The correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller: Private ¶ 18/10/92 ¶ ¶ By today's outward post, noble friend, you will receive the ¶ second ¶ ¶ Census of Australian Plants ¶ , ¶ since according to the departmental accounts here only the first...

Document information

Physical location:

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. 92.10.18

Plant names

Diplanthera
Search for Diplanthera in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Droseraceae
Search for Droseraceae in
Entada pursaetha
Search for Entada pursaetha in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Entada scandens
Search for Entada scandens in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Fuchsia
Search for Fuchsia in
Halorageae
Search for Halorageae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Limosella
Search for Limosella in
Lobelia
Search for Lobelia in
Saxifragae
Search for Saxifragae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Stackhousiaceae
Search for Stackhousiaceae in
- This website
- Australian Plant Name Index
Tribulus terrestris
Search for Tribulus terrestris in

Preferred Citation:

Ferdinand von Mueller to Adolf Engler, 1892-10-18. 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/92-10-18>, accessed September 11, 2025

Privat 18/10/92

Durch die heute abgegangene Post, edler Freund, werden Sie den zweiten Census der Austr Pflanzen erhalten, da Ihnen laut der Depart. Buchhaltung hier nur der erste zuging. Ich wollte diese Sendung mit einem Schreiben begleiten, doch gebrach es vor dem Post-Abgang an Zeit. Da ich mit letztwöchentlicher Post Ihren Rapport über den Fortgang der Verhandlungen wegen des Werthes von Pflanzen-Namen erhielt, dachte ich, der Census würde Ihnen in neuester Form annehmbar sein, weil darin meine Ansichten über die Wahl der Benennungen entwickelt sind.

Ein Irrthum ist vorgekommen, ich gab Du Petit Thouars das Genus anstatt RBr. Es war einfach eine falsche flüchtige Lesung dessen, welches Steinheil in den Annales des sc. nat. sagt (welche ich hier habe), der Druck ist in einer Weise, dass man denken sollte, Du Petit Thouars habe schon den Art-Namen gebraucht. So blieb es also ein halber Name u das Genus wird durch RBr. vollständigt constatirtes vernichtet.

Es ist nicht nöthig, dass ich auf Einzelheiten eingehe, aber nur eins möchte ich beispielsweise erwähnen, dass wenn Genera erst mit 1737 oder gar erst mit 1753 beginnen sollen, Lindern als unzurechnungsfähig bei ausgesschlossen würde.

Ist das erwünscht?

Wenn die jetzigen Verhandlungen einen bleibenden Erfolg haben sollen, dann müssten sie auf ein volles Gerechtigkeits Gefühl beruhen; sonst mag noch soviel discussirt werden, eine spätere Zeit wird das Gethanen doch wieder ändern, wie es jetzt schon der Fall ist.

Sie haben vielleicht übersehen, was ich in den "Papuan plants" unter gesagt. Die Idee zu den binominal Bezeichnungen Linne’s geben ihm offenbar Bauhin u mehrere andere viel ältere Botaniker ; ihm gebührt aber das Verdienst, diese Indicationen ganz durchgeführt zu haben. "Suum enique" sagte ich im Motto zu meiner vor 3 Jahren gelieferten Abhandlung über Pflanzen Namen in den Transact. of the Royal Soc. of Sydney. Meine Stimme wird aber auch wohl bei dieser Gelegenheit vor allen! Meine kürzeren Bemerkungen in der bot Zeitung u den Centralblatt werden Ihnen zugänglich gewesen sein. Die älteste Jahreszahl muss auch binominal die Pflanze fixiren. Dazu habe ich auch Bentham zuerst veranlasst, wie er im 2 Band der Fl Austr Entada Pursaetha noch E. scandens nannte. Der 3t Census wird wohl erst 1895 erscheinen, da noch viele Ex. trotz der grossen Billigkeit des Werkes unverkauft sind in der Regierungs Druckerei. Es sind bis jetzt etwa 200 gute Arten hinzugekommen, aber nur ganz wenig Genera u keine Ordnung, jedoch viele Hundert neue Localitats Notate.

Sie ehrend u Ihnen alles Gute wünschend

Ferd von Mueller

Asa Gray hatte sich für die Annahme der Genera seit Tournefort erklärt aber nur wenn zuerst binominal bestätigt.

Viele ausser austral Notata werden im 3 Census hinzukommen besonders auch N.Z.

Warum werden die Kelchlappen der Orchideen noch immer Sepala gennant? Man denkt doch an Lobelea, &c.

Ich werde mich in der Vorrede zum dritten Census noch einmal zusammenhängend ausprechen.

Im vorigen Jahre war ich selbst in N.Z.

Hätte Linné vorhergesehen, welche Schwierigkeit später enstanden, er würde vieles anderes gennant haben.

Sie haben ja selbst in der Fl. v. Brandenburg die ältere Genus Autoren anerkannt.

Nichts Neues unter den Meer Phanerogamen.

Genus Autoren sollten direct seit dem Beginn des Buch druckes bestehen, indirect aus noch früherer Zeit.

sind aber besser den Saxifragen zu nähern und den Halorageen.

Private 18/10/92

By today's outward post, noble friend, you will receive the second Census of Australian Plants,

B89.12.03.

since according to the departmental accounts here only the first

B83.03.04.

went off. I intended to accompany this consignment with a letter, but there was lack of time before the close of the mail. Since I received your report on the progress of the deliberations on the value of plant names by last week's mail, I thought the Census, in latest form, would be acceptable to you because my views about the choice of naming are developed in it.

There was no explanatory text with the Second Census.

An error has occurred, I gave Du Petit Thouars the genus instead of RBr.

M did not give an author of this genus in B83.03.04, p. 121, where it was treated as published in 1806 as a synonym of Halodule; but in B89.12.03, p. 204, it was treated as the recognized name citing 'Thouars, gen. nov. Madag, p. 3 (1806)' (i.e. Du Petit-Thouars (1806)), with Halodule reduced to a synonym. It is not certain where M found the details of publication, but Meisner (1836-43), p. 88, which M is known to have owned, cites this source, commenting '(Sp. Ined)' [species unpublished]. M apparently saw the description in Steinheil (1838), p. 98, which has as a heading 'Dïplanthera Du Petit-Thouars, Nova genera Madag.' A footnote to the heading reads, in part, 'Nous reproduisons ici textuellement la description de Du Petit-Thouars, parce que les écrits de cet auteur deviennent rares et difficiles a trouver' [ We reproduce here verbatim the description of Du Petit-Thouars, because the writings of this author have become rare and hard to find]. However, the footnote gives a later source for the description, namely Du Petit-Thouars (1811), while noting that ' Suivant M. De Candol!e, Syst I. i, cet ouvrage a paru en 1810' [According to M. De Candolle, Syst I. i, this work appeared in 1810] (see A. P. de Candolle (1818-21), vol. 1, p. 85, where 1810 is given for Genera nova madagascariensia).

It was simply a false cursory reading of what Steinheil said in the Annales des sc. nat. (which I have here), the printing is such that one should think Du Petit Thouars had already used the name.

M evidently overlooked Steinheil's discussion preceding the quotation from Du Petit-Thouars (pp. 97-8): ' Comme le genre de Du Petit-Thouars est resté presque inconnu, nous avons pensé qu'il ne serait pas mal-à-propos d'en donner une figure, quoique la fleur femelle et fruit soient encore aussi inconnus qu'à l'époque où le genre fut publié. Il est assez singulier que, la même année (1810), R. Brown décrivit dans son Prodromus florae Novae Hollandiae un genre de Scrophulariées? dont il ne connaissait pas le fruit, et auquel il donna aussi le nom de Dïplanthera . Ce genre est resté douteux comme l'autre qui porte le même nom. L'un ou l'autre devra en recevoir un nouveau; il est peut-être difficile de décider lequel des deux ; nous n'avons pas cru pouvoir changer le nom de la plante dont nous donnons ici la figure, parce que nous ne complétons en rien son histoire: c'est un privilège que nous devons laisser à celui qui fera connaître la fleur femelle.' [ As the genus of Du Petit-Thouars has remained almost unknown, we thought it would not be inappropriate to give a figure of it, although the female flower and fruit are still as unknown as when the genus was published. It is rather singular that, in the same year (1810), R. Brown described in his Prodromus florae Novae Hollandiae a genus of Scrophulariae? of which he did not know the fruit, and to which he also gave the name of . This genus has remained doubtful like the other with the same name. One or the other will have to get a new one; it is perhaps difficult to decide which of the two; we did not believe that we could change the name of the plant whose figure we give here, because we do not complete its history in any way: this is a privilege that we must leave to whoever will make the female flower known.] Note that in B83.03.04, p.99, M recognized Brown's genus with Deplanchea and Bulweria treated as synonyms; in B89.12.03, p. 16, Deplanchea was accepted, with and Bulweria as synonyms.

So it therefore remained a half name and the genus is annulled fully verified by RBr.

I need not go into the details, but I only wish to mention one as an example, that if genera are to begin only with 1737 or even only with 1753, Lindern would be excluded as unsound in the case of .

Is that desirable?

If the present deliberations are to have a lasting success, then they must be based on a complete feeling of justice , otherwise it may be that, after so much was discussed, a future time will change what was done yet again, as is now already the case.

You have perhaps overlooked what I said in the Papuan plants

B76.06.01, pp 37-8, where M cited a 1581 authority for the name and argued that 'there seems … really no reason … why for this and numerous other plants the ancient authorities should not be restored'. He listed 114 species appearing in the first edition of Species plantarum (i.e. Linnaeus (1753)), 'the ancient names of which both generic and specific were left unchanged by the great Swedish naturalist'.

under . Obviously Bauhin and several other much older botanists gave Linnaeus the idea for his binomial notations, but the merit of having completely carried out these indications belongs to him. "Suum enique" I said in the motto to my paper on plant names delivered 3 years ago in the Transact. of the Royal Society of Sydney.

'To each his own'. Although it carries no printed motto, the paper to which M refers is probably the one read to the Royal Society of NSW on 3 October 1888 (B89.05.04). The last part of this paper is a discussion of priority in nomenclature, and an explanation of the systematic sequence that M adopted in his Key (B88.11.02).

But I suppose my voice will become on this occasion before all! My short remarks in the Bot. Zeitung and the Centralblatt

B79.08.01; B82.08.05.

will be available to you. The oldest year must also fix the plant binominally. Moreover firstly I have also induced Bentham to do this, as he named still E. scandens in the 2nd volume of Fl. Austr.

Bentham (1863-78), vol. 2, p. 298.

The 3rd Census will probably only appear in 1895,

No third edition of M's Census was published.

because many copies are still unsold in the Government printery despite the great cheapness of the work. There are up to now about 200 good species to be added, but only very few genera and no order, however many hundred new locality notes.

Respectfully and wishing you every good thing

Ferd von Mueller

Asa Gray had declared himself for the acceptance of genera since Tournefort but only if first confirmed binominally.

Many extra -Australian notes will be added in the 3rd Census particularly from N. Z.

Why are the calyx lobes of orchids still always called Sepala? One thinks really of , &c.

I will express myself in the preface to the third Census again coherently.

Last year I was myself in N. Z.

M attended the congress of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science held in Christchurch in January 1891.

If Linné had foreseen what difficulty would later arise, he would have named many other things.

You have recognized the older authors of genera yourself in the Flora of Brandenburg.

Nothing new amongst the ocean Phanerogamae.

Authors of genera should exist directly since the beginning of printing , indirectly from even earlier time.

are, however, better to approach the and the .

See also M to B. Robinson, 17 November 1894.