The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: 31/5/77. ¶ ¶ I admire the vigor & unceasing steadiness of your researches, dear Mr Bentham; but then you are in happy independence and there is nothing to withdraw your attention from your glorious c...

Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew Correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1871-81, ff. 195-196. 77.05.31

Plant names

Carex
Search for Carex in
Chaetospora
Search for Chaetospora in
Cladium
Search for Cladium in
Cordyline Haageana
Search for Cordyline Haageana in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Cordyline Murchisoniae
Search for Cordyline Murchisoniae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Cyperaceae
Search for Cyperaceae in
Filices
Search for Filices in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Gahnia
Search for Gahnia in
Gramineae
Search for Gramineae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Isolepis
Search for Isolepis in
Leguminosae
Search for Leguminosae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Miliusia
Search for Miliusia in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Phaeanthus
Search for Phaeanthus in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Schoenus
Search for Schoenus in
Scirpus
Search for Scirpus in
Scleria pygmaea
Search for Scleria pygmaea in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Scleropus
Search for Scleropus in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to George Bentham, 1877-05-31. 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/1870-9/1877/77-05-31-final.odt>, accessed June 5, 2026

31/5/77.

I admire the vigor & unceasing steadiness of your researches, dear Mr Bentham; but then you are in happy independence and there is nothing to withdraw your attention from your glorious course of observations. As you ask so,

Request not found.

it is pleasing to record, that the cases with the Museum plants (now approximately 70) have travelled to & fro all right hitherto since the last 15 years except one with , the contents of which were in part sadly damaged by seawater, as mentioned at the time.

See M to W. Hooker, 25 August 1864 (as 64-08-25d), and M to G. Bentham, 24 September 1864.

Let me hope, that the , and will also come all safely back. This final discussion on this subject incites a wish of mine. Pray ask Dr Hooker, that in bare justice to me in my still continued departmental oppression, it may be distinctly mentioned in his next report, that an enormous number of species of Australian plants became, so I must assume, deposited in Kew from the collections of my Museum, while they passed through your hands.

What do you think of my "select plants".

B76 12.04.

It has been a work of protracted toil .

Had I not been excluded from my Garden, the 300 pages by my daily Directorial observations and acquisitions might have advanced to 600.

Why does Mr Baker subordinate the to C. Haageana.

Baker (1875), p. 541-2.

Is there a misprint concerning the year of Koch's Wochenschrift.

M published Cordyline murchisoniae in B66.12.04, p. 195, while Koch published C. Haageana in W. Koch (1867), p. 195, the date given by Baker. Bentham (1863-78), vol. 7, p. 22, followed Baker (1875) and used Koch’s name.

Like you I spent many months on the ,

G. Bentham to M, 10 January 1877.

and my work was rendered difficult all the more, because the labourious researches of Boeckeler

Boeckeler (1868-77), or to the series of articles in Linnaea that were later consolidated (see TL2, title number 580).

came under my notice only, after I had completed nearly the whole of my observations.

B74 11.01, pp. 255-74; B75.02.01, p. 6-22; B75.03.01, pp. 23-40.

Error for Sphaeropus?

I could neither see anything else than . When it is considered how variable the position of the sterile or male flowers is in other genera of (e.g. ) it will be difficult to assign to them generic value for & , which two united (to my mind) form a very natural genus. Here arises this trouble. So long as we have one well marked genus, we know at once in the field at first sight what genus name to give; whereas, if you finally adopt your limitation as more than subgeneric, one has to pull the spikelets on every occasion asunder, before the name can be assigned, for to remember it would be almost impossible in most instances.

Now genera are all artificial, species only natural; the former only formed to aid our memory. Hence I always keep the genera as large as I can, to simplify the systematic naming. On this path I follow Poiret and Sprengel to unite with and also with ;

See for example, Sprengel (1820-22), vol. 3, pp. 8, 10; Poiret (1810-17), vol. 2, p. 251.

if I adhered to R Browns nomenclature,

Mostly from R. Brown (1810).

it was simply because it is here most in vogue, altho' at pages 36 & 38 of vol. IX fragmenta

B75.03.01.

and in others of my writings I approved of Sprengels & already Poiret's views.

From North Queensland I have now also a .

In B89.12.03, p. 5, the entry for is 'species undetermined'.

(How is really to be distinguished?)

I shall watch with interest the arrival of the pages of the last volume,

Bentham (1863-78), vol. 7.

and I trust that then your time will otherwise untaxed to bring the most important of all your works, the "genera"

Bentham & Hooker (1862-83).

to a conclusion.

Always with regardful attachment your

Ferd. von Mueller.