Ferdinand von Mueller

1

Letter not found. The text given here is from 'The poisonous plant', a long discussion of the issues surrounding the poisoning of sheep in South Australian register, 4 April 1861, p. 2 (B61.04.06). The letter, or parts of it, was widely republished (see list in Mueller's bibliography under entry B61.04.06). See also M to R. MacDonnell, 11 December 1860 (in this edition as 60-12-11a).

Port Albert,

2

Vic.

March 2, 1861.

Sir Richard—

On my way to the Australian Alps I avail myself of a spare moment for addressing your Excellency once more on the subject of the Lotus Australis, supposed to be a deleterious plant. I am at present not yet in the position to furnish your Excellency with an official report on the investigations which I instituted to ascertain the cause of the death of the sheep at Lake Torrens,

3

No such report has been found.

and I beg therefore that your Excellency will regard this letter as preliminary and private until I conclude a longer document on this subject.

The specimens sent by Mr. Sabine to me were given to two sheep in the presence of one of our best veterinary surgeons, of a medical friend of mine, an old squatter of high standing, and myself. Three ounces of the dry herb caused in less than one hour death to the two creatures under symptoms such as an alkaloid poison would produce, life departing under tetanus. We made a careful post mortem examination, and kept a protocol of the symptoms shown by the dying animals and by the cadaver.

I might have subjected the remainder of the herb sent by Mr. Sabine to a chemical analysis and microscopic investigation; but as Dr. Macadam holds for the purpose of carrying out such researches an office under Government, I thought it but right to send, with his consent, the contents of the stomach to him; but have up to the date of my departure not yet been favored with his report.

I still remain very sceptical on the point whether really the deadly effect could be attributed to a plant which we regarded hitherto not only as harmless, but even as nutritious. I sent an officer of my department into various parts of the country to search for a large supply of the lotus. This he accomplished only after an absence of two weeks, as the plant has become extirpated, or nearly so, in the vicinity of Melbourne.

The herb given to two sheep in large quantity had not the least injurious effect on the animals; and by this observation, not only the researches instituted in Adelaide are corroborated,

4

See G. Francis, letter to the editor, South Australian r egister, 18 December 1860, p. 4.

but also my previous opinion is confirmed that the lotus is an innocent plant. As there were many seed vessels with the herb, I cannot make myself either believe that the seeds might be deleterious.

The serious question now arises, is really the lotus absorbing in particular soil poisonous substances, so as to kill by hundreds the sheep feeding on it in certain parts of Lake Torrens? Or is, possibly the occasional occurrence of a minute fungus on the lotus the cause of the losses? Or has poison come accidentally in contact with the lotus by its careless application against the dingo? That the death of the sheep is not caused by mineral poison, and, therefore, not by the relics of arsenic at sheep-washing places, we have sufficiently proved by our observations here. If I had an opportunity of examining the lotus pastures at Lake Torrens I should probably come at once to satisfactory results; but, remote from the locality, I can only ask your Excellency, that by different settlers in different localities where sheep are lost, samples of the lotus should be procured. If your Excellency will be pleased to send them to my care, no pains shall be spared on my side to set, if possible, this matter at rest.

5

George. Francis summarized at the end of the year the position as then known, and concluded that his account 'implies a second poisonous plant' (letter to the editor of the South Australian register, 30 December 1861, p. 3). Much later, M was of the view that the poisonous principle in Lotus australis 'may become occasionally inert under particular circumstances of soil and clime'; see M to S. Hannaford, May 1873 (in this edition as 73-05-00a). The modern view is that L. australis can produce cyanogenic glycocides but that this production is variable.

I am looking forward with the utmost interest to the collections of Mr. Waterhouse, which your Excellency was so obliging as to order to be made, under the generous aid of the South Australian Government.

I shall have magnificent material at my command for working up the phytological statistics and phytogeographical essay for my work this winter, after the kind contribution from your Excellency; and after Sir William Denison was pleased to place before me the whole of the botanical collections of all the explorers sent out by the New South Wales Government,

6

See M to R. Heales, 28 February 1861.

all now numbering (excepting the venerable Sturt

7

i.e. Charles Sturt.

) with the dead. The collections of Leichardt

8

i.e. Leichhardt.

and Sir Thomas Mitchell are especially important.

With the expressions of my deep regard and gratitude,

His Excellency Sir R. MacDonnell, C.B.,

&c., &c., &c.