The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: 21/5/68. ¶ ¶ By the Essex, dear Mr Bentham, I have sent you all the Euphorbiaceae & some few parcels of other plants. On the elaborations of Austr. Euphorb. as well Baillons as J Muellers you will be...

Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1858-70, ff. 321-2. 68.05.21

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to George Bentham, 1868-05-21. 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/1860-9/1868/68-05-21-final.odt>, accessed June 13, 2026

21/5/68.

By the Essex, dear Mr Bentham, I have sent you all the Euphorbiaceae & some few parcels of other plants. On the elaborations of Austr. Euphorb. as well Baillons as J Muellers you will be able to improve. I have about a dozen species additional to those mentioned by Baillon, which will make up for some of the former untenable species. There are still some in Baillon's hands from recent sendings. I am now engaged to put the Urticeae into final order, but shall not be able to deal fully with the many species of Ficus. It will be for your consideration whether you will send them to Bureau, which measure may save you much time, for the critical comparison of the species of Figs is a tedious and tiresome task.

I am putting, as quick as I can, all the other Monochlamydeae into order. The bulky Proteaceae will fill many cases! The Salsoleae I am just examining. Must not some genera be dismembered from Phytolacceae in order to bring this order into the Campylembryeae?

Probably a term coined by M based on the descriptive term campylotropous '(with ovule curved onto its side...)' as a more precise replacement for Bentham’s term 'Curvembryeae' within Monochlamydeae (see Bentham (1862)). M was dissatisfied with the concept of Monochlamydeae and eventually placed Phytolacceae near Rosaceae, within which both he (B83.03.04, p. 47) and Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, p. 427, placed Stylobasium. See also M to G. Bentham, 24 January 1862, and Maroske (2006).

If not then Stylobasium seems to belong to them.

I must mention, that the case in which the Goodeniaceae came back had a hole in its metal-lining on the side as large as a crown-piece.

See M to G. Bentham, 24 April 1868.

Had the case been really exposed to wet, the plants would have been destroyed.

Pseudanthus & Caletia seem to me inseparable. If united the[y] form a very natural genus, but we must then leave Micrantheum hexandrum where Dr Hooker placed it. All the untenable genera are certain like the untenable species to be overthrown sooner or later by one or the other worker. Hence it is better to adopt at once the most conservative views. I have 5 if not 6 Antidesmas! J Mueller knew only 1 from Austr & Baillon 2. Some Glochidia, Phyllanthi, Actephilas &c are missing. I must have mislaid them. Adriana I have found again, but could not lay my hand on it when the [main] Euphorbiaceae went to Baillon

With regardful salutation

Ferd. von Mueller.

Pray ask Baillon to send you the supplemental Euphorbiaceae, unless he has done so already.

Some Euphorbiaceae held by Baillon were shipped back direct from France to Melbourne, and lost off Brazil (M to G. Bentham, 29 January 1870 (in this edition as 70-01-29a); accounts of the wreck of the Royal Standard appear in The Times (London) in the week beginning 15 November 1869).

Ought not the calyx of Ricinocarpus be regarded as an involucre, and the corolla as calyx?

Actephila

Adriana

Antidesma

Caletia

Campylembryeae

Euphorbiaceae

Ficus

Glochidion

Goodeniaceae

Micrantheum hexandrum

Monochlamydeae

Phyllanthus

Phytolacceae

Proteaceae

Pseudanthus

Ricinocarpus

Salsoleae

Stylobasium

Urticeae