Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1871-81, ff. 110-11. 73.08.31

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to George Bentham, 1873-08-31. 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/73-08-31>, accessed September 11, 2025

Melbourne
31/8/73.
It was with much delight, dear Mr Bentham, that I got and perused the 5 new sheets of the 6th volume.
1
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6. The comments made suggest that the sheets received were probably gatherings L to P (pp. 129-208).
How it was possible for you, amidst the enormous work, entailed by the publication of the genera of the ,
2
Bentham & Hooker (1862-83). Vol. 2, part 1, containing the by Bentham, was published in April 1873.
to get along so fast with this volume also, is quite an enigma to me. I note down for you some remarks, which may be useful for a supplemental volume.
was named by myself, and under that designation sent to Geneve. I adopted the specific name in counter-designation of A. nemorum.
3
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 132, cites M's herbarium or manuscript name as described by Muell. Arg. in Linnaea, vol. 34, p. 38 for A. nemorum, but cites Muell. Arg alone for A. eremorum.
. On this I offered special remarks in the essay on F. Gregorys N.W. Australian plants, published in the Bot. Soc. of Edinburgh many years ago. I have however not the volume at hand to quote the page.
4
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 133; B63.13.03, pp. 481-2.
is the name that ought (in my opinion) to remain. I see no reason whatever for the restoration of a specific name, adopted in a wrong genus.
5
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 140. Bentham gave Croton paniculatus as a synonym.
. The location Baines Creek (a tributary of the Victoria River, explored by myself) is in Arnhem's Land not in Queensland.
6
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 152.
is very poisonous to pastoral animals.
7
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 158, did not mention this characteristic.
was so named by me. In my correspondence with Mr Fitzalan he received the name for this species and — of course — utilized it. I believe, that I am the only one who ever used that expression, as grandifolia is the equivalent general appellation. This fact is a collateral evidence, that the name did not arise with Mr Fitzalan.
8
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 171. Although quoting M as the formal author (B63.10.01, p. 50), Bentham asserts that Fitzalan first named it.
. I saw it on some of the western Rivers of Carpentaria also.
9
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 173, gives the location of as N. Australia. Victoria and Fitzmaurice rivers, F. Mueller.
When travelling for thousands of miles with packhorses, it is impossible to burden them with specimens of the same species from many localities.
is in reality a Victor. species also.
10
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, pp. 174-5 includes Qld and NSW location records, and states that M's specimens from Twofold Bay, NSW, represent 'the most southern point reached by any Ficus'.
It rarely varies with lanceolate leaves with long narrow lateral lobes at the base.
. I do not think, that it is a strictly speaking Carpentaria plant,
11
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 178; the locations given by Bentham are to the west and the east of Arnhem Land.
nor do I remember it from Arnhem's land. In our hungry state we vividly looked for it first on the Gilbert-River! and I have a note of my finding it on the upper part of that River on the 26th Sept 1856.
12
M's field diaries have not been found.
Leichhardt — I think — records it only from East Australia. Mr Flood told me, that he saw it on Quail Island, but he may have seen an allied species
occurs 4000' high in the Austral alps. It seems a pity to quote the synonym, which was hurriedly printed in my first list and soon subsequently altered. I never published a Description
13
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 189. Bentham quotes as a synonym Urtica Tasmanica, citing B54.12.01, p. 18. For M's repeated urging that Bentham not cite names as synonyms unless properly published, see Lucas (1995).
. it seems safer to give up the misleading name C. stricta, especially as it has so long been used for an other plant. The tree is common in Vict. & S. Australia.
14
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 195; Bentham synonymised the 'other plant' also called C. stricta under C. distyla, p. 198.
. Exceedingly common in Victoria, but not occurring in S. Australia.
15
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 197; the Victorian distribution was given as 'Yarra river and Dandenong mountains'.
. Also common in Victoria and S. Australia.
16
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 198-9; the location notes give specific sites rather than the whole of Vic and SA.
I have even sought in vain in East Gippsland. It not being a Victorian species, it can not be one of S. Australia. Indeed in my 5 years travels there I never saw it. So either R Brown must have misplaced a Port Jackson specimen and wrote Port Lincoln on it, or — what is less likely — C. humilis crosses the country of the Great Bight and reappears in Spencers Gulf and was taken there as C. torulosa
17
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 200, cites a SA location (Port Lincoln, from R. Brown's collection) as well as Qld and NSW. C. humilis (p. 200) is given as restricted to WA. R. Brown (2001), p. 464, in his entry for 1 January 1804 when at Port Dalrymple, Tas. wrote ' was not quite the size of C. torulosa of Port Jackson'.
! Mr Giles saw it in masses about MacDonnells Range
18
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 201, gives only one location, 'near Mt Mueller', for C. decaisneana.
It is the only Casuarina of Central Australia; the outposts or sentries of the Army only were met by me on Sturt's Creek. It is one of the finest trees of the Central regions of this Continent. Mr Giles is instructed to procure seeds and trace its western limit.
19
Ernest Giles was undertaking his second exploring journey, sponsored by M who raised a subscription to support the journey (see, e.g., M to D. Mackinnon, 7 January 1873).
. I gave a lithogram of this in my fragm.
20
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 202 cites M's description, B67.07.05, p. 16, but not the figure published as t. 54 in vol. 6 of the Fragmenta.
I thank you for all the kind consideration shown by you in these pages towards me again.
your
Ferd von Mueller.