The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: Adraville, ¶ Hunters Hill. ¶ 6th Feb 90 ¶ Dear Baron ¶ ¶ Thanks in anticipation for the last Census. ¶ I have made a search for a specimen of Corunastylis to send you but cannot, at present at least...

Document information

Physical location:

Library, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne. 90.02.06

Plant names

Anticheirostylis
Search for Anticheirostylis in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Apostasia
Search for Apostasia in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Corunastylis
Search for Corunastylis in

Preferred Citation:

Robert Fitzgerald to Ferdinand von Mueller, 1890-02-06. 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/1890-6/1890/90-02-06-final.odt>, accessed June 13, 2026

MS has been glued into a copy of R. Fitzgerald (1875-94), on the page marked 'Genus (Fitzgerald)'. MS annotation by M: 'Answ 10/2/90'. Letter not found.

Adraville,

Hunters Hill.

NSW.

6th Feb 90

Dear Baron

Thanks in anticipation for the last Census.

B89.05.03.

I have made a search for a specimen of to send you but cannot, at present at least, find one. I think I must have sent them all to Mr Britten I intend on the cover of the next number to change the name to as I find the present name has been given to another genus.

Fitzgerald published the name on the back cover of his Australian orchids, R. Fitzgerald (1875-94), vol. 2, part 4, which, notwithstanding TL2's assertion that is was issued in March 1888, was reported as 'having at length appeared' in a long notice in the Sydney mail and New South Wales advertiser, 24 October 1891, pp. 902-3. A shorter notice also appeared in the Gardeners' chronicle, 16 January 1892. No prior use of has been found.

I do not see how it can be "an abnormal growth"

See M to H. Ridley, 28 August 1890 (in this edition as 90-08-28a).

seeing that Mr Sheaffe sent me three plants exactly alike. The bifid parts are below the column and must therefore be considered in my opinion petals, though I have put a ? to them on the plate. The column, if so, is without wings or appendages of any kind; But if the bifid parts be deemed to be wings of the column then the flower is without petals. There is one point, for certainty about which, I would much like to get another fresh specimen and that is, whether the stigma is in reality as indicated on the plates by the letter s, or terminal as in . Speaking of Mr Britten I would be much obliged if in your next letter you would tell if you are aware of any reason why he has not for some time answered letters of mine. I have thought that possibly he might be dead or left the Museum.

James Britten had not died, nor had he left the British Museum (Natural History).

Yours truly

Robt D Fitzgerald