440 
collecting for Mueller in tropical Queensland, 
reaching a total of about 2200 specimens, thus 
placing him as one of the most productive 
botanical collectors in Queensland of that era 
(Dowe 2015). 
Overlooked species names 
Two of the names, Erythrina fitzalanii 
and Dendrobium luridum, appeared in a 
newspaper article summarising the botanical 
results of the Burdekin Expedition, and were 
included within a quote that was ascribed to 
Hill (1860a). The third name, Dendrobium 
fitzalani appeared in a systematically arranged 
list of plants that were then being cultivated in 
the Botanic Gardens in Brisbane (Hill 1875). 
Searches of the APC (2015), APNI (2015), 
IPNI (2015) and Kew (2015) databases, and 
other relevant taxonomic citation sources 
were conducted and the names were not 
located, thus indicating that the names have 
not been recorded in the taxonomic literature. 
The publication of new species names in 
non-scientific publications such as newspapers 
and catalogues has proven to be problematic 
for botanical nomenclature and taxonomy, 
particularly with regards to valid publication 
and typification (Nelson 1990; Ewan 1993; 
Dowe 2004). New names published in trade 
catalogues and non-scientific newspapers 
have been deemed invalid since 1953, but 
names published prior to that date may be 
permitted by the code, if the rules of botanical 
nomenclature are otherwise observed 
(McNeill etal. 2012). Two examples of names 
validly published in Australian newspapers 
are Dendrobium falcorostrum Fitzg. and 
Dendrobium fuscum Fitzg. (=D. discolor 
Lindl.), both published in the Sydney Morning 
Herald (Fitzgerald 1876, 1879). 
Erythrina fitzalanii 
The name Erythrina fitzalanii was first 
published in The Moreton Bay Courier, 
Saturday, 27 October 1860: “ Burdekin 
Expedition - Botanical Research.. .through 
the courtesy ofMr. Hill, Superintendent of the 
Botanical Gardens... Amongst the ornamental 
plants the Erythrina fitzalanii (W.H.), a scarlet 
flowering coral tree, twelve feet in height, is the 
gem of those collected during the expedition. 
Austrobaileya 9(3): 439-444 (2015) 
Trees of it in flower were seen by the party 
six miles distant ” (Hill 1860a). This relates to 
direct observations made on Long Island by 
Fitzalan (1860) of a flowering Erythrina. “... 
we saw in the centre of one of the patches of 
scrub... a tree of such an intense scarlet that 
it was visible at a distance of several miles. I 
made my way to this spot, andfound it to be a 
new Erythrina, completely covered with large 
scarlet blossoms, but without a single leaf on 
it. This is the most beautiful tree I have ever 
seen ”. Smith (1860) was similarly impressed 
with the Erythrina. ‘Here [Long Island], 
and at every place we visited, geological 
and botanical specimens were obtained; 
among the latter, a most beautiful flower of 
a scarlet color, completely covering the few 
trees which we saw. Upon close examination 
it was observed that, at this season, there 
were no leaves on the tree, which has a 
whitish bark, and is about 20 ft in height ”. 
Hill (1860b) produced a ‘List of Specimens, 
collected by Mr. Fitzalan’ from the Burdekin 
Expedition designated only to family, in 
which he included a significant number under 
Fabaceae. Although not directly relatable to 
Hill’s list, there is one item that may pertain to 
Fitzalan’s collection, it being: “75. Fabaceae, 
a handsome tree, beautiful when in flower, 
wood close grained andfirm”. This is the only 
Fabaceae tree included in Hill’s list, the others 
being described as shrubs or vines. 
Fitzalan’s collections of Erythrina species 
at MEL include E. variegata L. from Port 
Denison [MEL 0072371], E. vespertilio 
Benth. from both Port Denison and Moreton 
Bay [MEL 0072399, MEL 0072401, MEL 
0072450 and MEL 0072467], and a specimen 
filed as Erythrina sp. [MEL 2113384] 
from the Cumberland Islands (Fig. 1). The 
Cumberland Islands, as accepted at that 
time, included the islands between Hayman 
Island in the north to St Bees Island in the 
south and thus encompassed Long Island. It is 
assumed that the latter collection was made at 
Long Island, as described by both Smith and 
Fitzalan. An examination of the flower parts 
in that specimen relates it to E. variegata. The 
only other possible species that it could be, 
based on known distribution, is E. vespertilio 
Benth. subsp. vespertilio but the flower 
