Melbourne, August 30, 1896.1
I have still a small lot of land-plants to name for you, and to examine the crude algae "Pachyglossum Husseyanum,"2 but all through July and August I was so occupied with local office requirements that I could hardly do anything outside of Victoria.3 In the two seasons, this and the next, you will add yet much to your list of land-plants. I am very thankful for the seeds, especially of "Callistemon coccineus,"4 as it is such a beautiful plant and so easily raised, so that no garden ought to be without it. [...]5 Your "Styphelia hirtella"6 is a form with nearly glabrous leaves. The full-matured fruit is as yet unknown. I should be thankful to become acquainted with it through your zeal. You will do best to arrange your list according to the census of Australian plants, of which I sent you a copy (the second),7 as that work is issued later than the "key,"8 and therefore gives still newer observations of mine. As I may not be destined by Divine will to bring out the third census, for which I have made many hundreds of entries, geographic or otherwise, and as therefore the third census will be a posthumous publication,9 I would mention now that I have since the appearance of the second made as the result of further observations two changes in the position of orders; thus the Droseraceae (though hypogynae)10 are to be placed next to the Saxifragae, and the Stackhousiae11 stand better near Halorageae. I have made a few other improvements, but they do not affect the Encounter Bay12 native flora. It will be best to follow the census in placing the Epacridae near the end of the Dicotyledonae, just before Coniferae, as their leaves have the longitudinal venulations of the Coniferae 13Monocotyledonae. […] I was forced when writing the "key" to alter the sequence of the orders in some instances, because I had not always the chance otherwise to keep unbroken the dichotomous arrangement of the "key".
Always most regardfully yours,
Ferd. von Mueller.
Callistemon coccineus
Coniferae
Dicotyledonae
Droseraceae
Epacridae
Halorageae
Pachyglossum Husseyanum
Saxifragae
Stackhousiae
Styphelia hirtella
Printer's error for 1895? See n. 1. The repetition of the date as 1896 in the various press publications is almost certainly due to reprinting from one source to another; see Mueller's publications, entry B96.10.06 and linked entries.
The alga had been named in Agardh (1894-1903), continuatio 2, p. 96, from a Hussey specimen numbered 206. The number 206 in the Hussey collection at MEL is used twice, once for an undated specimen of the alga Nizymenia australis, of which Pachyglossum husseyanum is not a synonym (AlgaeBase, AANI, each accessed 26 September 2024) and the Asteraceae Ozothamnus turbinatus, dated 1894 (AVH, accessed 4 August 2024). MEL 0504267A is an unnumbered Hussey specimen of Delesseriaceae collected in 1895 which had the provided name Crassilingua marginifera, of which P. husseaynum has been given as a synonym by Womersley (cited in AANI). M to É. Bornet, 14 August 1895, explained that in her collection Hussey had confused Pachyglossum and Nizymenia. J. Hussey to J. Agardh, 4 October 1895, thanked Agardh for his explanations about Pachyglossum Husseyanum, and explains the confusion of names.
Although M often complained of overwork, letters from July and August 1895 with such comments are unusually frequent and specific, especially with respect to getting the 9th edition of Select plants (B95.08.04) through the press. Letters from July and August 1896 have fewer references to such pressures, and when they are mentioned they are less emphatic than in the same months of 1895.
Kraehenbuehl inserts '(= macropunctatus)', not the M. rugulosus for which C. coccineus is given as a synonym in APC (accessed 21 September 2024). Seeds were requested in M to J. Hussey, 27 October 1894.
This and the following ellipsis as in the printed text. Kraehenbuehl's version omits this one, but includes the next.
Kraehenbuehl inserts '(= exarrhena var. hirtella)'; the variety name is not recognised by APC (accessed 21 September 2024). There was much discussion of this species as M attempted to identify it; Hussey had sent specimens, number 232, on at least four occasions. M to J. Hussey, May 1894 (in this edition as 94-05-00b) where he suggested it might be an 'almost glabrous form' of S. hirtella and requested fruit, is the first known '232' specimen. He was still asking for ripe fruit in M to J. Hussey, July 1896 (in this edition as 96-06-00f).
B89.12.03.
B88.11.02.
The planned third Census was never published.
Typesetters error for hypogyneae?
Typesetter's error for Stackhousieae?
Where Hussey lived in SA.
and omitted in typesetter's error?
Letter not found. For the text given here, see ‘The late Baron von Mueller. Some interesting notes’, Adelaide observer, 24 October 1896, p. 43 (B96.10.06). The text is introduced by 'Miss Jessie L. Hussey, of Port Elliot, who has been in constant communication with the late Baron Sir Ferdinand von Mueller for more than three years, forwards the following interesting extracts, taken from recent letters she has received:—'. See also M to J. Hussey, 25 June 1895 (in this edition as 95-06-25b). That letter is dated to 1896 in the printed sources; internal evidence (see notes below) is compatible with the present letter having been written in either 1995 or 1896. On balance, Hussey's confusing algal specimens and M's reporting this to Bornet (details in the n. 3 below) make it more likely to have been misdated in the printed sources and it is dated here to 1895. See also n. 4 below.
This letter is printed in Kraehenbuehl (1981a), p. 394; there are several minor differences in transcription, perhaps silent editorial corrections.
Please cite as “FVM-95-08-30,” 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