Document information

Physical location:

92.07.15

Plant names

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to E. Leary, 1892-07-15. 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/1890-6/1892/92-07-15-final.odt>, accessed June 4, 2026

1
Letter not found. The text given here (B92.07.07) is from 'Natural order nightshade', a letter to the editor of the Maitland mercury and Hunter River general advertiser, 26 July 1892, p. 7. It is appended to a letter that was part of a dispute between Leary and Joseph Leopold about the terminology of 'natural order', where Leary took Leopold to task for using the term 'natural order - nightshade' when applied to tuberosum, the potato, and S. melangena, the aubergine. Leopold's preceding letter in the series, citing Sydney botanists in support of his position, was published in the newspaper on 7 July 1895, p. 5. The correspondence was protracted, beginning with a letter from Leopold in the issue of 21 May 1892, p. 5, and continuing until Leopold responded to the letter of 26 July on 30 July, p. 7. M's letter is introduced by 'The following is Baron F. Mueller's letter:—'.
15th July, 1892.
In reply to your letter just received, dear Mr. Leary,
2
Letter not found.
let me remark that it would be best to say of the potato plants that they belonged to the order of plants. Although all the s, of which we now know several hundred, are generally called Nightshades, the leading plant of that name is , the deadly Nightshade. Thus the
3
Typesetter's error for Hyoscamus niger?
is not called a Nightshade, but Henbane, although it belongs to the order of . The tomato, capsicum, tobacco, Cape gooseberry, &c, are familiar other examples of the order, which never are called Nightshades.
Regardfully yours,
Ferd. Von Mueller.