Ferdinand von Mueller

31/5/92.

Es war meine Absicht, hochgeehrter Herr Professor, Ihnen mit dieser Post für Hr Dr Warburg Material der Myristiceen zu senden, aber ich bin eben in meiner Anstalt so überwältigt mit Extra-Arbeiten, dass die Absendung diesmal nicht geschehen kann; ich werde aber meinen Beitrag mit nächst-wöchentlicher Post liefern.

Ich bin stets bereit, Monographen zu helfen, soweit ich kann, es sei denn dass in speciellen Fällen das Bedenken erregt sei, unfreundliche Ausserungen meistens über meine Ansichten dabei gemacht wurden. Ein Herr aus Ihrer Umgebung spricht die Ansicht jüngst aus, dass dereinst gar keine Autoren-Namen der Gattungen u Arten würden beigefügt werden. Dahin wird es aber wohl nie kommen, denn 1, werden sich die Zoologen u Phytologen nie Alle dazu verstehen, irgend Gesetze vollständig anzunehmen, wonach eine Einstimmigkeit für Namen erlangt würde, da 2, namentlich der Gattungs-Begriff u auch der Arten-Begriff stets ein schwenkenden bleiben wird. 3, sind oft dieselben Namen von Naturforschern für verschiedene Organismen gebraucht, so dass er einer autoritativen Namens als erklärenden Zusatz bedarf 4, giebt die Autorität einen historischen Anhalt. Ich bin gegen die manchen Neuerungen auch in anderen Richtungen, z. B. Die Vereinigung eines Menschen-Namens durch Bindestrich mit dem einer Stadt, das H bei th auszulassen, was wohl weislich schon bei den Griechen durch τ & θ unterschieden wurde, und jedenfalls französische Accentuat[ion] Zeichen nöthig machen würden. Dr O. Kuntze Änderungen Pflanzen Namen sind nach meiner Meinung nur bis zu einem ganz geringen Grade richtig. Gerechtigkeits Gefühl u Vermeidung aller Übergriffe der Selbstsucht ist der beste Talisman auch in dieser Hinsicht.

Dilleniaceen können später kommen.

Mein Census entwickelt klar meine Prinzipien bei Pflanzen Benennungen.

Wäre es besser, das stumme e in die auszulassen.

31/5/92.

It was my intention, highly esteemed Professor, to send you material of

Myristiceae

Search for Myristiceae in

• This website
• Australian Plant Name Index

for Dr Warburg with this mail,

1

Otto Warburg was preparing the supplementary entry for Myristaceae for Engler and Prantl's work on plant families; see Warburg (1897). No specimens from M were mentioned in the text; see also M to A. Engler, 28 June 1892 (in this edition as 92-06-28a).

but I am just so overwhelmed with extra work in my institution that the dispatch cannot happen this time; but I will deliver my contribution with the next weekly post.

I am always prepared to help monographers as far as I can, unless in special cases the thought would be aroused that unfriendly comments mostly about my views would be made as a result. A gentleman from your vicinity recently expressed the view that some day no author names of genera and species would be attached at all . But it will probably never come to that because 1, the zoologists and phytologists will never all agree to accept any law completely whereby an agreement for names was reached, because 2, particularly the generic concept and also the species concept will always be changing. 3, often the same names are used by naturalists for different organisms, so that an authoritative name would be required as an explanatory addition. 4, the authority gives an historical clue. I am also against many of the changes in other directions, e.g. the combining of a person's name by a hyphen with that of a city, leaving out the h in the case of th, which probably prudently already in the case of the Greeks was differentiated by τ & θ, and in any case would make French accent marks necessary. Dr O. Kuntze's changes to plant names in my opinion are only correct to a quite small degree.

2

Especially in Kuntze (1891-8); see notes to M to A. Engler, 6 August 1892.

Feelings of justice and avoidance of all encroachments of self-seeking are also the best talisman in this regard.

Dilleniaceae

Search for Dilleniaceae in

• This website
• VicFlora
• Australian Plant Name Index

can come later.

3

Gilg (1895) does not list specimens seen but it is It is unlikely that, if M subsequently sent specimens, they could have informed the analyses for the monograph, which is stated (p. 100) to have been printed in January 1893 and was issued in March 1893 (TL2); see also M to A. Engler, 28 June 1892 (in this edition as 92-06-28a).

My Census

4

In a preface to B83.03.04 M set out briefly his arguments for the systematic arrangement used, 'the Apetaleae of Jussieu or Monochlamydeae of De Candolle having been merged into the petaliferous divisions … because it was felt, that so long as the Monochlamydeae remained isolated and associated with the Gymnospermeae, so long would we have an imperfect natural system', emphasising that 'affinity is variously radial, not altogether uniserial' (p. vi). He gave less attention to the nomenclatural principles used but emphasised that he had been 'guided by the impartial rules of strict priority' (p. vii).

clearly developed my principles of plant naming.

Would it be better to leave out the silent e in die?