Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew Correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1858-1870, ff. 337-338. 68.07.14a

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to George Bentham, 1868-07-14 [68.07.14a]. 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/1860-9/1868/68-07-14a-final.odt>, accessed May 7, 2026

Bot. Gard. Melbourne
14/7/68
It is quite a relief to my mind, dear Mr Bentham, to learn by the telegrams of this mail, that all the Boxes bringing material for volume IV have safely arrived, at least that the ships reached their destination. Since their transmission a box has been sent N. 41 pr Essex on the 18 May mainly filled with ; N. 42 pr Lincolnshire on the 16 June with , &c; N. 43 & N. 44 pr. Anglesey on the 7 July with , , &c. So you see I do my best to keep ahead of you with my preliminary work. I look forward with very deep interest to the information, which you have consolidated in the 4th volume, a glorious advance to our knowledge, which for all times to come will throw credit on yourself. I did not expect that among my W.A. you would find other novelties than the few I described; but I think you will have found the notes on color, habit, locality &c of use; and it would besides but be just to quote the plants, the voyage and land journey having involved great expense.
I sent the , &c in advance of the , thinking they might perhaps yet be utilized for D.C. volume, at least in the supplemental pages, which are usually published.
1
There are references to M material in entries in Candolle’s Prodromus for both Casuarinea (Miquel (1868)) and Cycadaceae (A. de Candolle (1868)). The addenda and corrigenda to the volume contain one citation to M's Fragmenta.
I am far on with the , and the , and then of Dicotyledonous plants only and require to be transmitted, the preexamination of which will not involve much trouble, the characters of these plants being so apparent. I shall however probably unite with .
It would be a pity, if you cannot get the all in one volume. It is such a natural series and it would be a pity to sever any portion from it.
When you come to vol. V you will regret, that the very dissimilar orders of were not distributed among Thalamifl. and . Then we would get a real good natural system.
In I have 3 additions a new (a genus which must be reestablished as […]
2
In context the name should be 'Richard's' (see n. 3), but the MS text is unclear and bears little resemblance to it.
is abolished) a new and .
3
Richard's was listed by Endlicher (1836-40), p. 918, and by Bentham & Hooker (1862- 83), vol. 1, part 1, p. 366 as a synonym of Meisner's Denhamia. In B68.12.01, p. 203, as well as describing L. celastroides, M transferred some of the species he had previously reported, in B59.13.01, pp. 29-30, as Denhamia to without giving reasons for a generic distinction (L. oleaster and L. pittosporoide [error for L. pittosporoides?]). In B59.13.01, p. 30, M wrote 'to Mr. [Allan] Black, the intelligent keeper of the Hookerian Herbarium, I am indebted for identifying … species of this genus with , an information which, without reference to authenticated specimens, hardly could have been obtained, since Richard described the fruit as subcarnose'. (On the previous page M had described the fruit as a bony capsule rather than being somewhat fleshy, and treated as a synonym of Denhamia.) In his Census (B89.12.03), p. 40, M cited as his authority B82.01.06, where (p. 199) he lists the genus as Leucocarpum, attributed to Richard with and Denhamia as synonyms.
You alluded to some error in the initials of locality given by Nees in his edition of RBr. prodromus. These errors I can [c]he[ck] in future, having obtained through Dr Sonders extreme kindness Sprengels private copy of RBrowns original edition.
4
The volume is in the library of RBG Melbourne.
Trusting the summer journey (of which I envey you much,) has as usual invigorated your health and gladdened your spirit
5
In the summer of 1867 Bentham and his wife made visits to a number of places in England between 16 July to 2 September, including a visit to Norwich for the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (B. Jackson (1906), p. 211).
I remain your very regardful
Ferd. von Mueller