The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: ¶ I wish to remark, that Casimiz ¶ de Candolle, in his new work on the Piperaceae, ¶ does not mention any other species of the genus Piper from New Guinea, but Piper methysticum; Piper Rumpfii ¶ i...

Document information

Physical location:

85.10.00c

Plant names

Piper Rumpfii
Search for Piper Rumpfii in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Piper methysticum
Search for Piper methysticum in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Piperaceae
Search for Piperaceae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay, 1885-10 [85.10.00c]. 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/1880-9/1885/85-10-00c-final.odt>, accessed June 9, 2026

Letter not found. The text given here is from footnote 2, p. 689 to Miklouho-Maclay (1886a), read to the Linnean Society of NSW on 28 October 1885. In the paper, Miklouho-Maclay wrote that he had rediscovered a note from R. H. C. C. Scheffer on the constituents of a bundle of Kéu given to him by Miklouho-Maclay with the request to determine whether all the specimens 'belonged to the same species ( ) or not' (p. 688). M's letter is dated to October 1885 based on the date of the meeting and on the footnote introducing the extract from M's letter, which begins 'I wrote to Baron F. von Mueller about the discovery of Dr. Scheffer's note and received a few days ago his answer. The portion of the Baron's letter, referring to the distribution of , runs (translated from the German) as follows: —'.

I wish to remark, that Casimiz

Casimir.

de Candolle, in his new work on the ,

Not identified. Neither C. de Candolle (1873) nor C. de Candolle (1881) mentions or New Guinea. The name is mentioned in C. de Candolle (1869), pp. 335 (under P. latifolium, as P. methysticum Lam.), 350 (under P. majusculum, as P. methysticum Roxb.), and 354 (under P. methysticum Forster), but New Guinea is not given as a locality.

does not mention any other species of the genus Piper from New Guinea, but ;

Error for Piper rumphii.

is nearly allied to P. methysticum, but is only known at Ternate. We know as well described not more than 5 from New Guinea; but as about 70 species have been found in the Sunda-Island, it is to be expected that numerous species will be collected by and by in New Guinea. In fact I have already several in my collections, but the specimens are very fragmentary, so that nothing or very little can be done with them. Beccari's remain still unpublished; it is possible, however, that he has collected only a few of them.