Document information

Physical location:

RBG Kew, Kew Correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1891-1896, ff. 1-2. 91.01.31a

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to William Thiselton-Dyer, 1891-01-31 [91.01.31a]. 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/1890-6/1891/91-01-31a-final.odt>, accessed May 15, 2026

1
Stamped Royal Gardens Kew 10. Mar. 91. Annotated by Thiselton-Dyer in lead pencil: And 29.3.31 and in red ink: Ackd. 11 3/91. { Letters not found .]
The annotation, 4849/11, in lead pencil by ( ? ) has the form of a herbarium reference in use at Kew in the nineteenth century, although none of the sheets of
Cochlospermum heteronemum

Search for Cochlospermum heteronemum in

or of Australian and Pacific
Isoetes

Search for Isoetes in

collected before 1891 and available as images in the on-line catalogue ( viewed 7 January 2015 ) bear this number.
31/1/91
Can you kindly aid, dear Mr Dyer, from your grand Kew “Herbier” in settling, whether
Cochlospermum heteronemum

Search for Cochlospermum heteronemum in

2
heteronemum is underlned in blue pencil.
(not C. heteroneurum, as Bentham wrote) is identical with C. Fraseri.
3
Fraseri is underlined in blue pencil, and there is an annotation I think identical/WBH [ i.e. W. Hemsley ] next to the passage ' is identical ... be variable'.
The indument of the latter may be variable; but from studying C. heteronemum in its living state, I could not miss seeing the characteristic of the biformous filaments, on which I mainly rested the diagnosis in Hooker's Kew Misc. IX, 15 (1857).
4
B57.01.01.
This would be a crucial test for the identity or the diversity of these two plants, the indument being perhaps variable. After attention is directed to the character of the stamens, it is easily perceived even in dried specimens.
I send an
Isoetes

Search for Isoetes in

5
Isoetes

Search for Isoetes in

is underlined in blue pencil in the MS.
which Mr Baker would be sure gladly to compare.
With regardful remembrance your
Ferd. von Mueller.
I omitted C. heteronemum in the last Census
6
B89.12.03; p. 11 included only C. fraseri ; both species were included in B82.11.04, p. 6.
but perhaps wrongly so.
In Mr J. R. Jackson’s excellent book “Commercial Botany of the 19th Century”
7
J. Jackson (1890). The erroneous composite figure is on p. 93.
the figure, intended for Euc. globulus, represents E. tereticornis with the fruit of E. corymbosa.
8
Annotated in lead pencil below the second postscript: The blocks were not selected by me but were supplied by the publishers. I have noted Baron Mueller's correction | J.R.J. 26/3/91.