Hobart.1
May 21st /94.
Dear Baron,
Widely distributed on the subalpine slopes of Mt. Wellington Eucalyptus urnigera attains a height of 70 to 100 ft. & with it & indistinguishable in general features is a gum that hitherto I had only procured the ripe capsules of & they were so similar to E. coccifera that I took this tree to be a sub-alpine form. I now find it in bud & have but little doubt from its parallel staminal cells & leaf peculiarities to be the gum Moore described as E. Muelleri.
I enclose a piece & hope to procure some in flower before long. It is exactly similar to the form so common at alt.2 2500 - 3000 at Mt Field East.3 There is one thing that strikes me as in its favor to be considered specifically distinct & that is that although excessively common on the Mt. Wellington range & on Mt Field at about 2000 to 3000 ft. the alpine E. vernicosa does not occur on either mountain. I enclose with it a flowering specimen of a carex. Am I correct in taking it for Carex canescens, Linn.?
I am delivering a course of lectures on Botany to the University & intend to devote out4 to the subject of Classification. Shall I be correct in treating our present system as adopted in your Key5 as wholly and originally yours? I wish to treat the matter as you would wish it to be treated.
Yours Faithfully,
L. Rodway.
Carex canescens
Eucalyptus coccifera
Eucalyptus Muelleri
Eucalyptus urnigera
Eucalyptus vernicosa
Please cite as “FVM-94-05-21a,” 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