The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: Herbarium ¶ Royal Gardens Kew ¶ April 17 /72 ¶ My dear Sir ¶ ¶ I have to thank you for two letters since I last wrote — I have already acknowledged to you the receipt of the £100 for the sixth volume...

Document information

Physical location:

RB MSS M3, Library, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne. 72.04.17

Plant names

Aroideae
Search for Aroideae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Artocarpeae
Search for Artocarpeae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Calycopeplus
Search for Calycopeplus in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Euphorbia
Search for Euphorbia in
Euphorbiaceae
Search for Euphorbiaceae in
Hydrocharideae
Search for Hydrocharideae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Monochlamydeae
Search for Monochlamydeae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Orchideae
Search for Orchideae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Pandaneae
Search for Pandaneae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Scitamineae
Search for Scitamineae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index

Preferred Citation:

George Bentham to Ferdinand von Mueller, 1872-04-17. 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/72-04-17>, accessed September 11, 2025

Herbarium

Royal Gardens Kew

April 17 /72

My dear Sir

I have to thank you for two letters since I last wrote — I have already acknowledged to you the receipt of the £100 for the sixth volume

See G. Bentham to M, 25 January 1872 (in this edition as 72-01-25a).

and am much obliged for the trouble you have given yourself about it — I have also to thank you for the complete copy of the 7th vol. of your Fragmenta

I have not advanced very rapidly since I last wrote. I have just finished the with linear embryos which I think Muell. Arg.

See J. Müller (1866); for the Australian Tribe, Stenolobeae, see J. Müller (1864a).

is right in establishing as a distinct Australian tribe though I do not quite agree with him in some of his generic distinctions — still less can I agree with Baillon in considering the flower-head of as a single flower whilst that of as a flowerhead

See Baillon (1866), p. 320.

The two genera are closely allied although I think that (with a second species amongst Drummonds with a still more developped female perianth and no glands to the involucre) may be kept up rather as a genus than as a section. Baillon appears to me also to have rather hastily united or distinguished species from general habit or foliage without always having regard to the floral or fruit characters and some species of Baillon's are the same of

as?

some of Muell. Arg.! which he had not seen — this was to be expected under the circumstances of the two working contemporaneously without intercommunication. I shall endeavour to avoid that in the by communicating with Bureau who is doing them for the Prodromus

Bureau (1873).

I presume the will reach to about half the volume. I have on consulting with Dr Hooker determined on deferring the Palms to a later stage in the series and commence Monocotyledons with and allies

This plan was not followed: and followed Palmae in Bentham (1863-78), vol .7, while Monocotyledons began with in vol. 6, p. 255.

etc then the apocarpous orders and then those with inferior ovaries — — all the above not numerous in Australia so that room will I suppose be left for the whole of the — if not for the whole of the inferior ovary Orders. I shall be glad therefore to have these Orders sent soon as I do not expect to be much away from work this summer

As soon as I have done the I shall despatch a second box. The bill of lading of the last was sent off to you by the authorities of the Herbarium

Ever yours sincerely

George Bentham

Baron F. v. Mueller