Document information

Physical location:

55.07.22

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to William Hooker, 1855-07-22. R.W. Home, Thomas A. Darragh, A.M. Lucas, Sara Maroske, D.M. Sinkora, J.H. Voigt and Monika Wells (eds), Correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller, <https://vmcp.rbg.vic.gov.au/id/55-07-22>, accessed November 14, 2024

1
Letter not found. For the text given here, see B56.01.01.
On publishing the letter Hooker commented in a footnote: 'A second letter on this subject from Dr. Mueller, — showing that even in the environs of Sydney, in the midst of the bustle of preparation for a long and hazardous journey, he can collect information, if it be only in relation to the geographical limits of Australian plants, — will afford some interesting extracts.'
Hooker also mentioned a letter from John Kent read at the Royal Geographical Society, 10 December 1855, giving details of the departure of the expedition. In the letter Kent commented: 'the patience and resignation of Dr. Müller have been tested by a seat for three days up a gum-tree awaiting the subsidence of a flood. he is a German botanical enthusiast, which will account for this incident in his experience'. See Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society (1855-7), p. 11.
On board the Monarch, off Moreton Bay, 22 July 1855
In a former letter
2
M to W. Hooker, 12 July 1855.
addressed to you, I had only time to inform you that I was on leave of absence for eighteen months, without support from the Victoria Government, to resume my labours in Melbourne at the beginning of 1857. My favourite plan was to traverse, at my own expense, the interior districts of Eastern Subtropical Australia in the meanwhile, when I hoped to advance a little further our knowledge of Australian plants. Since however my private resources are reduced to almost nothing, I accepted the appointment as Botanist for the North Australian Expedition, which his Excellency the Governor-General had been pleased to confer upon me. Still I am far from expressing herewith, that financial reflections influenced me to embark in an expedition into tropical Australia. In fact it has been with very great reluctance that I accepted the appointment, dangerous as it is, not only with regard to our personal safety, but also perhaps to my position as a botanist. For if in any degree a comparison will be drawn between the results probably arising from botany in this expedition, and those which are generally gained in tropical peregrinations, I feel sure that I shall by no means satisfy your expectations. The scanty means of carrying the collections, the well-known hostility of the natives, and above all the aridity of the country, are likely to be so many obstacles in accumulating large collections of plants; nor can the share of new plants be great, if we are not able to reach elevated mountains in the interior, as the coast vegetation is already so well known through Robert Brown and Allan Cunningham. It is however my utmost desire to get together as much of the treasures of the North Australian Flora as I possibly can; and I trust only that Providence will grant me life and health to bear the tropical heat, and the privations and fatigues which are inseparable from such journeys of discovery.
I left Melbourne in the beginning of this month, and might have collected at that favourable season hundreds of plants in the environs of Sydney; but as only a few days were allotted to me for making my preparations, I was almost entirely deprived of the pleasure of botanical wanderings over the classical ground traversed by Banks and Solander and Robert Brown, where so much extensive information may be gained by studying the plants on the places where they were first discovered; and although you are so closely acquainted with every one of them, I think I may venture a few remarks on the specimens which I gathered in a walk on the north shore and along Botany Bay; for to any one who only saw the Flora of Victoria or South Australia, the increase of the diversity of , , , , and must be striking; nor can he fail to be surprised by the paucity of . This remark can however only apply to the near vicinity of Sydney, for Mr. Moore,
3
Charles Moore.
from whom I have gained much valuable information and manifold assistance during my brief stay, informs me that are abundant to the westward, as may be reasonably expected. A large proportion of the plants, described at the beginning of this century, I saw for the first time then; and should the Flora of Victoria ever be continued by myself, it will be highly interesting to proceed from Sydney to Cape Howe, in order to trace the southern limits of many of the New South Wales plants. The boggy nature of the country, between the Snowy River and Cape Howe, frustrated my attempt to go so far east from Victoria. Of all natural orders in Australia and produce the most restricted plants as regards localities. Thus, all the following I had, for the first time, an opportunity of observing here:— , revoluta, , B. pinnata, , , E. laxifolius,
4
Eriostemon lancifolius?
, Conospermum longiflium,
5
Conospermum linifolium or C. laniflorum?
C. laxifolium, , I. anemonifolius, , , , several very fine Grevilleas and s, , etc. The examination of these plants has not been without use to me; for instance, I found that my , from Mount Maridon,
6
Macedon.
differs from the true species, and may be named Z. oligantha.
7
The name has not been found other than in this letter, and is thus not validly published as it has no description.
Also the , from Sydney, is distinct from L. lanceolatus, from Mount William (L. neurophyllus); but these discrepancies are not to be recognized by the perusal of the respective diagnoses. Touching here upon some alterations to be made in the names of former plants of my collections, I may at once also observe, that I had the good luck to review an incomplete set of Sir Thomas Mitchell's plants from tropical Australia, under care of Mr. Moore. is identical with E. gracilis, Ferd. Muell. (an Graham?)
8
Interpolation by Hooker, suggesting that the plant is probably that published by Robert Graham in 1834 as Eriostemon gracile. In B54.10.01, p. 10, M listed Graham; no publication of that name attributing it to M has been found. see also B62.03.03, p. 123 for M's considered synonymy of E. rhombeus.
; the name is however hardly applicable to the general forms of this curious plant.
9
APNI lists no Conospermum dallachii published by M. M used it as an herbarium name, see K 736712 and MEL 8589, and listed the name in B58.11.02.
appears to be your C. sphacelatum, and has therefore a range from subtropical Australia to beyond 38° S. To return to my Sydney plants, I may mention, as apparently rarer species, , sp., , , , (exceedingly rare in Victoria), , (never seen in South Australia or Victoria), , , , P. concinna, , , , , , , S. viridiflora, S. tubiflora (this is really a charming bush), , , , , , , , ,
10
Callicoma serratifolia?
, , etc.
The and Grasses were to me very interesting. , which exhibits such singular structure, I dissected with pleasure. , , C. turbinata, and others, I had never seen before. Amongst a few Grasses received from Richmond River, I observed , , . is now also an Australian plant, being a troublesome weed in the gardens of Sydney.
The Norfolk Island Pines in the Sydney Botanical Gardens are truly deserving admiration. Amongst the many fine trees of that establishment, I must not fail to notice the finest of all which I know, namely , a small tree, embellished in this season with its superb flowers.
I have lately seen what I take to be the true ; it widely differs from G. cordifolia, which I think, as being truly alpine (a rare occurrence in the Order), deserves publication, unless De Vriese's new monograph
11
Vriese (1854).
should include it already.
By the last Sydney mail I had the pleasure of forwarding a reprint of the botanical articles printed in 1854 and 1855 by the Victorian Institute and the Philosophical Society.
12
B55.09.03, B54.13.06, B55.13.05, B55.13.06, B55.13.07.
Another copy will be brought to Kew by Mr. Winter.
13
None of the letters in the Kew Archives from any of the three Winters who corresponded with W. Hooker mentions returning from Melbourne with material from M.
In the article on the alpine plants
14
B55.09.03.
I omitted and E. megalophylla, both not less beautiful than distinct. By the 'Francis Henty,' from Melbourne, I forwarded last month a complete set of specimens, including the , which you promised to figure.
15
B56.03.01, pl. 1.
A box was sent before by the 'George Marshall,' under care of a friend, Mr. Balfour Steward.
16
See M to W. Hooker, 9 May 1855.
Of the safe arrival of the sundries, per 'Great Britain,' I am anxious to hear. Any communications, please let be directed to C. Moore, Esq., Sydney Botanical Gardens, who will forward them to me, as my return to Melbourne may be uncertain for some time.
My next letter to you will be despatched from the Victoria River,
17
M to W. Hooker, 3 September 1855.
as the transport vessel is leaving us there to sail for Singapore, of which opportunity I will avail myself to report on my botanical results about Moreton Bay, and to give a sketch of the place of our disembarkation, such as the first impression may be able to convey.
The third year's Report
18
B55.11.01.
is with the Government, but not yet printed. Professor Harvey will return from his cruise in about a month.
Ferd. Mueller.