Document information

Physical location:

RB MSS M5, Library, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne. 78.04.13a

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Frederick Bailey to Ferdinand von Mueller, 1878-04-13 [78.04.13a]. 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/1870-9/1878/78-04-13a-final.odt>, accessed June 9, 2026

1
MS found with a specimen of Dendrobium bigibbum (MEL 624066). The postscript is on a separate sheet, also found with this specimen; the contents suggest that it belongs with this letter.
15 Robert St Brisbane
April 13th 1878
My dear Sir
I am much obliged to you for pointing out to me that a Queensland Orchid was figured in the Gardeners Chronicle.
2
See Reichenbach (1878); the figure is separated from the article and appears as figure 9 at Gardeners' chronicle, 12 January 1874, p. 49.
But if that is a true figure of Reichenbach’s then you might well say that it is only a variety of FvM The difference between these two species? has to be looked for and that closely. I will enclose in this a flower of each for you to compare, and will point out now what I consider the difference to consist in. In D. superbiens the flower on the whole is larger all the segments are apiculated the sepals might be called micronate the spur is twice the length of that of D. sumneri.
The segments of the flower of D. sumneri are much more over-lapped
The middle lobe of the labellum of D. sumneri is always truncate
On the whole D. sumneri is of a lighter colour than D. superbiens
These are all the marks I can see to distinguish the plants the leaves growth & stems are alike
Now I must ask you to refer again to the specimen I sent you of your D. Macarthuri which is a most distinct species without as I stated before it is only a purple variety of D. undulatum RBr nothing but color and perhaps the leaves are of a thinner texture and not so blunt at the apex.
3
No published use of Dendrobium macarthuri has been found (APNI, accessed 23 August 2020); the previous letter mentioned has not been found.
The plants from which the two flowers enclosed where taken have been growing side by side for the last year.
Obediently yours
F M Bailey
The article in the Chronicle was written while the Professor was in a bad temper I should say and I would strongly recommend him to cool down before he writes against Australian botanists in the future.
4
Reichenbach wrote in his discussion of of :
I have to thank first Mr. Harry Veitch for the preposterous statement, made by somebody in Australia, that this is the same as Dendrobium Sumneri, F. Müll. There is no authentic specimen in Europe, at least there was none when I was last in England. Thus we must go to the books. Dendrobium Sumneri appears twice.
Reichenbach then reviews M's description in the Fragmenta (B67.12.01, p. 94), comparing that with his own description, with an aside 'there it is stated that the bracts ("bracteolae") are "deltoid and concuro" ("concuroam")— what may that mean?)'. He then goes on to comment on Bentham's description (Bentham (1863-78), vol. 6, p. 278), with another aside: 'Mr. Bentham saw the "very imperfect specimen in Herb. F. Müller" (I believe in the Government Herbarium). It is, indeed, not my fault that I did not see the specimen'. He concludes
My plant is decidedly quite distinct, as I have proved with great patience. If really the Dendrobia Sumneri belonged to the same, they would be miserable abortions and monstrous, and it would be unreasonable to cancel a name justified by a reasonable description in favour of names based on descriptions of anomalous states.
M had been uspet by Reichenbach's accounts previously: see for example, M to G. Bentham, 3 December 1871, and M to G. Bentham, 23 March 1873, and the notes to each letter.
I hope you will keep the name of D. Macarthuri to the purple undulate segmented species
F M Bailey