The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: 25, WILTON PLACE, S.W. ¶ June 18/66 ¶ My dear Sir ¶ ¶ Since last mail I have received yours of the 24th March ¶ — In answer to which ¶ in the first place I enclose a memorandum from Weddell ¶

Document information

Physical location:

RB MSS M4, Library, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne. 66.06.18

Plant names

Angiantheae
Search for Angiantheae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Angianthus
Search for Angianthus in
Araliaceae
Search for Araliaceae in
Calocephalus
Search for Calocephalus in
Cassinia
Search for Cassinia in
Compositae
Search for Compositae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Craspedia
Search for Craspedia in
Dysoxylon latifolium
Search for Dysoxylon latifolium in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Dysoxylon oppositifolium
Search for Dysoxylon oppositifolium in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Eugenia leptantha
Search for Eugenia leptantha in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Eugenia tubulosa
Search for Eugenia tubulosa in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Gnephosis
Search for Gnephosis in
Helichrysum
Search for Helichrysum in
Helipterum
Search for Helipterum in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Meliacea
Search for Meliacea in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Myriocephalus
Search for Myriocephalus in
Myrtaceae
Search for Myrtaceae in
Myrtus zizyphoides
Search for Myrtus zizyphoides in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Ozothamnus
Search for Ozothamnus in
Rhodamnia
Search for Rhodamnia in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Senecio
Search for Senecio in
Xanthosia candida
Search for Xanthosia candida in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index

Preferred Citation:

George Bentham to Ferdinand von Mueller, 1866-06-18. 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/66-06-18>, accessed April 28, 2025

25, WILTON PLACE, S.W.

June 18/66

My dear Sir

Since last mail I have received yours of the 24th March

M to G. Bentham, 24 March 1866 (in this edition as 66-03-24c).

— In answer to which

What follows seems to bear no relation to the content of M’s letter as we have it. Bentham may have been responding to notes accompanying the specimens that M sent at the same time as the letter.

in the first place I enclose a memorandum from Weddell

Not identified.

— then as to your queries as to the specimens sent at the same time

No published use of the name has been found; E. lepantha is recorded in Bentham (1863-78), vol. 3, p. 283, citing only the locality 'Rockingham Bay', collected by Dallachy.

is E. leptantha is certainly not my D. latifolium and I do not think it a Dysoxylon at all and probably not a but from the fragments sent it is impossible to say what it is —

M used this name, glossed by him as 'ined' [unpublished] on the label of K906534 filed under Strychnos lucida; the label is annotated by ?Bentham 'Recd 5/66 Dr Mueller'.

may be a but without flowers or fruit it is impossible to say whether it belongs to at all. The Xanthosia "to be returned" is X. candida . I shall send it back in the first box.

Owing to Whitsunday holidays with the printers I can only send you this mail 4 sheets or at most 5. I have corrected the press of three more carrying the letter press down nearly to the end of but I have not the clean copies in time — By next mail I hope to send all before all being in the printer's hands — I shall then be obliged to interrupt the printing till my return to town at Michaelmas I have indeed done about 400 of the , and should have so far got through the genera as to have gone on printing but that I have not received your specimens which I shall now be waiting for. I trust they will be here by September otherwise I shall be obliged to do my best without them as I have engaged to get the volume ready early in autumn. In the mean time I shall take my holiday from the beginning of July, when I believe there will only remain and to do. As far as I have gone I have been able (pretty well to my own satisfaction although very likely not to that of others) very much to reduce the small genera. In especially I think the thirty odd genera chiefly monotypic go very well into five and . In Brown's species have several of them been wrongly identified and repeated in the Prodromus under Cunningham's names and two of Cunningham's in the Prodromus belong to .

'Prodromus' is R. Brown (1810); however both and were erected in R. Brown (1817), pp. 126 and 125 respectively.

On the whole I find Australian resolve themselves into groups better than I expected and not to present anything like the difficulties of . I suppose (and ) will be the worst but I am finishing up the outlying genera before I take that in hand.

Ever your sincerely

George Bentham

Dr F. Mueller