Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1871-81, ff. 121-4. 73.11.05

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to George Bentham, 1873-11-05. 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/73-11-05>, accessed September 11, 2025

Melbourne
5/11/73
I was gratified at the receipt of the proof pages, dear Mr Bentham, concerning the rest of the
Orchideae

Search for Orchideae in

and Irideae,
1
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, gatherings Z-DD, pp. 337-418.
and I trust that your strength & spirit will remain unimpaired. The
Orchideae

Search for Orchideae in

have arrived, but I am not yet aware by what Ship the
Irideae

Search for Irideae in

&
Haemodoraceae

Search for Haemodoraceae in

are gone. So far as the helplessness in my Department admits of my doing so, I work to get the rest of the
Monocotyledoneae

Search for Monocotyledoneae in

in order, the object involving much mechanic sorting, on which I must now spend my own valuable time, as I have no Departmental & private means for such mechanical aid now, only one single assistant being allowed for the whole Department.
It is impossible to work a large Department mainly out of a Director's Salary. The £100 for the next volume are however specially voted last week
2
The Victorian Government's payment to Bentham for his work on Flora australiensis was included in the 'Additional Estimates for 1873-4', approved on 28 October 1873 (Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, vol. 17, session 1873, pp 2070-1).
and I will take measures to request the transmission of the sum to Mr Michie, the new Agent General as early as I can.
3
See M to W. Odgers, 18 November 1873.
I hope, venerable friend, that you will take care of your strength. I am quite glad to learn, that you will vacate the Presidential Chair of the L.S., though no one filled it with more dignity and zeal than yourself. Indeed I was sorry almost to see your time so largely absorbed and for so many years too by the Society. If you intend to attain Lady Smith's age,
4
Presumably the widow of Sir James Edward Smith, founder of the Linnean Society. She turned 100 in May 1873. 'On Monday last, [ie the 12th of May] at Lowestoft, the 100th birthday of Lady Smith, widow of Sir James Edward Smith, once President of the Linnean Society, was celebrated by a dinner to 100 of the oldest people of both sexes' (Gardeners' chronicle, 17 May 1873, p. 678).
you must largely reduce your work hours.
Possibly my remark on the priority of
Phyllachne

Search for Phyllachne in

over
Forstera

Search for Forstera in

has been misunderstood.
5
See M to J. Hooker, 21 April 1873 (in this edition as 73-04-21b) and M to J. Hooker, 18 May 1873; G. Bentham to M, 27 August 1873. J. Forster & G. Forster (1776), p. 115, erected Phyllachne ; Forstera was erected in G. Forster (1780) who states, p. 172, that the generic name had been provided by Linneaus.
The Forsters themselves would have far preferred to see their
Phyllachne

Search for Phyllachne in

acknowledged, than the genus named after them.
When I have restored an older name, I was simply impelled by a strong feeling of equity. See, dear Mr Bentham, both Forsters with all their toil, have not above a few hundred plants named themselves. Poor Loureiro, after the enormous sacrifices of 30 years in unaided studies in Cochin china will also leave his authority for not even one hundred plants, and these, I think, we should endeavour to keep for his good. It is true
Floscopa

Search for Floscopa in

is a barbarism and ought to be written Floriscopa. —
Centipeda

Search for Centipeda in

supresses the so long familiar name Myriogyne,
Trema

Search for Trema in

the long used name Sponia;
Centipeda

Search for Centipeda in

moreover reminds of a zoologic name.
Rottlera

Search for Rottlera in

was still more universally known, and some 30 species are now overthrown simply to bring — quite rightly — one
Mallotus

Search for Mallotus in

of Loureiro to honor again.
6
Centipeda, Trema and Mallotus were genera erected by Loureiro in 1790; Myriogyne by Lessing in 1831; Sponia by Commerson in 1834 and Rottlera by Roxburgh in 1802 (B. Jackson (1895)).
Bentham was not averse to restoring prior names in some cases: he reduced Sponia, Mallotus and Rottlera to synonyms in Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6.
Didiscus

Search for Didiscus in

was a gender name known everywhere since 30 years and is now rightly gone.
7
Didiscus was fully described in A. P. de Candolle (1828-38), mémoire 5, p.28; it was suppressed in favour of Rudge's Trachymene of 1811.
Forsters priority in the "characteres"
8
J. Forster & G. Forster (1776).
seems simply overlooked ! Most people imagine Linnés, the son's, suppl.
9
Linné fils (1781), probably not published until after April 1782 (see TL2).
anterior to the "characteres", but it is only anterior to the "prodromus" of G Forster.
10
G. Forster (1786).
Seemann in restoring Forsters authority for Barringtonia correctly in quoting the "characteres" overlooked the right specific name "speciosa".
11
Seeman (1865-73), p. 82. Barringtonia speciosa was published in 1775 in the preliminary folio edition of J. Forster & G. Forster (1876) (see TL2 title no. 1826 for publishing history);
Barringtonia speciosa

Search for Barringtonia speciosa in

appeared in Linné fils (1781), p. 312, but see n. 9.
I should be glad to give LaBillardiere full credit for his few hundred plants also after his 30 years studies, though
Genosiris

Search for Genosiris in

is not well construed.
12
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 401 preferred Patersonia (R. Brown in Sims (1801-26), vol. 26 (published 1807), tab. 1041; also in R. Brown (1810), p 303) to Labillardière's Genosiris (Labillardière (1804-06), vol. 1, p. 13, dated in TL2 to late January 1805), commenting: 'It has been proposed by F. Mueller to revert to Labillardière's generic name under the strict rules of priority. But Brown's has been so universally adopted with a full knowledge of the circumstances, and is so generally known by gardeners as well as botanists, that it would appear only to produce confusion now to substitute for Patersonia one so defective in composition as Genosiris'. Patersonia has been formally conserved (ICBN (1948), No. 1289).
Against Iriogenos could have been no objections.
Calythrix

Search for Calythrix in

is as bad a composition.
13
Labillardière's Calytrix (1806) = De Candolle's Calythrix (1828).
But even Linnés "rannunculoides" & similar words are allowed to pass, though one might be prompted even now to write rannunculaceas &c
In restoring Candollea, I do not wish Botanic friends to adopt that genus for Stylideae; it was merely a suggestion, arising from local researches on Dilleniaceae. Much less did I claim the authorship for all the Candolleas thus created.
14
But see the entries in M's Census (B89.12.03), pp. 144-6, where species not named by Labillardière (1805) are listed there are in the form 'C. carnosa, F. v. M. Cens. 85 (1882) from Bentham (1837)’ [i.e. in B83.03.04, p. 85, M claimed authorship]. M's analysis for the priority of Candollea over Stylidium is given in B73.04.02, p. 41, where he also gives the argument for using the family name Candolleaceae.
Your plant is an excellent one. Let every author have credit for his species, and in transpositions, such as they might have effected themselves , let us say with you (... sub Stylidio). Unless we bring the good old names back to their righteous position, others are sure to do it after us. See, dear Mr Bentham, very few at any age (and none will hereafter) have really stamped their names universally on the vegetation of the globe . Not Loureiro, not Forster, not Labillardière; all where but local workers in a limited area, out of which these good and labourious workers remain for ever unknown. How many are there in the proud position to have extensively identified themselves for all times through the names of plants with every part of the globe . How many share that honor with you? a honor so labouriously earned by you to perhaps even a higher extent than even the few of your compeers? Linné , both D.C ., both Hookers , Willdenow , Berkeley, Hampe, Mitten Agardh, Acharius, Nees , Meissner , Lindley , Kunth . Perhaps no others and there is no room now left for others! Great as Martius, Roxburgh, Wallich, Wight, Miquel, Blume and perhaps a few others are among phytographers, they are only known in one single part of the Globe mainly or solely.
How many are there besides Linné, who could say, that all over the globe nearly every square mile of land bore plants established scientifically by them. That is a glorious enveyable position.
Ever your
Ferd. von Mueller