The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: 3/1/82. ¶ ¶ I was fortunate enough, dear Mr Dyer, to find the text to Lamarck's illustration des gènres, before the mail departs; but I see now, that I was wrong in accusing Pritzel and Jackson of ha...

Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Miscellaneous Reports 10.6, British East Africa Protectorate, Rubber, Copal, 1874-1906, f. 127. 82.01.03

Plant names

Landolphia
Search for Landolphia in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Vahea
Search for Vahea in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to William Thiselton-Dyer, 1882-01-03. 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//letters/1880-9/1882/82-01-03-final.odt>, accessed June 9, 2026

MS annotated by Thistelton-Dyer: And Feb. 14/82.

3/1/82.

I was fortunate enough, dear Mr Dyer, to find the text to Lamarck's illustration des gènres, before the mail departs; but I see now, that I was wrong in accusing Pritzel and Jackson of having overlooked this important work!

See M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 31 December 1881. B82.09.01 is M's published discussion of the priority to be accorded to .

– As D.C.

A. de Candolle (1844), p. 327 cites 'Lam. ill. t. 169. Poir. dict. suppl. 5 p 409'.

quotes it as “illustrations” I did not find out until I got once more hold of my copy, that it is identical with the tableau encyclopédique & méthodique.

Lamarck (1783–1817); the five supplement volumes included in this title were by Poiret (1810-1817).

Pritzel

Pritzel, (1871–82), p. 174.

quotes it quite correctly; vol 1, pag 1-496 (1791); vol II pag 1-551 (1793). It is in this second vol (already of 1793) that at p 292 a french and latin definition of the genus is given, very good in all its part, and not alluding to the cell or cells of the ovary at all! There also gummifera [...is]

Text obscured by binding strip.

received already its name, and it is in this second volume also, in which t. 169 is quoted (though the plate may have been issued in 1791 in the first volume). Bentham evidently thought, as you did, that the description appeared only in Poiret's dict. Suppl. V, 409 as quoted by DC; but this again I do not understand, because the Dictionaire is identical with the Encyclopédie Méthodique, and thus according the Pritzel the vol. V contains the letter P not V, which latter would come with in vol VIII or in the suppl. vol. XIII (1817). It was a pity, that the tableau was cited as Illustr. and the encyclp. as dict., as all this added to the confusion.

I find however, that an other kind of paper is used from page 137 of vol II, and the question arises, was the whole text of vol. II really published and finished in 1793? The finishing page 551 gives no indication to that effect. This of course could be learnt from Decaisne.

Regardfully your

Ferd von Mueller

The remainder of the letter as transcribed here is written on a separate folio (f. 128) and may be part of a different letter; this seems unlikely, however, despite the second valediction.

On the back of the title page of the vol. of the tableau, containing plates 801-900 , the subscribers are asked in the 8th year of the republic (1799), not to have the plates bound, as the text was not yet ready. (vide "avis".) Perhaps even DC, see Bibliotheca botanica

i.e. A. P. de Candolle (1818-21), vol. 1, pp. 14-116.

p 66, was not really aware of the final date of the publication of vol. II as regards text, because he says 1793 et suiv. It would be well, that this matter should be cleared up as done with Rees's Cyclop.,

B. Jackson (1877), supplemented in B. Jackson (1880a), provided an analysis of the dates of publication of the parts of Rees (1819-20); but see Pestana (1979) for a critique of Jackson's dates.

altho that would not affect the priority of .

Regardfully your

Ferd. von Mueller.

The two celled ovary of , to which as incorrect you refer, is certainly not figured by Lamarck; it must be the plate in the 22 vol. of the , to which Bentham in this respect does [refer.]

Word partly obscured by binding strip. In Bentham & Hooker (1862–83), vol. 2, part 2, p. 693, Bentham cites 'Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. xxii 396 t. 40' as illustrating a '2-loculare' condition.

I must confess, that I felt some little pride to have my name connected in this way with a few African plants. Of course you will be aware, that the tableau is, according to Linnés system, whereas the Encyclopédie

Lamarck (1783-1817).

is arranged alphabetically.

I do not possess the Encyclopédie; the plates evidently served also for the tableau