Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller 1871-81, ff. 349-51 81.12.31b

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to William Thiselton-Dyer, 1881-12-31 [81.12.31b]. 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/81-12-31b>, accessed September 11, 2025

1
MS annotation by Thiselton-Dyer: 'And | Feb. 14. 82'.
Newyearseve 1881
I must have left you under a wrong impression, dear Mr Dyer, when you thought, that I did not show any ardor for aiding your important researches on the
Cycadeae

Search for Cycadeae in

; but my facilities for doing so are not such, as when I was Director of the Garden; indeed I have seen no Cycad of any kind or any of my other plants in growth since 1873, nor could I go to the garden after the meanness shown to me for anything; besides all that the Melbourne Garden could now furnish, would likely be available in your Kew Conservatories and would no longer be authentic.
I believe, that not a single
Zamia

Search for Zamia in

is in flower or fruit there at present, but should such be the case, I will get the cones through the Minister of the Department. I have written very many letters about getting Cones of Cycads for you (with leaves) since you brought your requirements under my notice;
2
Relevant letter from W. Thiselton-Dyer not found, but see J. Hooker to M, 10 June 1881. M was in touch with numerous correspondents about cycads in this period; see e.g., M to M. Holtze, 31 August 1881, where however M states that he, M, is preparing a general work on the cycads and does not mention Thiselton-Dyer's interest. He later made clear the relationship with Thiselton-Dyer; see M to M. Holtze, 19 January 1882. See also F. Kempe to M, 9 July 1881; P. O'Shanesy to M, 17 August 1881; P. O'Shanesy to M, 26 August 1881 (in this edition as 81-08-26a); J. Pink to M, 14 October 1881; M to M. Holtze, 31 August 1881; F. Kempe to M, 27 December 1881; W. Woolls to M, 2 November 1881; and E. Flint to M, 31 December 1881.
indeed some days ago I received a splendid amentum of fruit and the smaller ♂ cone of Macroz. Moorei, the ♀ cone over 1½' long. I had arranged for its being photographed before your letter of 9 Nov. reached me;
3
Letter not found.
but remember, the place, from whence it came is over 1000 miles in a direct line from Melbourne.
Portion of a Cone of M. Macdonellii is also on the way to me from Central Australia ; but as the mail has to be brought partly by pack-horses, it requires patience to obtain anything from there. I have promises also of cones & leaves from several places of N. S. Wales, and West Australia.
It seems to me however quite useless, to send you leaves of M. spiralis, M. Denisoni
4
denisonii?
& M. Frazeri, which are all in many European Conservatories; surely the leaves of such could not be of any additional use to you. No photographer exists, in the region where M. Denisonii grows; therefore I must get a cone sent to Melbourne for being photographed here; all this is not so easy, as it may appear to you, especially as the places, where most of the
Cycadeae

Search for Cycadeae in

grow, are not near ready lines of communication. I hope however, that the austral. material will be got for you in the course of 1882 .
We look forward with much interest to your report on the Phylloxera, & are beholden to you for having gone there for the Australian Colonies.
5
International Phylloxera Congress of Bordeaux. October 1881. Report of W. T. Thiselton Dyer, Esq., C.M.G. F.R.S. Representative, at the Congress, of the Governments of New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria (London, 1882).
Your account of expenses you will be kind enough to send through the Agent Generals of the Colonies in London, the right hon. Mr Childers, whom I knew here nearly 30 years ago, acting - I believe — for Victoria.
Prof. Millardet has just kindly sent me two last important essays of his on Phylloxera here.
6
The Library at the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne has a copy of Millardet (1881), which contains three papers by him.
As regards the
Vahea

Search for Vahea in

s you will pardon me to say, that no argument can invalidate the priority of
Vahea

Search for Vahea in

by 15 years over
Landolphia

Search for Landolphia in

. Mr Bentham simply seems to have overlooked Lam. illustration des gènres, which is all the more pardonable, as neither Pritzel, nor even now Jackson, note this large and for many genera authoritative work.
7
Lamarck (1791-1823). See notes to M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 10 September 1881, and B82.09.01.
I have it in my library with the text!, but since I am out the garden, books of this kind are stored away. I will try to find it in one of the set-away boxes; at all events you could easily obtain all information about it from our friend Decaisne. DC, who worked in early age with Lamarck on the flore francaise,
8
A. P. de Candolle & Lamarck (1805-15).
knew of course all about Lamarcks works, and refers pointedly page 66 in his bibliotheca bot. to Lam. illustr et 2 vol de texte I, 1791, II, 1793, et [suiv].
9
Presumably A. P. de Candolle (1818-21).
I feel quite sure, that future authors will maintain
Vahea

Search for Vahea in

, for if such a clear case of priority is to be set aside, then we may just at once give up all laws of priority, and if a slight error on the plate destroys a genus, then hundreds of genera have to change names.
10
The remaining text transcribed here is from f. 351, which is written on different paper but from its content appears to be part of this letter.
Had Mr Bentham recognised the older claims of
Vahea

Search for Vahea in

, he would have given under
Landolphia

Search for Landolphia in

his reasons in a few words for abolishing the older genus.
Has the Livistona austr. passed safely from the antipodes to you?
11
See M to J. Hooker, 20 July 1880; M to J. Hooker, 4 December 1880; M to J. Hooker, 5 February 1881 (in this edition as 81-02-05a); M to J. Hooker, 1 October 1882; and M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 9 April 1882 (in this edition as 82-04-09a).
It is an experiment of more than ordinary interest for the transit of living upgrown plants.
Pacouria

Search for Pacouria in

, if ever congeneric with
Vahea

Search for Vahea in

, could not well be revived, as Aublet has already a contemporaneous Composite genus -
Pacourina

Search for Pacourina in

! Poiret took up
Vahea

Search for Vahea in

in 1817,
Landolphia

Search for Landolphia in

only in 1822, all other quotations are latter except Roem. & Schultes, who gave both genera simultaneously.
12
Aublet (1775), i. 268, t. 105; Poiret (1810-17) tome V, p. 409; the Roemer & Schultes edition of Linné (1817-30), vol. 4 (1819), pp. 435, 526.
Wishing you, dear Mr Dyer, for you & your family a happy new year, I remain regardfully your
Ferd. von Mueller
A still longer stem of M. Moorei goes to Kew next week by a clipper ship; it was fresh taken up, is about 9 feet in the length of its stem and 1½ foot in diameter. It has cost lots of money to get that from more than 1000 miles distance!
What a pity, that the years of adopted genera were not published by B & H
13
Bentham & Hooker (1862-83).
Beccari must have good specimens of
Cycas Papuana

Search for Cycas Papuana in

. I will send you what little I have; also of C. Cairnsiana.
14
M described Cycas papuana in B76.12.03, p. 76, and C. cairnsiana in B76.04.03, p. 63.
I never in a Cycads country, so my field-notes on them are scanty. None occur in Vict.