Ferdinand von Mueller

7/7/93.

As you rightly assumed, dear Mr Rodway, the Leptorrhynchos, sent by you, is L. nitidulus. When collecting myself this species in the then wilds of Gippsland, fully 40 years ago, I recognized it as the Candollean plant, and as such it appears printed in my large Reports to the Vict. Parliament in 1854, already.

1

B54.12.01, p. 12.

Steetz already in 1844 distinguished L. linearis from L. nitidulus.

2

In Steetz (1845), p. 450, as Leptorhynchos.

To make quite sure, I sent a specimen of the Gippsland-plant, (which is identical with yours) to Alph. D.C., asking him, to compare it with his father's original specimen of L. nitidulus, and the result was a declaration of identity.

3

Letters not found.

Simultaneously I asked Prof Ascherson in Berlin, to reexamine the original specimen of Lessing's L. linearis, and — as predicted by me — he declared it also a form of L. squamatus.

4

Letters not found.

I fear, you lost all faith in me for help. But the plants of the Elder-Exped. took up much time (over 700 species),

5

Not published until 1896; see B96.14.02.

the Bailey-intrusion (now happily over come)

6

F. M. Bailey had sought to write a supplementary volume to Flora australiensis (Bentham (1863-78)) but had withdrawn in the face of M's protests. See the copy of Bailey's circular sent as F. Bailey to M, March 1893 (in this edition as 93-03-00b); see also Clements (1998) and Lucas (2003), pp. 272-4.

upset me much in calm work, the reduced means of the Department, — gradually to be regained — retarded work also on systematic subjects, the interests of the bread-winning people being paramount especially in such dire times of

7

as?

these. But gradually all matters get into right course again.

This shows you, how I always persevered to clear off any doubts.

8

The text completely fills two pages, with the final sentence a marginal addition. There is no valediction or signature.