Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew Correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1871-81, f. 37. 72.03.18a

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to George Bentham, 1872-03-18 [72.03.18a]. 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/72-03-18a>, accessed September 11, 2025

Melbourne
bot Garden
18/3/72
By the steamship "Northumberland,"
1
The case was despatched 23 March 1872 (Notebook recording despatch of plants for Flora Australiensis, RB, MSS M44, Library, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne).
dear Mr Bentham, I have at last sent a case with more plants for your use. This is the first sending after nearly three years!, owing principly to the harrassing persecution, to which I was subjected by two or three of the employees of Mr Edw. Wilson's and Mr M'Kinnon's papers.
2
Not identified.
I have limited the sending to supplemental
Monochlamydeae

Search for Monochlamydeae in

this time. It is clear that for some months you will not be able to enter yet on
Monocotyledoneae

Search for Monocotyledoneae in

, if they at all are to be touched in the 6th volume. I would rather advise a supplement of
Dicotyledoneae

Search for Dicotyledoneae in

as regards new species and if you acquies[s] will furnish them all at once. It is now 10 years since we commenced on
Dicotyledoneae

Search for Dicotyledoneae in

and it will be probably 5 years before the
Monocotyledoneae

Search for Monocotyledoneae in

are done. Hence a supplement would come now handy, and a second supplement can follow and successively others. However your own views in this matter must give the decision.
Ficus will give you great trouble, unless Dr Bureau has finished his monography and did it well.
3
See G. Bentham to M, 17 April 1872. Bureau (1873) was not used by Bentham in his account of the genus in Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, pp. 160-78; see G. Bentham to M, 17 December 1872. Bureau (1873), p. 287 cites Bentham's vol. 6, which was published three weeks before his treatment; presumably he had seen early sheets of Bentham's work (Bentham volume published 23 September 1873, Bureau 16 October (TL2)).
Now sent:
fasc
Santalaceae

Search for Santalaceae in

suppl.
1
Euphorbiaceae

Search for Euphorbiaceae in

"
4
Thymeleae

Search for Thymeleae in

"
1
Coniferae

Search for Coniferae in

"
1
Cycadeae

Search for Cycadeae in

"
1
fasc
4
Heading on a new page of the letter.
Urticeae

Search for Urticeae in

Suppl
1
Casuarinae

Search for Casuarinae in

1
Small families
1
Total.
11
The box contains also several parcels of
Fungi

Search for Fungi in

for the Rev. J M Berkeley. it is 20 years ago !! when my first fungi were sent to the Rev Gentleman. As yet he has published none . Can I expedite the work by a monetary remittance for clerical work?
For Prof Dr Dickie I also sent 2 parcel containing dry phanerogamae and crude
Algae

Search for Algae in

With best regards
Ferd von Mueller.
Several new species are among the suppl parcels, a new
Boehmeria

Search for Boehmeria in

&c &c
5
The postscript is written in the margin of the letter.
Boehmeria

Search for Boehmeria in

calophleba (B72.03.01, p. 11), Pimelea congesta (B72.03.01, p. 9). 'New' may mean new records for Australia: see footnotes to M to G. Bentham, 28 February 1872.
6
The remaining text is filed at RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1858-70, f. 41. It is annotated in an unknown hand 'Vol. VI', i.e. Bentham (1863-78, vol. 6), presumably by an archivist when the MSS were being sorted for binding. The correspondent is identified as Bentham by the references to the production of the Flora australiensis. The fragment is placed here on the basis of G. Bentham to M, 12 June 1872, which responds both to M's suggestions about supplementary volumes and to the suggestion that Reeves omit their advertisements from the bound volumes.
Would it not be best for you to take the
Orchideae

Search for Orchideae in

first, instead of miscellaneous small orders?, if at all
Monocotyledoneae

Search for Monocotyledoneae in

and
Dicotyledoneae

Search for Dicotyledoneae in

are to be mixed up in the same volume.
Orchideae

Search for Orchideae in

stand much by themselves and will fill perhaps nearly half a volume, whereas
Palmeae

Search for Palmeae in

should certainly not stand in one volume and
Junceae

Search for Junceae in

,
Xerotideae

Search for Xerotideae in

[...]
7
Five or six words obscured by binding.
It is very inconvenient to look for closely allied orders in different volumes. I experience this with Monopetaleae.
An other little matter I would suggest, namely that Mess Reeve's firm should not bind up their advertisements with the volumes, as it swells the bulk unneccessarily.
I trust you will not use the term achenes for urticeae, as Weddell and others have done. It ought to be entirely restricted to
Compositae

Search for Compositae in

.
Urticeae

Search for Urticeae in

have of course only true carpels (carpidia sine caryops[e]s)