Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1882-90, ff. 279-81. 89.06.21

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to William Thiselton-Dyer, 1889-06-21. 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/1880-9/1889/89-06-21-final.odt>, accessed June 13, 2026

21/6/89.
1
Date stamped: Royal Gardens Kew 29. Jul. 89. Annotated in red ink by Thiselton-Dyer: And 22.9.89 (letter not found).
May I suggest, dear Mr Dyer, that the 2 tropical African species of Pittosporum be compared with the plant of P. ferrugineum in the botanic Magazine 2075. That picture seems much better referable to P. Abyssinicum or perhaps P. Manni,
2
Described as P. mannii in J. Hooker (1862a), p. 5.
than to the plant from India and Australia, now generally called P. Ferrugineum. DC already expressed his doubts about the identity of the Moluccan plants; and the Earl of Tankerville may just as easily "before 1787" (See Aiton) have obtained seeds from West-Africa than from insular India.
3
Sims (1801-26), vol. 46, in the text accompanying plate 2075 (P. ferrugineum), states that the plant is 'Native of Guinea … Introduced before 1787 by the … Earl of Tankerville'. The comment is taken from the description in Aiton (1810-13), vol. 2, pp. 27-8.
The text of f. 281, the Kew memorandum bound after this letter, includes comments from J. Baker and D. Oliver as follows:
Subject: Pittosporrum ferrugineum, Ait.
I have compared the specimen of
Pittosporum Manni

Search for Pittosporum Manni in

i Hook. fil. & P. abyssinicum, Hochst, with the Bot. Mag. figure (tab. 2075) of P. ferrugineum Ait. They are all three nearly allied, but in the African plants the inflorescence is different from that shown in the figure, the pedicels are naked, & the petals longer in proportion to the calyx; they are clearly not the same species
J G B
Kew, July 29 1889
It is very difficult to decide anything about the plant figd. by Aiton. It may be a poor figure of the W. African species after all. Hook. Fl. Ind. says it was ascribed to Guinea by mistake & of course he adopts the name (P. ferrugineum) for the Indian plant, which the plate may be said inadequately to represent.
D.O.
Regardfully your
Ferd von Mueller
I wrote on this subject to Bentham already, when the first vol. of the Flora Austral. appeared; but I believe the enigma has never been solved.
4
See G. Bentham to M, 24 June 1862; M to G. Bentham, 20 February 1863.
I think, Aiton got the seeds or plant really from Guinea.
Of course, the name could easily got transferred to the Indian plant in European conservatories, that being so closely allied to the W. Afr. species.
As no longer any impressions of the "Census" are purchaseable in the Gov. Printing Office here, and as it is almost impossible to use the first additions
5
edition?
with all the suppl. to advantage,
6
B83.03.04, and the four supplements B84.04.08, B85.02.05, B86.06.03, B89.05.03.
a new edition
7
B89.12.03.
became necessary. I will send you sheet after sheet, as they pass through the press.