Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1858-70, f. 8. 64.10.00a

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to George Bentham, 1864-10 [64.10.00a]. 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/1860-9/1864/64-10-00a-final.odt>, accessed June 5, 2026

1
The addressee is assumed to be Bentham, as M wrote many such notes commenting on the sheets of Flora australiensis as they were sent to him before final publication. The note could not have been written until after the sheets containing the Acacia pages of Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, were received. The species mentioned here were treated between p. 324 and p. 358. Each sheet contained 16 pages, so the section containing the descriptions of these species would have been contained in the sheets posted in August (pp. 305–400); see G. Bentham to M, 23 August 1864. The note could thus not have been written before October.
Annotation in an unknown hand: Vol ii. (i.e. Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2).
Is
Acacia petiolaris

Search for Acacia petiolaris in

really = A. pycnantha. Lehmann raised it from W. Australian seeds.
2
Lehmann (1852), p. 306: ‘Habitat in Colonia ad flumen Cygnorum, unde semina sine nomine accepimus’.
Acacia dura

Search for Acacia dura in

I have from Cape Arid
Is A. leprosa = A. dodonaeifolia? Willdenows original specimen could alone prove it. Lindleys plate of A. leprosa
3
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, p. 358 cited plate 1441 in Lindley (1829-47), vol. 17 (1831), adding the comment ‘(rather doubtful)’.
belongs evidently to A. stricta.
A latipes seems to me only a variety of A. cochlearis.