Document information
Physical location:
RBG Kew, Directors' letters, vol. LXXIV, Australia letters 1851-8, letter no. 137. 53.10.18Preferred Citation:
Ferdinand von Mueller to William Hooker, 1853-10-18. 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/53-10-18>, accessed May 18, 2024
1
MS annotation: 'Recd Aug 1854'.
18. October 1853
Sir
The departure of his Excellency Governor Latrobe to England, an event which I deeply
regret, affords me an opportunity of forwarding some collections, manuscripts and
at lenght an answer to your kind letter,
which has been to me the source of great delight, not only for the benignant judgement
of some of my labours, but also for the manyfold encouragements, which it contained.
I have to thank you like-wise, Sir William, for the publication of the two general
articles
on the Australian Flora as well as for the transmission of your last valuable report,
regarding the progress of your far famed gardens.
2
W. Hooker to M, 15 June 1853. La Trobe had submitted his resignation in December 1852. When M wrote the present letter he was about to depart on his second botanical exploration as Government Botanist, and he would have expected La Trobe to have left the colony long before he returned to Melbourne. In the event, however, La Trobe was not relieved of duty at once and was not able to sail for England until 6 May 1854. See also M to W. Hooker, 28 April 1854.
3
B53.03.01 and B53.04.02.
4
This report has not been positively identified, but a new edition of the 'popular guide' had been issued as W. Hooker
(1852), the preface of which, dated 1 August 1852, emphasises the rapid development of the Gardens.
I regret that, pressed by the want of time, I can not extend this communication as
far as I desired, but I considered it more essential to finish for transmission to
you, Sir William, this time as much manuscript on our flora as I could. It was my
original plan to give of all yet undescribed plants an ample description; but after
the Thalamiflorae, Corolliflorae and some Monochlamydeae were in this manner elaborated
I perceived that I would be obliged to abandon the task this year, and either leave
a considerable part of my collections untouched, or to adopt, as I did, a more speedy
plan of operation. I have, accordingly, to get a clearer general view of our vegetation
entered with regard to Calyciflorae part of Monochlamydeae, Monocotyledoneae & Acotyledoneae
only into a more superficial examination for the purpose of drawing up an Index of
what I had discovered this year.
Considering that this office was entrusted to me, when already the best part of the
flower-season had passed,
and that I was before only able to devote a spare hour now and then to my botanical
pursuits, I trust, that you will be not quite uncontent with what is accomplished
this year. I hope further that my next six-months expedition, for which I am preparing
now, will bring the greatest part of the Victoria-Flora into my possession, and that by the ample means, which his Excellency has been pleased
to devote to this journey, I shall have an opportunity of collecting on a larger scale,
as I could before. I beg you will excuse, that amongst the specimens many are wanting,
which are enumerated in my report.
This had its reason either in the flower- and fruitless state of many plants at the
time when I observed them, enabling me only to write their names down in my journal,
or they had been previously collected by me in South Australia and were therefore
not procured once more this first year. A considerable number of Duplicates from this
Colony has been long before my appointment sent away to Dr Sonder on account of the
want of room.
5
M was appointed on 26 January 1853; see W. Lonsdale to M, 26 January 1853.
6
B53.10.01.
This collections as well as Mr Stuarts Tasmanian and my own extensive South Australian
will be, I trust, of particular interest to you, and if Dr J. Hooker could spare a
week or two for a trip to Hamburgh, I feel convinced, that out of Mr Charles Stuarts
herbarium he would receive ample additional materials for his Flora of V. D. L.,
and it will cause me great pleasure, if Dr Hooker will select a specimen of all those
plants, which are of interest or new to him for your collections, may they be from
Tasmania, N. Zealand or this continent.
7
Van Diemen's Land. J. Hooker (1860), of which the first fascicle was published in
1855.
My numerous letters besides to Dr Sonder
will enable this gentleman to give ample information on many species. Had not, most
unfortunately a large set of manuscripts been lost in the wreck of the Sir R. Peel,
there would have been published by this time diagnoses of all new V. D. L and S. Australian
plants. Some few descriptions of them I have restored this year from my scattered
notes and I think the might be very properly annexed to the Victoria plants in the
manner, as Mr Bentham has given publication to some of Bauers in Huegel enumeration.
8
Letters not found.
9
In M to A. Gray, 6 June 1854, M recalled that
Sir Robert Peel
was wrecked on the 'Capcoast' in 1851. A mail for Great Britain was advertised to be despatched from Adelaide per 'Sir Robert Peel to Batavia and Overland' (South Australian gazette, 20 November 1851, p. 2). That Swedish barque cleared out of Adelaide on 22 November for Batavia (South A
u
stralian register, 24 November 1851, p. 2). The reported location of the loss indicates that the package was not part of the mail, but an individual consignment
not transferred in Batavia. In W. Sonder to F. Miquel, 7 June 1854 (in this edition as M54-06-07), Sonder reported that a box had 'been lost last year in the shipwreck of the Robert Peel not far from the Cape of Good Hope'. The implication that the loss occurred in 1853 may reflect when Sonder was made aware of the event.
It is not clear whether M explicitly told Sonder that the loss was near the Cape of
Good Hope, or whether that was Sonder's interpretation of 'Capcoast'. The port of
Cape Coast Castle in present-day Ghana is referred to in some sources as 'Cap-coast' or 'Kapcoast'.
Sir Robert Peel
arrived at Portsmouth, England, on 6 August 1852 (Lloyd's list, 7 August 1852, p. 1). No incident likely to have resulted in the loss of a package
on the African coast has been identified.
10
In Endlicher
et al.
(1837), Bentham and other authors added footnotes to the enumeration of plants collected by C. von Hügel to draw attention to species, including some from parts of Australia not included in Hügel’s itinerary, collected
by Ferdinand Bauer, Robert Brown, Alan Cunningham, Franz Sieber and others. Some of these species, if not published by other authors, were described in these notes, e.g., from Bauer collections:
Boronia lanuginosa
in Endlicher (1837), p. 16;
Spyridium eriocephalum
in Fenzl (1837), p. 24;
Acacia sublanata
in Bentham (1837b), p. 42.
With regard to the transmitted manuscripts I beg to observe, that all those parts,
on which you, Sir William, may have some scruples, should be for the present omitted
from publication, and for this reason I have not numbered the pages, which always
easily could be arranged in the printing office according to the Index, which accompanies
my report.
11
The Index is probably that published in B53.10.01; the manuscripts mentioned have
not been identified.
How much I diverge in my opinion on the limits of many species will be proved by the
numerous reductions. In nearly all this instances I either possess or have seen a
complete series of intermediate specimens or I was according to the best of my believe,
entitled to my conclusions by clear analogies. In the same degree as I continue to
watch the indigenous plants in their polymorphous state, in the same manner I become
convinced that in all natural orders the species are multiplied far above their natural
limits. Reichenbach once observed, that if a certain species of his were not acknowledged,
20 000 others must be also abolished and he has, I think, spoken the truth against
his intention.
I must further candidly confess, that I think Dunals last 900 Solana would be more
naturally collected in 500 species.
—
12
Dunal (1852).
No one can feel better than myself, how much my notes must be improved yet year after
year or even before they pass through the press here and there by your masterhand;
still I confidently hope, that I shall enjoy the indulgence of the botanists, as I
stand here perfectly alone, without any aid, only scantily provided with books, without
access to authentic specimens and even without a magnifying-glass, powerful enough
to examine the anther appendices of Angianthea or the Embryon of many Pittosporae.
In South Australia I was generally so little at liberty to pay attention to our favourite
science, that for the sake of a general classification I was sometimes obliged to
abstain from very special examinations and during the first years of my stay there
I was also not aware, that your celebrated son had already described so many Tasmanian
plants, which I believed to be unknown. But of all what I have written up to this
time I can say truely it is my own; for I received only remarks from Dr Sonder on
hardly more than a dozen of species, chiefly Compositae, having not yet received his
monographia of my Compositae, which will be surely exquisite.
I have however certainly to give additional remarks to their descriptions.
13
Sonder (1852a).
I beg to give an enumeration of those works, which were here to my command for my
researches, as I would take the liberty in asking from your great kindness, to order
for me such as would prove invaluable for me in the continuation of my labours. I
possess: Kunth. en I-IV, R Br. I-V, Mitch. trop. Austr., DC prodr. I-XIII, DC syst.
I-II, Walp. Sys. I-VI, Walp. ann. I-II, III 1-4, Hook. Lond. journ I, (1842), Hueg.
enum, G. Don gen syst I-IV, Lehm pl. Preiss I-II. Pers. syn. I-II, Koch syn I-III
— To vol. I-IV of the first series of your valuable journal and to vol. I-IV of your
beautiful icones, in possession of a friend I have access. What I above all require,
are the papers written by Asa Gray and by Turczaninow on Drummonds Compositae, then
the 5th vol of Kunths enum, and all new special papers on Australian botany.
If you, Sir William, would send a requisition of these to some of your booksellers,
that they may forward them to a merchants house here, to which I could pay the amount,
I would feel deeply obliged; and I would certainly thus receive them much quicker
as from the continent.
14
The works mentioned are: Kunth (1833-50), R. Brown (1825-34), Mitchell (1848), A. P. de Candolle (1823-73), A. P. de Candolle (1818-21), Walpers (1842-8), Walpers (1848-71),W. Hooker (1842-8), Endlicher (1837), G. Don (1831-8), Lehmann (1844-7), Persoon (1805-7), W. Koch (1843-5), W. Hooker (1834-42), W. Hooker (1836-54), A. Gray (1852). For details of the series of papers containing descriptions of J. Drummond's
plants published by Turczaninow see Marchant (1990).
Of the diagnoses which I have forwarded this time, a few have been also send to Hamburg
last year; but even if these should have been published by Dr Sonder, I think they
might be well reprinted in any of your esteemed periodicals, to have the series of
communications on the Victoria Flora complete in one work. Amongst the rarities, which
I have send this time, two lay more on my heart; i.e. Grevillea Victoriae and Basileophyta
Friderici Augusti.
The first is the most brilliant shrub, that I ever discovered (12' high and higher
and I would venture to adorn it as a token of my loyality with the name of our most
gracious Majesty, should this step be honored by the Queens sanction. The second is
a most singular plant, but of which beauty the dried specimens convey only a very
unsufficient idea. Should it not have been described after Nees Monographia
appears I would feel exceedingly proud if Dr J. Hooker would spare an hour for giving
an analysis to the drawing, which has been prepared by Mr Bateman, a splendid artist.
15
M later recognised
Basiloephyta friderici-augusta
to have been Cunningham's
Fieldia australis
of 1825. See M to W. Hooker, 27 May 1854.
16
TL2 does not list any 'monographia' published by C. Nees von Esenbeck after 1841.
17
The drawing by E. La Trobe Bateman has not been found at Kew.
The enclosed letter to the King of Saxony is intended to pray for his Majesty's permission,
that his royal name might be bestowed on the plant and I would humbly desire that
this letter accompanied by a dried specimen through the Ambassador should be forwarded
and after his Majesty's consent a copy of the printed description and an illustration should be
transmitted.
18
Letter not found.
I have despatched to Dr Sonder also lately a set of duplicates from my last journey,
to be distributed occasionally and respectively amongst monographers, but I have send
no manuscripts, being by no means content, that so many errors occurred in the printing
of my diagnoses in the Linnaea (where for instance Picrophyta received instead of
a 5-parted calyx a fourparted one).
But as you Sir William, as well as your great son and the ingenious Bentham and Lindley
are so fully occupied, I think it will be desirable that Dr Sonder or Prof. Kuetzing
should describe the Algae and Mr Hampe the Mosses and Lichens,
and I feel sure, that these gentlemen will be happy to communicate their observations
to that periodical of yours, into which you will be pleased to receive my notes.
19
See B53.04.01, p. 421. M had also complained to Sonder, who in W. Sonder to D. von Schlechtendal, 2 November 1853 (Tkach et al., (2022) Brief 18) wrote that M would
like the errors corrected in a Corriigenda. Schlechtendal printed corrections in
Linnaea, vol. 25, p. 722, following Braun (1852).
20
Sonder and Hampe described M's algae, mosses and lichens in a series of instalments
under the title 'Plantae Muellerianae' in
Linnaea.
Dr J Hooker will assuredly be agreably surprised, that I succeeded in discovering
so many of his Tasmanian plants also in this continent and even a species of his antarctic
Anisotome. On the identity of my Symphyomera Filicula with his I have some doubts,
having not yet seen the Tasmanian plant. Should it show important differences, please
let it be called S. Hookeri. My Tecoma Latrobei will be most likely drawn to Tecoma
Australis, for which I shall be so very sorry as I have named it in acknowledgement
of the kind support I received from my patron.
I had, when I first named this plant no idea, that it is so extremely variable as
I afterwards found it to be.
21
No valid publication of the name
Tecoma latrobei
haas been found,
but it is listed in B53.10.01, p.16, and as a name given by M for a herbarium specimen in Teijsman & Binnendjik (1866), p. 154, presumably from named live or dried plants or grown from seeds provided by M as part of his exchange programme (see, for example, M to J. O'Shanassy, 24 October 1858).
The intricate genus Eucalyptus requires great attention yet, and I think it is almost
impossible to discriminate many species well without studiing them in this country.
I have a great desire of preparing a monographia of this genus,
could I only get authentic specimens. Could Dr J. Hooker spare some months for finishing
such a monographia I will devote as much time to their investigation as I possibly
can. Mr [Swain]son
has been engaged in their examination for years; but our views with regard to the limits of the species diverge so wi[dely]
that we could not cooperate, as I otherwise would have sincerely desired.
22
M published the first decade of
Eucalyptographia
in 1879 (B79.13.11).
23
editorial addition
— obscured by binding strip.
24
editorial addition
— obscured by binding strip.
25
W. Hooker did not rate Swainson highly. Commenting on M's first report, he wrote: 'We have Govt Botanists in ... Colonies, but not one has done so much in so short
a space of time, combining the
Science
with the economical & commercial uses of plants, as Dr Müller. I wish I could say
as much in favor of Mr Swainson's Report, of which the Governor himself speaks doubtfully.
It is matter of congratulation, however, that the term of Mr Swainson's engagement
with the Colony had expired.' (W. Hooker to Duke of Newcastle, 6 March 1854, Public
Record Office, London, CO 309/29, ff. 323-4).
Writing privately to W. Harvey, W. Hooker was more forthright: '[Müller's] first Report
on the Vegetation of Victoria has just been sent me by the Colonial Office and it
does him great credit. Not so Mr Swainson's. It is all balderdash. Müller honestly
enumerates about a dozen species of Eucalyptus in Victoria. Swainson makes 300 new
species and receives pay as may be £3 per species from the Govt!! You will find him
I suspect in Van Dieman's Land, and the Governor is goose enough there to employ him
in the same errand.' (W. Hooker to W. Harvey, 7 April 1854, RBG Kew, W. Hooker to
W. Harvey 1832-60, f. 283).
For Lieut. Governor La Trobe's carefully neutral comments on Swainson's report on
the Eucalypts of Victoria, see Public Record Office London, CO 309/19, ff.191-194.
See also Maroske & Cohn (1992).
Amongst my ferns occurs a Polypodium new to me but very likely described by Dr J Hooker
in the Flora of N. Zeeland, as it is native of that island too. I called it P. Kippistianum
as a warm acknowledgement for the trouble this obliging gentleman took in translating
so beautifully the two papers of mine.
26
R. Kippist, Librarian of the Linnean Society of London, translated the papers published
as B53.03.01 and B53.04.02.
Polypodium kippistianum
was M's herbarium name, quoted as such in Mettinius (1856-1858), p. 400, under
Aspidium velutinum; despite the date on the title page, the relevant part was issued in September 1859 (TL2). MEL
2164599
, recorded as 'Polypodium L.',
is
M's specimen dated 20 April 1853, originally labelled as
Polypodium kippistiamum
(AVH, accessed 14 October 2023).
I shall feel greatly indebted to Mr Bentham who kindly undertook to describe my Leguminosae
if he would send me some copies of my papers thereon for distribution.
27
Bentham (1853) described some of M's specimens.
I have the honor to subscribe myself,
Sir William, your most
admiring and devoted servant
Ferd Mueller
Sir W. Hooker, K. H. &c &c
I beg to enclose the berry of Basileophyta Friderici Augusti, praying Dr J Hooker
would examine the position of the embryo, as I have in vain tried to come to safe
conclusion. My magnifying glass proved this time to be not powerful enough. Should
the generic name of Cryptostemon already exist, I would propose its being altered
in Strumistylus.
28
I beg to enclose … Strumistylus
is a loose note on similar paper to the body of the letter.
Cryptostemon (C. ericaeus)
was erected by M and Miquel, in Miquel (1856), p. 114.
Perhaps his Excellency the Saxonian Ambassador would oblige me, by conveying his majesty's
resolution regarding the Basileophyta to you, Sir William, so that the least possible
delay may be caused for giving publicity to that interesting plant.
29
Perhaps his Excellency … interesting plant
is written on blue paper, pasted on to the text of the letter. The MS also includes a folded spill of blue paper, bearing the label in M's hand
'Basileophyta Friderici Augusti', containing the remains of a plant specimen.
Acotyledoneae
Angianthus
Anisotome
Basileophyta Friderici
Augusti
Calyciflorae
Compositae
Corolliflorae
Eucalyptus
Grevillea Victoriae
Leguminosae
Monochlamydeae
Monocotyledoneae
Picrophyta
Pittosporum
Polypodium Kippistianum
Solanum
Symphyomera Filicula
Symphyomera Hookeri
Tecoma Australis
Tecoma Latrobei
Thalamiflorae