Ferdinand von Mueller

Melbourne

27/12/89.

Herrn Prof. Dr. Engler, erstem Director des botanischen Museums u Gartens zu Berlin.

Am heutigen Tage, geehrter Herr Professor, empfing ich im Beisein meines Gehülfen das "Beiheft zu den Nachrichten über Kais. Wilh. Land", enthaltend den ersten Theil der Flora, und zwar nicht direct vom Berlin, sondern durch Dulau & Co. zu London, in gewöhnlichem Geschäftsverkehr. Da in den hier von Woche zu Woche einlaufenden Journalen bisher dieser Publication keine Erwähnung geschah, muss ich annehmen, dass solche erst im Oct. oder Nov. 1889 ershien, und möchte Sie daher befragen, an welchem Tage diese Abhandlung actuel erschien, da es sich dabei um Prioritäts Rechte handelt. Es wäre wohl gut, wenn wie in Hooker's Flora of Brit India u. in manchen anderen Werken der Tag oder doch Monat des Erscheinens in künftigen Heften angegeben würde. Wie ich vor mehreren Monaten einen Brief in Bezug auf diese Flora von Hr. Prof. Wittmack erhielt war der Druck noch nicht begonnen, so dass das Datum der Vorrede (1. März) nicht für das ganze Heft gelten kann. Sehr bedauere ich die ganz unnöthige u ungerechte Umsetzung der Species-Namen in demselben Genus . Was Asa Gray kurz vor seinem Tode dagegen veröffentlichte, von Benthem entnommen, war fast wörtlich was ich diesem schrieb bei Gelegenheit seiner

Entada scandens

Search for Entada scandens in

• This website
• Australian Plant Name Index

im 2tn Band der Flora Austral., u es gelang mir ihn von diesem Missbrauch zu überzeugen, wie in späteren Bänden zu ersehen ist.

Melbourne

27/12/89

Prof. Dr. Engler, first Director of the Botanical Museum and Garden at Berlin.

Today , esteemed Professor, I received in the presence of my assistant the Beiheft zu den Nachrichten über Kais. Wilh. Land,

1

Schumann & Hollerung (1889).

containing the first part of the flora and indeed not direct from Berlin but through Dulau & Co. in London, in the usual commercial dealings. Because up till now this publication was not mentioned in the journals arriving here from week to week, I must assume that such appeared only in October or November, and therefore would like to ask you on which day this paper actually appeared, because it concerns rights of priority.

2

TL2 give the publication date of Schumann & Hollerung as October 1889. M's description of plants from the New Guinea Highlands, B89.13.11, was expected to be available by the end of October (see M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 October 1889) but had not been published when he wrote M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 21 November 1889. M would have been concerned about the possibility that some of his plants could have been described earlier by Schumann and Hollerung.

It would probably be well if, as in Hooker's Flora of Brit India

3

J. Hooker (1875-97).

and many other works, the day or indeed the month of publication was stated in future parts. When I received a letter in reference to this flora from Prof. Wittmack some months ago,

4

Letter not found.

the printing had not yet begun, so that the date of the preface (1 March) cannot apply to the whole part. I regret very much the quite unnecessary and unjust moving of the species names in the same genus . What Asa Gray published shortly before his death against it , taken from Bentham, was almost word for word what I wrote to the latter in connection with his

Entada scandens

Search for Entada scandens in

• This website
• Australian Plant Name Index

in the second volume of the Flora Austral.

5

Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, p. 298.

and I succeeded in convincing him of this misuse as is to be seen in later volumes.

6

The argument M made to Bentham has not been found; A. Gray (1887) quoted Bentham (1880), p. 197.