[Jussieua repens.— In a letter to the con[du]ctor1, Baron Mueller calls attention to the general writing of this name as Jussiaea as being incorrect. In our copy of Linnaeus' "Genera Plantarum iabam ex museo Cliffortiano,1736"2 and referring to Rheede's "Hortus Malabaricus,'' it is written Jussieua as Baron Mueller suggests. He asks the aid of American botanists in settling a question of great geographical importance concerning Jussieua repens credited to our continent. The plant we believe to be the one that he thinks is Forskall's Jussieua diffusa. The genuine Jussieua repens has white petals a little yellowish at the base in the manner of Ranunculus aquatalis. Torrey and Gray describe the American species as having bright yellow flowers, as also has the Australian plant. Jussieua diffusa is a larger plant than Jussieua repens and has other differences. It is very desirable to know whether the American — presumably Jussieua diffusa — is identical with the African and Australian species. 3]
Jussiaea
Jussieua diffusa
Jussieua repens
Ranunculus aquatalis
Two letters missing from text.
Linnaeus (1737a) was written when Linnaeus was residing with Clifford, and below §32 of his 'Ration operis', it is dated 'Dabam ex Museo Cliffortiano, 1736, November 20', which Meehan seems to have used to identify the edition. The reference is to the entry for genus 353 on p. 126.
In B93.03.01, p. 163, M wrote 'Linné, en définissant Jussieua repens dans ses "Species plantarum" p. 388, …'. However, in Linnaeus (1753), vol. 1, p. 388, the name is spelled Jussiaea, citing 'Rheed. mal. 2 p. 99, t 51', where Rheede tot Drakenstein (1678-1703), vol. 2, discusses 'Nir-Carambu'. M had argued elsewhere that accepting Linnaeus (1753) as the starting point for legitimate genera was unfair to earlier authors; see, for example, M to A. Engler, 6 August 1892.
M had previously asked this question, see M to E. Greene, 5 December 1892 (in this edition as 92-12-05b).
Letter note found. The text given here is from 'Jussieua repens', Meehan's monthly, November 1893, p. 166. It is dated to September as the latest likely date that it could have been sent to have been reported in this issue.
Please cite as “FVM-93-09-00f,” 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