Document information

Physical location:

M65.10.17

Preferred Citation:

George Bentham to William Woolls, 1865-10-17 [M65.10.17]. 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/mentions/selected/M65-10-17-final.odt>, accessed June 9, 2026

1
Letter not found. For the text given here, see Sydney morning herald , 8 October 1881, p. 9. The text is preceded by a letter from Woolls to the editor of the newspaper explaining that he had been prompted to send Bentham's letter for publication by news of Bentham's death—a false alarm, as it turned out; see T. Caruel to M, 21 November 1881, and M to B. Jackson, 25 December 1881 —in order to show 'that the venerable writer felt the immense difficulty of describing plants simply from dried specimens, and that he regarded the co-operation of Baron F. von Mueller as a matter of the greatest importance… [W]hilst the one had the means of examining the accumulated specimens which had been forwarded to Europe since the foundation of the colony, the other was able to furnish valuable descriptions from living plants, as well as copious notes respecting their peculiar habit and geographical range.' 'It is pleasing to think', Woolls continued, 'that these great men worked together so harmoniously for more than 16 years, and that they were permitted to bring to a satisfactory termination the seven volumes of our "Flora."'
25, Wilton-place, London, S.W., October 17, 1865.
My Dear Sir,—I have to thank you for occasional articles of yours on the botany of your neighbourhood, and also for the notices of my "Flora."
2
i.e. the first volumes of Bentham (1863-78).
I have no doubt this work will be full of errors, but I work hard and do my best. Thanks to the very rich collections I have before me (and which have been so materially added to by those sent me by Dr., now Baron
3
Woolls was evidently responsible for inserting in the published text, here and subsequently, M's new rank to which he was raised only several years after Bentham wrote this letter.
Mueller), I have more means of identifying species than any one else has had. On the other hand, specimens of species from half a hundred to a hundred stations are often bewildering, and I am under the great disadvantage of never having observed the plants in their native stations as I have for European plants; and although Dr. (Baron) Mueller's own and his collectors' memoranda, which he has so liberally communicated to me, are most important, a very large number of specimens have none. So long as his "Victorian Flora"
4
B62.03.03, and the first five sheets of Part 2 (see B63.13.06).
preceded me I had a great assistance; but beyond that, valuable as his descriptions, &c., are of individual species, I have no complete monograph of any large genus to guide me, and the dividing into groups is the most difficult part of the whole business.
Having finished the other Myrtaceae, I am now at Eucalyptus, the most dreadful of all genera for the monograph, but I had at the outset begged Dr. (Baron) Mueller to do it entirely himself, but he had not time, so that all I can now do is to verify the old species, which will be all named in his herbarium, and to give in my "Flora" such a rough account of the genus as is within my power, trusting that he will then give us an elaborate monograph with plates, which from him would be most valuable.
5
M did eventually publish such a work, his Eucalyptographia ; see B79.13.11 and subsequent parts.
Your notes in in
6
Word repeated.
your remarks on the botany of the Berrima range, and especially those attached to your specimens, have been and will be very useful to me. I have got through most of the New South Wales and Tasmanian species, but I think it will take me a couple of months more hard work of six or seven hours a day to get through the genus, for I always, after having done a genus, go over the whole ground a second time, and often a third.
I am glad to see you have joined the Linnean Society. I trust you will find our publications useful. It is to them, and to our library—especially to the publications—that we devote all our funds, having entirely given up forming a museum, which to be useful in a place where there are such immense national ones as in London, would be beyond the means of any private society.
Had I been twenty years younger, I should probably have gone over to make personal acquaintance with the botany and botanists of Australia. As it is, I fear I must only hope to shake hands with yourself and others who have joined our ranks, on the chance of your being tempted to pay a visit to the old country.
Yours very truly,
GEORGE BENTHAM.