The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: ¶ Professor Lehmann gives in his monography Potentilla Norvegica as an Australian species. ¶ Though this is probably an error, some allusion to it would be not misplaced. ¶ ¶ In reviewing once more...

Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1858-70, f. 5. 64.00.00

Plant names

Callitriche
Search for Callitriche in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Callitriche autumnalis
Search for Callitriche autumnalis in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Hydrocotyle
Search for Hydrocotyle in
Potentilla Norvegica
Search for Potentilla Norvegica in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to [George Bentham], 1864. 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//letters/1860-9/1864/64-00-00-final.odt>, accessed June 4, 2026

MS annotation: 'Vol ii'. Bentham is identified as the addressee of this fragment by M's suggestion, not however taken up by Bentham, that Potentilla norvegica be mentioned. M’s comment implies that he is responding to proof sheets including what became Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, p. 429, where Bentham treated Potentilla, calling P. anserina (Linn.) 'the only Australian species'. The item is therefore dated to before October 1864, when the volume was published. M published a number of species of in B64.13.03, pp. 178–82, published in or after November 1864.

Professor Lehmann gives in his monography as an Australian species.

Lehmann (1856), p. 198, citing Maly (1848), p. 339, refers to P. norvegica as an Austrian species, not Australian.

Though this is probably an error, some allusion to it would be not misplaced.

In reviewing once more the s, I find Richard's monography

A. Richard (1820).

a very imperfect treatise, as regards not only the text but still more the plates. In RBr. conception of the species, is in this instance, like many others (I cannot refrain from the remark) no soundness, which causes an immense deal of trouble and useless waste of time to subsequent observers. Of Dr Hookers circumscription of the Tasmanian I can also but very partially approve.

I enclose a specimen of the true , which though perhaps not specifically different from C. verna, represents a form not yet found in Australia[.] Koch's synopsis deals fairly with this plant

W. Koch (1843-5), pp. 271-2.