εpsilon

A collaborative digital framework for nineteenth-century letters of science

New Search | Browse All

From George Perrin   10 September 1892

Forest Branch

Melbourne

Sept 10 1892

My Dear Baron

I must apologise for not replying to your kind letter in re naming the Eucalypt from Tasmania after myself. The fact is I have been away from Town and when I returned I found such a mass of correspondence that your letter was overlooked in the rush of it all.

You will allow me to thank you very much for the honor you have done me in giving to one of the leading genus of the Natural Order Myrtaceae a specific name after myself. I am truly glad that my deduction as shown forth at the Melbourne meeting of the Science Association has proved correct.1

I trust you will put the matter in re Moores Eucalypt and Hodgkinsons Yellow string bark right as to which should have the honor of your own name2 — Moore's tree if you are satisfied that it is distinct from E. urnigera of which I have been in doubt myself3 — as I saw E. urnigera on the S.E slope of Mt Wellington4 about 150 feet high whitish salmon col'd5 bark with red wood not unlike "jarrah" in appearance a most excellent timber tree to my mind — the tree I saw had just been chopped down that is how I came to notice the color of the wood —

If you determine these trees before the next meeting of the Science Association at Adelaide, it would be a good opportunity to bring under notice these recent discoveries of Eucalypts6

Thanking you again for your kind thoughtfulness in giving my name to the new Tasmanian Eucalypt

I remain

Yours very faithfully

Geo. S. Perrin.

 

Baron von Mueller

K.C.M.G. &c. &c

 

Eucalyptus urnigera

Myrtaceae

 
 
 

Footnotes

At the Melbourne meeting of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science in January 1890, Perrin had exhibited a specimen of a Tasmanian eucalypt that he suspected was a new species; see the Report of the meeting, p. 557. Rodway (1894), p. 181, in his description attributed the name he used, E. Perriniana, to M who had, Rodway wrote, described it ‘at the meeting of the Association of the Advancement of Science in Melbourne, from specimens procured from immature trees not yet in flower’.
T. B. Moore named Eucalyptus muelleri in Moore (1886). More recently, Clement Hodgkinson had drawn attention to the potential usefulness of the ‘yellow stringy bark’ or Eucalyptus muelleriana, using the name given to the species by A. W. Howitt when he formally described it in Howitt (1891), pp. 89-91; see Report of the Melbourne Harbour Trust Commissioners for the year 1890 (1891), pp. 18-20. Perrin in an earlier letter had already drawn M’s attention to the clash of names ‘with a view of alteration in time to prevent trouble by and bye’; see G. Perrin to M, 25 August 1892 (in this edition as 92-08-25a). He reiterated the suggestion in G. Perrin to M, 30 November 1892.
M had expressed his doubts on this in B87.13.05.
Tas.
coloured?
M did not attend the Adelaide meeting of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science in September 1893 or submit a paper to it of the kind suggested.

Please cite as “FVM-04854,”εpsilon: The Ferdinand von Mueller Collection accessed on 12 December 2019, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/FVM-04854