The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: Melbourne bot Garden ¶ 3/12/71 ¶ ¶ P|ossibly, dear Mr Bentham, a letter of yours went to the seabottom in the Rangoon. ¶ So I wait with further sendings till next mail. The Orchideae are probably ne...

Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1871-81, f. 29. 71.12.03

Plant names

Arthrostylis
Search for Arthrostylis in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Dracaea
Search for Dracaea in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Euphorbiaceae
Search for Euphorbiaceae in
Orchideae
Search for Orchideae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Spiculaea
Search for Spiculaea in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to George Bentham, 1871-12-03. 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/71-12-03>, accessed September 11, 2025

Melbourne bot Garden

3/12/71

P|ossibly, dear Mr Bentham, a letter of yours went to the seabottom in the Rangoon.

Rangoon struck a rock while leaving Galle Harbour on 1 November: 'All lives were saved, but the whole of the Australian mails, the cargo and the passengers' baggage were lost' (Argus, 27 November 1871, p. 5).

So I wait with further sendings till next mail. The are probably next wanted by you, but I have still a large box full of supplemental &c, to despatch to you. The Confusion in the Department, mainly caused by one of the present employees of Mess Edw Wilson & MKinnon

Not identified.

has thrown my bot. labours much in arrear.

You will have doubtless seen the precious document of G Reichenbach on of Austr.

Reichenbach (1871). M is reacting to less than favourable comments when some of his work is cited. M responded to Reichenbach (1871) in B71.12.03, pp. 134-5.

I think, that I first suggested to him to work up RBr's original specimens , so that we might get an idea what species they represented, which in many cases remained a guess-work. I was even generous enough to send him myself a lot of specimens of Austr , little expecting the snearing ungrateful remarks afterwards made by him. How unworthy to give me the advise to soak up plants before I describe them, a thing I have done for more than 30 years.

Reichenbach (1871), p. 52, as part of a critical comment on M's analysis of Bolbophyllum shepherdii: 'Wir rathen dringend, in Zukunft die Exemplare schön aufzuweichen und zu analysiren.' [We strongly advise in future to carefully soften and analyse the specimens.]

After this I distinctly revoke any concessions of access to my orchideae by G Reichenbach as I do not want them misused. So please, should he apply for duplicates, let them be directly and indirectly be refused. I had

Drakaea?

on my table, when his program came, and should have made the union of

Arthrochilus?

& myself.

See Reichenbach (1871), p. 68.

It seems a pity, that one author should unnecessarily encroach on the territory and work of an other one; assuredly the bot. world is wide enough for all. The accumulation of specimens gives of course facilities for solving doubts, which the first describer not had, and that

Text ends without valediction a little above the bottom of p. 4.