Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1882-90, ff. 297-8. 89.12.01

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to William Thiselton-Dyer, 1889-12-01. 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/89-12-01>, accessed September 11, 2025

1/12/89
1
Date stamped: Royal Gardens Kew 13. Jan. 90. Annotated in pencil by Thiselton-Dyer: And 15.1.90 ( letter not found). There is an ink annotation above the pencilled note:
The cucurbitac.
2
Cucurbitaceae; no specimen of any member of this family, with our without fruit, collected by MacGregor is listed in the Kew herbarium catalogue , accessed 11 May 2021).
fruit, dear Mr Dyer, which is missing, did not reach here, so far as I remember. All the economic articles from Sir Will. Macgregor's collection were scrupulously at once despatched to Kew After the Melb. meeting of the Austr. Assoc for the Advancement of science shall have come to a close,
3
The Second Congress of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science was held in Melbourne, 7-14 January 1890. M was President of the Congress.
I shall resume work on plants of New Guinea, though lowlands-plants only, and if the Cucurb. fruit still turns up, it will be forwarded without delay. I may not be able, to write for some weeks, as the social arrangements and responsibilities for the Assoc. meeting need soon also much attention. Some of Sir Will. MacGregors plants from the cool zone were mere fragments, picked out of sods of other plants here, or small unique specimens, so that nothing can be sent of it either to N.S.Wales or Queensland, the two other colonies, supporting monetarely the protectorate. Brisbane got all the zoologic specimens. I may yet give drawing of these unica.
Wishing you and Sir Joseph and your families every happiness in the new year,
your
Ferd. von Mueller
4
The valediction is about one-third of the way down the last page of the letter on f. 297 front.
5
The remaining text is written on f. 298. The folio is smaller paper, but has been included here as it is also date stamped as arrived on 15 January 1890 and, as it was marked 'Private', it is unlikely to have been continued on the 'official' letter.
Private
Bailey has far too scanty material for working critically even on Austr . plants, even if he had the foundation knowledege of European plants. (He actually sending out
Salsola Kali

Search for Salsola Kali in

as
Kochia brevifolia

Search for Kochia brevifolia in

!)
6
He actually ... brevifolia in the left margin, f. 298 front , its position in the text indicated by asterisks . Parentheses are editorial additions.
Hence the superficiality of his report on the plants of the Bellenden Ker's range,
7
Bailey (1889).
after I showed the importance of this region, he not even wishing to perpetuate the justly established name of a Botanist for it. I doubt, whether he knew Flinders and RBrown's meaning of the dedication!
8
The range in north Qld was named after John Bellenden Ker by King (in King (1827), vol 1. p. 205) at the request of Alan Cunningham, not by Flinders (1814); Bailey's report used the name Bellenden-Ker Range, but the report in which Bailey (1889) appeared used in addition the name Wooroonooran.
He has the audacity of censuring publicly the "Flora Tasmaniae" and Flora Australiensis" about
Monotoca lineata

Search for Monotoca lineata in

, not knowing that in 1810 already the error on Labill. plate was cleared up by RBr,
9
Bailey (1889), pp 47-8. Bailey was commenting on J. Hooker (1860), vol. 1, p. 250; Bentham (1863-78), vol. 4, p. 230; R. Brown (1810), p. 547; and Labillardière (1804-6), vol. 1, p. 45 and tab. 61 (as
Styphelia

Search for Styphelia in

glauca).
just as I was the first to show that Lab. had mixed up
Stackhousia monogyna

Search for Stackhousia monogyna in

& S. spatulata, — also
Lobelia gibbosa

Search for Lobelia gibbosa in

and L. simplicicaulis. Baileys specimens, sent me, are in bud , so that not even the section of
Styphelia

Search for Styphelia in

, to which they belong, can be fixed; but so far as they go, they are nearer to
Acrotriche aggregata

Search for Acrotriche aggregata in

than to
Monotoca lineata

Search for Monotoca lineata in

, but his plant may be different from either. I may mention, that when 1867 I united, as RBr suggested, and [Sprengel] partly had done, several of the drupaceous genera of
Epacrideae

Search for Epacrideae in

,
10
B67.09.01, pp. 29-76. See also Lucas (2003), pp. 269-72.
Bennett, RBr friend, expressed himself delighted!
11
when 1867…delighted! writtten in margin; 1867 Interlined.
J. J. Bennett's expression of delight has not been found.