Document information

Physical location:

Barr Smith Library, University of Adelaide, South Australia. 90.07.06

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to Ralph Tate, 1890-07-06. 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/1890-6/1890/90-07-06-final.odt>, accessed May 7, 2026

6/7/90
Among other work this day, dear Prof. Tate, in the quietness of Sunday, I have looked at some of your plants. You sent a curious from the Adelaide-River,
1
NT.
which I will carefully compare.
Your I regard as a form of H. callicarpa.
The Daviesia is not D. horrida, I think it is a form of D. genistifolia, but I will compare the plant in my Museum, and let you know the result.
2
M returned the specimen of to Tate without commenting further on its relationships; see M to R. Tate, 18 August 1890 (in this edition as 90-08-18a).
Prof. Beck of Vienna has just elaborated a monography of the genus Orobanche; altho' he separates by a distinct description the Australian plant as a form, yet he does not hold it distinct as a species from O. cernua,
3
Beck (1890), p. 144.
to which Drummonds plant was referred by Reuter
4
Reuter (1847), p. 32.
already in 1847 I had compared many northern specimens of O. cernua, and saw that ours was not absolutely identical
seems a very distinct species.
Stenopelatum
5
Stenopetalum ?
trisectum I will carefully examine also the Schoenus.
Will give on separate paper replies to your extensive memorandum.
6
Memorandum not found.
Let me hope, that you are now quite well again.
Regardfully
your
Ferd von Mueller
7
What follows is probably the 'separate paper' mentioned above, but this is not certain. It is added here as the content relates to the letter. The reference in it to the death of J. T. Woods and the purchase of his herbarium means that it must have been written after M had received this collection, which he agreed to buy in M to G. Abbott, 21 March 1890 (in this edition as 90-03-21a), and M to T. Wilson, 22 March 1890.
Shall be entered now in the Census
8
B89.12.03.
. I shall, after what you say, consider it as immigrated, though it has become wide spread in W.A.
better be struck out also.
& will now be inserted. In a work of such magnitude as the Census, omissions would readily occur, particularly when I had to push it hurriedly through the press before the work for the Austral. Assoc. came on.
9
M was President of the Second Congress of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Melbourne in January 1890.
The Herbarium here has 750,000 sheets; the supplements are not all inserted; hence often the difficulty for reference. I mainly raised these questions to aid you in a future edition of your Flora,
10
Tate (1890).
when likely I shall no longer be among the living!
Such a plant would be apt to be over looked among reeds, rushes on river or lake banks. In 1849 it could have hardly immigrated there
This must be a typographic displacement from some other line. I do not remember having ever seen a Lygodium from extratropic S.A.
Near the entrance of the Glenelg River,
11
Vic.
so far as I remember from my hurried ride in 1857.
12
M paid a brief visit to the Glenelg River region in January 1857 to see his sisters, who were both living in the area, following his return from the North Australian Exploring Expedition, 1855-6.
. It was a mere writing error, when I compared it to T. Mackibboni;
13
T. Mackibbinii?
it should have been T. Macmillani .
. From 1840-1846 I saw this and C. silvatica (of which C. flexuosa is an older name) frequently in their growing state; thus I am well aware, that our plant does not exactly coincides with the typical C. hirsuta; but J. Hooker even in the last edition of his Students Flora
14
J. Hooker (1884).
kept them still united as varieties of one species. I was long disinclined to use the name C. hirsuta, and thus adopted in 1860 that of C. parviflora, some specimens of our Australian plants precisely agreeing with C. parviflora. The only difficulty is, that Linnaeus gave a diagnosis of C. hirsuta in the first edition of his Spec. plantarum,
15
Linnaeus (1753).
whereas C. parviflora appeared only 9 years in the second edition.
16
later omitted? See Linnaeus (1762-3).
Sir J. Hooker went also too far in uniting with G. dissectum (of which G. Carolinianum is an older name) and in reducing our Epilobium to E. tetragonum. I know all the European species well from the field, and do no longer follow Hooker in these unisons as you will observe from the second Census. Witherings first edition
17
Withering (1776).
appeared in 1876, Linnés second in 1862.
18
Error for 1776 and 1762 respectively.
. Will give it for S.A. the benefit of the doubt; here it is not a lowlands plant.
. The Rev. T. Woods may have mistaken
19
B. mitchellii?
for this.
I found the characteristics less constant here than in Europe.
Will report on this hereafter. Any how it is too late now for the Atlas of ,
20
B89.13.04, B90.13.14, B91.13.24.
as nearly 60 plates are printed off
could not be called E. canescens, because that name was preoccupied elsewhere
I have not yet confirmed the union of M. variifolium with this, but will early do
I merely recorded this from Mr Bennetts published notes.
21
A. Bennett (1881).
When I arrived 1847 I recognized at once P. obtusifolius, which I knew so well; if ours differs, then I have never yet appreciated the characters properly, notwithstanding my repeated inspection of Raoul's plate.
22
Raoul (1846), pl. 7.
What do you think of it? You must know it well from Belfast.
23
Ireland.
— I don't remember the name P. laevis, the junior here must have made a clerical error. Will look once more over the mass of here and endeavour to sort them out. I am quite open to a change of opinion.
; the name involves a geographic question and consideration. Equally misleading was the name L; it is now universally , Mönch. The French call since many years Cibotium Billardieri
Panic.
24
Panicum.
Mitchelli = .
The s need all working over again from the now augmented material
Capsella humistr.
25
.
= C. cochlearina.
!
!
The branching grass from the square water holes is new to me, but there remain of the inflorescence only the two outer bracts
Crinum. I feel almost sure, that only two species exist in extratropic S.A. Is not the true C. pedunculatum in culture there? Benthams conception of the species was partly incorrect; this is not to be wondered at, as he worked only with fragmentary material from herbariums. Of course I only gained my own knowledge from experiences in many cases, after the volumes of the Flora
26
Bentham (1863-78).
were published; and when I was aware of what I believed to be correct, I had no means of checking errors, while the printing went on in Europe. Correcting supplements never appeared, altho' I gave Bentham after the issue of each volume heaps of emendatory notes. As an Octogenarian he could not proceed.
. The test, whether you have one or two species would be particularly in comparing the ripe fruit of both. In India and in Australia we have species of , with straight and very tortile stems. Mr Clarke is responsible for the reduction of our to the Indian plant.
27
Clarke (1885), deals with , but it is not clear to which species M is referring.
I recorded this, so that the subject might not be lost sight of. If he is correct in his opinion, then it seems strange, that we have M. variifolium
28
.
not in tropical Australia.
. I merely referred to the specimen from Tietkens. Your specimen from Hermansburg
29
NT.
may not be the correct one; the play of forms however of some Goodenias, such as G. geniculata, is remarkable.
It is the analogon of , Koch.
Cassinia or . I have these two genera on the table, and hope to report soon further on the S.A. species also.
I purchased Woods plants after his lamented death;
30
J. T. Woods died in 1889.
so perhaps his collections will clear up the doubt