Document information

Physical location:

Letter press copy book 2, p. 151, Queensland Herbarium, Brisbane. 92.08.05

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Frederick Bailey to Ferdinand von Mueller, 1892-08-05. 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/92-08-05>, accessed September 11, 2025

Colonial Botanists Office
1
Brisbane.
August 5th [189]2
2
editorial addition . Bailey appears to be responding to comments on Bailey (1892) that he had received from M two days previously; see M to F. Bailey, July 1892 (in this edition as 92-07-00f).
Dear Baron
The dates of my Botany Bulletins
3
Bailey (1892).
are the time when the manuscript is given to the printer, while in his hands I keep adding to the publication information as such come to hand. The issue of the work is often delayed, but I often obtain [slips] which are sent out; small matter like these [...]
4
illegible — MS damaged. All […] in the following text have this meaning.
are kept in type so that, at any time, to the very last matter can be inserted. Thus matter from the June number of the Victorian Naturalists was sliped
5
slipped?
in. I have no given time for issuing the publications, but have matter printed when sufficient is ready.
6
M published the new species Endiandra exostemonea and Polyosma reducta in B92.07.05. Bailey promptly included these Qld species in Bailey (1892) — not published until July 1892 (see F. Bailey to M, 9 July 1892), despite being dated 'May 1892' on its cover — on pp. 13 and 24, citing 'F.v.M. Vict. Nat. June 1892' as authority.
Will you allow me as an old friend to advise you to be less dogmatic? I consider that what I have done regarding
Tribulus occidentalis

Search for Tribulus occidentalis in

and
Millettia Maideniana

Search for Millettia Maideniana in

is quite justified. I found little in your herbarium to assist me with regard to plants. I might have done better if you had afforded me a little of your time during my weeks stay in Melbourne, but I was not even met by you at the herbarium and a very large proportion of specimens which I wished to consult were not there. With regard to the Millettia, I find nothing in Endlicher's description of
Pterocarpus australis

Search for Pterocarpus australis in

7
Endlicher (1833a).
or in your reference to it in Journ. of Bot. 22 — page 290
8
B84.10.02.
to lead me to the conclusion that it was the plant now named by me after Mr Maiden. You might see from my description that it & M. Megasperma F.v.M. are quite distinct from each other.
9
In Bailey (1892), pp. 7-8, Bailey prefers
Tribulus occidentalis

Search for Tribulus occidentalis in

to T. hystrix; both are described in R. Brown (1849), p. 69, and it is unclear what M's objection might have been. On pp. 12-13, Bailey published Millettia maideniana as a new species, believing that the specimen he had was different from M. megasperma published in Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, p. 211.
With regard to your Census
10
B89.12.03.
my work is so totally ignored in this publication that now it is of little moment whether plants of my naming appear in it or not. There is no mans work so perfect that fault cannot be found with it. I do my best to assist Queenslanders with a knowledge of the plants of their colony pointing out all the economic features of both the indigenous and naturalised species, and you throw discredit upon my work. This should [...] it will not aid the cause of [bota]ny. I have no specimens of
Solanum orbiculatum

Search for Solanum orbiculatum in

Dun . I went by the description in the [...] [...] [...] S. oligacanthum F.v.M . in Bulletin.
11
In Bailey (1892), p. 21, these two species of Solanum , which M had separated while describing the latter of them in B54.13.06, p. 19, were not considered distinct. Bailey accepted M's name but provided what he described as 'the first full description which has been published of this interesting species'.
Of this latter I will send you specimens which you will doubtless find is wrongly determined. I received but a small flowering specimen of the
Acacia melanoxylon

Search for Acacia melanoxylon in

R.B. from Gladfield, and as I thought it most probably a form of that species gave the description from [...] of A. melanoxylon
12
In Bailey (1892), p. 13, the description of A. melanoxylon from Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, p. 388 was republished, word for word, with an appropriate acknowledgment.
in bulletins to assist persons to identify, if it was again collected when in fruit —
Yours very truly
F. M. Bailey.
Baron Ferd von Mueller, K.C.M.G &c
Government Botanist for Victoria