Ɛpsilon

From Jessie Hussey to Ferdinand von Mueller   3 Jan 1895

To Baron Sir. F. Von. Mueller

Melbourne

My Lord

By same post I send a packet of land-plants, and a small bag of seeds. I trust the latter will prove to be germinable. I find it difficult to get well matured seeds of some of the wild flowers, the pods open so1 quickly after the fruit is ripe —

In reply to your question2 as to whether "Pultenaea densifolia" is restricted to precisely the same locality as the apparently new Pimelea — it is as far as I know, but my knowledge is not very extensive yet, though3 I have visited several other localities recently and watched carefully for it without seeing it — Today I saw this plant with branches about 3 feet long, but these were creeping and straggly, the average height of the standing branches is not more than about 18 inches — The Pimelea (No 321)4 grows quite closely with this Pultenaea, and I have not yet seen it in any other locality — the surface of the soil is firm, fine sand, with (I think) a limestone subsoil —

A quantity of limestone is raised from this locality. There are a variety of other Pimeleas growing with this one. I will send two or three specimens in the parcel — I hope to send more algae very soon —

Wishing you the Compliments of the Season

I am yours respectfully

Jessie. L. Hussey

Port Elliot5

3/1/95

Pimelea

Pultenaea densifolia

1

'so' omitted in in Kraehenbuehl (1981a).

2

Letter not found; see, however, J. Hussey to M, 2 December 1894.

3

Kraehenbuehl (1981a) has '…extensive. Though…'.

4

See J. Hussey to M, 20 February 1895.

5

SA.

6

MS found with a specimen of Pimelea husseyana (MEL 55871). MS annotations by M: ‘Pimelea n. sp.’ and 'Answ 5/1/95'. Letter not found.

Other specimens at MEL carry M’s specimen label Pimelea Husseyana, and this specimen folder includes a draft description in M’s hand headed 'Pimelea Husseyana'. Though M exhibited a specimen under this name at the Field Naturalists’ Club of Victoria (see Victorian naturalist, vol. 11 (1894), p. 122) and Tate included it as a new species in Tate (1895), p. 81, M never published a formal description; Ewart did so in 1921 (see Ewart (1921), pp. 230-1).

The letter is published in Kraehenbuehl (1981a), p. 396, with different punctuation and italicisation of plant names.

Please cite as “FVM-95-01-03,” 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 5 June 2025, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/95-01-03