Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1882-90, f. 132. 85.01.06

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to Joseph Hooker, 1885-01-06. 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/85-01-06>, accessed September 11, 2025

1
MS annotated by W. Thiselton-Dyer: And Feb. 24/85. Letter not found.
6/1/85
No specimen of Ptilotus (Trich.) Roei can be found here, dear Sir Joseph, altho’ it was named from one of the plants of Mr Forest’s first Collection.
2
Trichinium roei was named in Bentham (1863-78), vol. 5, p. 240, preserving M's herbarium name. It was transferred to Ptilotus, without explanation, in B83.03.04, p. 29.
If you have one at Kew, will you cause it kindly to be compared with the byefollowing, which I have temporar[e]ly named Ptilotus (Trichinium) Sewelliae.
3
M lists this species in B86.06.03, p. 3, repeated in B89.12.03, p. 48, referring to ‘F. v. M. in Vict. Nat. Jan (1885)’; however, there is no article by M in that issue, nor has mention of this plant be found elsewhere in the volume, nor the next.
The affinity to P. ae[rv]oides and P. Hoodii is much less pronounced.
Regardfully your
Ferd. von Mueller
4
MS annotations by D. Oliver: We have no specimen of
Trichinium Roei

Search for Trichinium Roei in

, F M. It must surely have been returned with his He[r]ba[rium]; 'Selaginella ([Mr] Baker’s note enclosed) — specimen to be returned to F. Mueller herewith.' and 'Does Sir F. M. know that his “oak” from Solomon Isld. coll. by [Dr] Guppy is simply a Lauraceae? Guppy no doubt led him astray.' [see M to J. Hooker 10 December 1884, and footnotes thereto.]