3/10/92'. Letter not found.
Please cite as “FVM-92-09-27,” 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