The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: ¶ Drosera macrantha? It would be unsafe to admit this without any critical study. It may be only a form of D. Menziesii. ¶ ¶ Coprosma hirtella = young shoot of an Eucalyptus ¶ ¶ Pultenaea graveolen...

Document information

Physical location:

Barr Smith Library, University of Adelaide, SA. 83.05.25a

Plant names

Coprosma hirtella
Search for Coprosma hirtella in
Drosera Menziesii
Search for Drosera Menziesii in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Drosera macrantha
Search for Drosera macrantha in
Pteris arguta
Search for Pteris arguta in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Pultenaea graveolens
Search for Pultenaea graveolens in
Spyridium
Search for Spyridium in
Tatea acaulis
Search for Tatea acaulis in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Tatea subacaulis
Search for Tatea subacaulis in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to Ralph Tate, 1883-05-25 [83.05.25a]. 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/1880-9/1883/83-05-25a-final.odt>, accessed June 4, 2026

? It would be unsafe to admit this without any critical study. It may be only a form of D. Menziesii.

= young shoot of an Eucalyptus

Tate; name excellent but I do not venture to give an opinion on this species, without connected examination of allied congeners; the variability of some Pultenaeas is very great. It needs some weeks special study from now much augmented material to revise the whole genus.

was described in Tate (1885), p. 68.

; perhaps it would be well to change the name to T. subacaulis, as the latter specimens show the development of a short stem .

M to R. Tate, 27 April 1883 (in this edition as 83-04-27a), acknowledged receipt of 'extraprints' of the description of (B83.04.07), formally read to the Royal Society of SA on 1 May 1883. M distributed copies: see the specimen at Kew, K1067682, which has a copy attached; there is also a copy (of unknown provenance) in the Australian National Library Botany leaflets (PETHpam 538). Tate made the change requested here and some other corrections in the description and the title, when the paper was formally published (B83.12.04). However, in his Census supplement (B84.03.06) and subsequently in B89.12.03), he listed the species as , citing the journal details. This caused later confusion about the name: 'The title of the article in the accompanied leaflet (no page number) differs from the title of [the journal article]. Also, the specific epithet in the original publication is whereas in this leaflet it is " ". This has misled many botanist[s]. A. A. Munir 29.11.1983' (note attached to K1067682 , accessed 31 March 2023).

These are the notes, dear Prof Tate, which suggest themselves after reading your kind letter of the 22,

i.e. R. Tate to M, 22 May 1883.

and after seeing the specimens.

I will return the hereafter. You can have the msc. addenda to the Census

B83.03.04.

made by me at any time for any summary of yours

Ferd. von Mueller.

The Pteris = P. arguta

Also reported in M to R. Tate, 22 May 1883.

and doubtless spontaneous, as I found the same species on the Vict. coast in little hollows far away from forests

25/5/83.