Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Muelle, 1871-81, ff. 113-114. 73.09.08b

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to Joseph Hooker, 1873-09-08 [73.09.08b]. 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/73-09-08b>, accessed September 11, 2025

Melbourne
8/9/73.
It is very kind of you, dear Dr Hooker, that you will send me a set of Dr Tates plants.
1
This section is marked in the margin with a cross. The plants, collected by Thomas Tate on William Hann's expedition in the Cape York Peninsula, Qld, were requested in M to J. Hooker, 25 March 1873. There are no plants collected by Thomas Tate now at MEL (AVH, accessed 29 October 2024).. M responded to a letter from Hooker (not found) that probably asked for clarification of what specimens were wanted, stating in M to J. Hooker, May 1874 (in this edition as 74-05-00), that the Tate specimens concerned were collected on the Hann expedition. Dowe & Taylor (2019) point out that there are Tate specimens at Kew and show (p. 514) that many more specimens were received at Kew than the 65 that now survive there. It is not known why the specimens apparently promised to M were not sent. MEL does have specimens from the Hann expedition, collected by Norman Taylor (AVH; Dowe & Taylor (2019), pp. 515-20), but probably as a private venture, not an official collection.
It is of course important for me, that I should have here the Australian material for working as complete as possible.
I am glad that the new important Eucalyptus products (from the tar) will receive attention at the Exhibition. Such oils could of course be produced by the thousands of tons from the waste woods.
2
See M to J. Hooker, 21 April 1873 (in this edition as 73-04-21b).
I never had a sufficiency of flowers of Boronia megastigma to operate on for scent extract or oil. The fragrance of the bushes attract the visitors, and the people in this "free" country are so utterly uncontrolable that every bid of the bushes is broken and carried off. Indeed nearly all of the Boronia bushes are destroyed by the mutilation caused by visitors. Even any Gynerium culm when evening out with its feathery flowers is carried off with impunity. Remonstrance is only answered by insolense and the police protection is utterly insufficient.
With grateful remembrance of all your goodness
Ferd. von Mueller
I have for several successive mails awaited your or Mr Benthams or Mr Olivers opinion regarding my supposed new genus Macgregoria from Central Australia.
3
M first sought an opinion in M to G. Bentham, 28 January 1873 (in this edition as 73-01-23b), and M to J. Hooker, 28 January 1873 (in this edition as 73-01-23a), repeating the request in M to J. Hooker, 18 May, 11 August and 1 December 1873 (in this edition as 73-12-01b). An opinion was given in G. Bentham to M, 10 February 1874. M listed the plant, Macgregoria racemifera, without formal description in his account of Ernest Giles's plants in B73.04.01, p. 129; it was described as Macgregoria racimegira in B74.04.01, p. 161, where he indicated that he had consulted 'Bentham, Masters et Oliver' about its admissibility into Stackhousieae.
I sent you my best specimens. I did not wish more than a single word of opinion as the manuscript is worked out and sent with it. Mr M'Gregor was my best supporter in Parliament. You have no idea, how much a timely answer to my question may serve me.
4
This section is marked in the margin with a cross.
I had already Maouts & Decaisne great work, which I purchased when it came out; but I have now also purchased (of course for my private library, as for 7 years no vote for books was forthcoming,) your Ladys excellent translation, with your important additions
5
i.e. Frances Harriet Hooker's translation of Le Maout & Decaisne (1868), which was published as Le Maout & Decaisne (1873).
6
The remaining text, on f. 314, may not have been originally a part of this letter.
Brogniarts
7
Brongniart (1843); see discussion in Brongniart (1868), p. 4, where he points out that the usual divisions within the Dicotyledoneae are partly artificial rather than natural, and that it becomes more natural if it is recognized that apetalous and polypetalous species may be close together and not placed at each end of the Dicotyledoneae.
attempt to locate some of the Monochlamydeae among the Monopetaleae would certainly prove in vain, but they can all, except the Gymnospermeae, be well located among Thalamiflorae, Disciflorae & Calyciflorae and only by these means the natural system will be perfected. We are so apt to think of showy & large flowers among these so called highly developed plants, I mean Thalamiflorae & Calyciflorae; but if we even look on such a commonly known genus as Dodonaea, we must see that the insignificant flowers of Urticeae &c do not remove them from families full of plants with gorgeous flowers, such as Aesculus.
In Philydreae 3 genera occur.
Aesculus
Boronia megastigma
Calyciflorae
Disciflorae
Dodonaea
Eucalyptus
Gymnospermeae
Gynerium
Macgregoria
Monochlamydeae
Monopetaleae
Philydreae
Thalamiflorae
Urticeae