The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: 25/4/64. ¶ My dear Bentham. ¶ ¶ Your kind letter of 25/2/64 calls for an acknowledgement. ¶ ¶ I am glad that you so rapidly push on the investigation of the Leguminosae, and feel sure we shall be i...

Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1858-70, ff. 144-5. 64.04.25a

Plant names

Acmene
Search for Acmene in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Aotus Würthii
Search for Aotus Würthii in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Asplenium
Search for Asplenium in
Compositae
Search for Compositae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Corolliflorae
Search for Corolliflorae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Cystopteris fragilis
Search for Cystopteris fragilis in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Dicksonia dubia
Search for Dicksonia dubia in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Epacrideae
Search for Epacrideae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Erica
Search for Erica in
Eugenia
Search for Eugenia in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Euphorbiaceae
Search for Euphorbiaceae in
Jambosa
Search for Jambosa in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Leguminosae
Search for Leguminosae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Monopetalae
Search for Monopetalae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Myrtaceae
Search for Myrtaceae in
Panicum
Search for Panicum in
Portulaca oleracea
Search for Portulaca oleracea in
Pultenaea
Search for Pultenaea in
Senecio
Search for Senecio in
Solanum
Search for Solanum in
Styphelia
Search for Styphelia in
Syzigium
Search for Syzigium in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Trichomanes
Search for Trichomanes in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to George Bentham, 1864-04-25 [64.04.25a]. 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/1860-9/1864/64-04-25a-final.odt>, accessed June 5, 2026

25/4/64.

My dear Bentham.

Your kind letter of 25/2/64 calls for an acknowledgement.

In this edition as 64-02-25a.

I am glad that you so rapidly push on the investigation of the , and feel sure we shall be indebted to you for a magnific essay of these plants, since no Botanist ever has so comprehensively & so extensively examined them like you. It will afford me also the opportunity of resuming early my labor on the flora of Victoria. I wished you would throw out of vol II

Bentham (1863-78), volume 2.

the small orders & insert all the . This would give me my own set soon back again, so that I may at last finish vol II of flor. Vict. You will find the so extensively preexamined, that it will be comparatively an easy task to master them for your work. Just these two orders would form a fair extent of material

The line is marked with a cross in the margin against extent of.

for vol. II & then the other small orders with would occupy the 3. vol and bring the orders forward as far as , which ought to be included in or rather .

Will you kindly let me know whether you want for vol. III. and also any supplem. to vol. I. I have some notes further for the purpose, but it would be a waste of time copying them should they not be wanted.

When will Dr Hookers Manual on N Z pl. be completed?

J. Hooker (1864-7).

I have recently placed my rather extensive collection of N Z plants in order & have a good many not mentioned in the Flora,

J. Hooker (1853-5).

e.g. , , Asplen

Trichoman[e]s, several &c. Will you kindly direct Dr Hookers attention also to the fact, that several NZ mosses are published in the Linnaea of 1853 from my collections.

C. Müller & Hampe (1853).

I have as yet no word about several boxes (successively numbered) & sent to you & feel considerable uneasiness on the subject. Could not one of your assistants keep a regular record of the arrivals? If a consignment is missing it may be traced out soon afterwards, but never after a time in London. Of this I have some sad evidence in some of my collections sent via London to the continent, or rather to London for being despatched to the continent.

M had been concerned for some time about the possible loss of consignments during transshipment in London. See for example, M to C. Rafn, 24 May 1963 (feared loss of Inca gold ornaments) and M to J. Lange, 8 June 1863 (in this edition as 63-06-08a), where he discusses general arrangements to minimize losses.

I differ from you in regard to the limitation of . In my opinion it is not sufficient reason to disperse the species of a large & natural genus into a number of artificial ones, because the number of the species is so copious.

See M to G. Bentham, 12 December 1863, and G. Bentham to M, 25 February 1864 (in this edition as 64-02-25a).

If this was a sufficient reason, such genera as , , , &c ought unavoidably be disrupted, not to the benefit of our science. All the distinctions apparent (& of course fluctuant) in ,

Acmena?

, are of sectional but not of generic value. Moreover I disapprove of the generic & specific limitations of the , as expound by Berg in Mart flor Brasiliana,

O. Berg (1857-9).

and have told so Martius.

No letter to Martius commenting on Berg's treatment has been found.

I have a number of these plants here in my Museum out of the Petersburg collection & feel confident they are not safely defined. [Indeed] the of the fl. Brasiliana bear not a favorable comparison with the .

Bentham (1859-76); part 1, pp 1 - 350 had been published by January 1862, see TL2.

Could you kindly arrange that I receive a copy of Dr Hookers manual as soon as out?

In putting my huge collection of into final order I perceive by new forms the very trifling differences of some of the genera [st]ill further impaired. It is much to be regretted that RBr. did not as he was half inclined to do keep up that fine large & natural genus , as I shall probably do in the plants of Victoria.

M retained the concept of , continuing to describe species under that generic name until 1893, when he introduced S. kingiana in B93.09.05, p. 78; Bentham (1863-78), vol. 4, split the group into more taxa. See also J. Willis (1972), p. 496, and Lucas (2003), pp. 269-72.

The enclosed carte de visite is for Prof. Harvey.

With cordiality

Ferd Mueller

In the Bot Zeitung for 1851 Regel described a South Austr as an . I am not certain which.

Regel (1851), col. 596.

has since the last year become as frequent in the streets of Melbourne as I saw it in the city of Rio de Janeiro

The species is not mentioned in M's notebook of plants seen in the vicinity of Rio de Janeiro; see Breviary of plants observed near Rio Janeiro, Library, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne, RB MS M43.