Ferdinand von Mueller

1/10/82.

Whenever during my bid

1

bit?

of remaining life, dear Sir Joseph, I shall see Ottelia ovalifolia growing here, I shall pleasingly think of having been the first to introduce it through Princely Kew into Horticulture.

2

See M to J. Hooker, 15 March 1882 (in this edition as 82-03-15b). Seeds received at Kew on 27 April 1882, 'packed in clay, in bottle & in paper', were reported as having 'germinated and flowered 1882' (Kew inwards book 1878-83 (Kewensia), p. 380, record 152a).

It will be of interest to see, whether it will ripen under glass its seeds readily. That the Experiment with the Livistona did not succeed,

3

A trunk of Livistona australis, eight feet long, arrived at Kew in 1880 and was described as 'live' in the accession record (Kew inwards book 1878-83 (Kewensia), p. 260, entry no. 384, 29 September 1880). No Livistona receipts are recorded for 1881.

is not surprising, the distance of shipping is too far. Stems, quite similarly treated, have grown here in Gardens quite well and made at once a magnificent show, but then it took only 2 or 3 weeks, to bring the stems from Illawarra

4

NSW.

to Port Phillip.

5

Vic.

Negative results however teach also something. More important still is the experiment with the Heath-plants from King Georges Sound,

6

WA.

as it involves a widely applicable principle, and if we succeed in the plan, suggested by me, a new era will commence in the transit of growing plants. Success, if any, will depend on three or four points: 1, the right season for shipping; 2, previous lifting or rather cutting loose at the spot in the season before; 3, Nicely balancing humidity ; 4, proper choice (lichens, mosses) of antiseptic surrounding in packing. We must not be discouraged by any failures at first, but seek profit from the lessons thus thought

7

taught?

I almost thought the woods would be extraspecimens there;

8

See M to J. Hooker, 22 May 1882, in this edition as 82-05-22a, for a list of timber specimens retained at Kew.

but I did not wish to pass Kew, and you will do me the justice to affirm, that I never was guilty of that in the more than 30 years of my intercourse with Kew. I am glad, that the timber went to Prof. Sergeant,

9

C. S. Sargeant.

who really does take a lead in America as regards Xylology. The specimens, as named with exactitude , were valuable, for it is not so easy, to make sure of names botanically, when one goes even to much expense in getting timber specimens from mixed natural forests. Some of the kinds of trees moreover will soon be extinct. Was I really the first to design woodbooks? I never heard of the method, til I adopted it in 1862 for the second London Exhibition, when the series from here, went, I think, by my request to Kew. We had none in the Exhibition here last year, but woodbook in several patterns were exhibited in Philadelphia;

10

Centennial Exposition, Philadelphia, 1876.

but that was a dozen years after my having a series of them made. I hope you approve of the cheaper and simpler plan, which my sample of Acac. Melanoxyl. demonstrates. As regards an 8th vol. of the Flor. Austr., of course there would be no sense to adopt an other arrangement than Bentham's, as otherwise confusion would arise, notwithstanding an index. It is otherwise with any distinct work, such as the species-census of Australian plants,

11

B83.03.04.

for which any method may be adopted without inconvenience. I wrote my views on systematic sequence in a long letter to your excellent son in law recently.

12

No letter to Thiselton-Dyer written between January and October 1882 that fits this description has been found, but M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 25 March 1883 (in this edition as 83-03-25b) suggests that Thiselton-Dyer had made some comment in the letter to which M was then responding.

I stand not alone in attempting to make changes for the better in D.C.'s or Juss. system,

13

A. P. de Candolle (1816-21); Jussieu (1789).

as Thunberg

14

Linnaeus (1791).

ventured to do for Linne's. I will not speak of Caruel's notions on Phanerogams,

15

Caruel (1881), pp. 171ff. There is a repaginated reprint of this article at MEL.

but there are now (after Grisebach) two men who have seen much , namely Eichler

16

A. Eichler (1875-8).

and J. Mueller,

17

Relevant reference not identified.

who have adopted systems of their own, which they are quite free to do, but which only those are forced to adopt, who may be dependent on them. Real good innovations, such as abound in your & Bentham's genera,

18

Bentham & Hooker (1862-83).

will force their way to permanency, by their intrinsic merit; but therewith is not said, that we have as yet arrived at the best system . Eichler's is not giving the best consociations of orders in many cases. J. Mueller's, only published in outline, is objectionable, because with Fries he places the Monopetaleae at the upper end of the system, the idea being (you having perhaps not seen his system), that by inserting the Monochlamydeae into Thalamiflorae & Calyciflorae, he got some supposed low orders, de[m]anding to stand beneath Monopetaleae in which (curious enough) a corolla is always developed or nearly alway. Now, — this is not logic reasoning; because with D.C. we must regard apocarpous development as the most potent evolution of pistillary organs. Moreover Euphorbiaceae are really petaliferous plants, which are subject to deficiencies in the corolla; but this very fact gives us the true place for Urticeae & so forth.

I never called my arrangement a system of my own; though in an overgenerous spirit my friend Woolls calls it so;

19

Woolls (1880).

it merely wants to put away the Monochlamydeae, (as Thunberg abolished the Monoecia, Dioecia and Polygamia, so as to get together more closely [—:] Gramineae, Cyperaceae &c).

Jussieu & De Candolle have evolved the natural system so well, that all the improvement, to which it is susceptible, consists in finding the true places of the Monochlamydeae, and in doing that I have perhaps not been far from the mark, though I had not the benefit of knowing J. Mueller's details. I shall say something dignified and just on the same subject in the preface to the Census

20

B82.03.04.

at the end of this year, when the Monocotyledoneae will also be out (I hope) being unfortunately unable to stop printing, which is under private-contract, so that I shall probably be deprived of the advantage to consult your genera for Monocotyledoneae.

21

Published in April 1883 in part 2 of vol. 3 of Bentham & Hooker (1862-83).

As I am on this subject, let me still say, without wishing to be prolix, that I originally intended the census of the Austr. gen. and also of the species of plants for my Museum use. That it got printed, is not only an advantage to my Departm., but also to other institutions. It is not an elaboration of late years. I suggested it in 1862, when you commenced the genera.

22

See M to W. Hooker, 29 January 1862 (in this edition as 62-01-29a) and M to G. Bentham, 24 January 1862.

How awkward the Monochlamydeae are as stumbling blocks, I find out by any junior assistants in the Museum. Even lately an excellent Botanist of European Experience sent me, as belonging to one genus several Polycarpaeas & Gomph[renas], and you found yourself, in dealing with Santalaceae and Proteaceae & Loranthaceae, that you had to place the latter into Monochlamydeae, where few would look for them among beginners.

Last evening I had to preside and to make the presentation of a gift of the Liedertafel to Mr Moroney.

23

Moroney, a bass singer, was leaving for England and M gave him letters of introduction; see M to J. Hooker, 1 October 1882 (in this edition as 82-10-01a), and M to G. Bentham, 24 January 1862.

It remains a singular fact, that the very genus with which D.C. syst. commences (Clematis) is in most spec. apetalous!