Ferdinand von Mueller

Melbourne bot & zool. Garden,

25 Apr 1861

My dear Sir William.

I have to acknowledge your kind communications, dated 31 jan 1861

1

W. Hooker to M, 31 January 1861 (in this edition as 61-01-31a).

and thank you for the continued interest you are taking in my labours. For the senna-seeds I am particularly grateful; Half I sent to Queensland and half was sown & you will be glad to learn, that the Indian species, Cassia oblongata, has already germinated.

2

See M to J. Hooker, 20 April 1860 (in this edition as 60-04-20a), and M to W. Hooker, 25 August 1860 (in this edition as 60-08-25a).

I noticed in a fine collection of Ceylon & Java plants recently received

3

In his annual report for 1861 (M to J. O'Shanassy, 10 March 1862), M recorded having received, during the year, 'Plants from Java and Sumatra, presented by Professor Miquel' and ' Plants from Ceylon, collected by Mr. G. Thwaites'.

that my Myrcia is a Memecylon seemingly identical with an Indian species.

4

M had described Myrcia australasica in B60.13.12, p. 7; Myrcia was not listed as an Australian genus in M's Census (B83.03.04).

As I had not seen the flowers, the error will be pardonable. The XVI No. of my Fragmenta will be out by the end of the month;

5

B61.05.02.

meanwhile I send the pages I have first at hand. In the last beautiful no. of your Magazine

6

Hooker (1827–64), vol. 87, tab. 5233.

(which valuable publication I receive regularly) I perceive that you did overlook my having reduced Calopetalon to Marianthus.

7

B59.12.02, p. 218.

It is common on the Murchison River.

I had the honor of an interview with Sir Henry Barkly respecting the issue of the flora under the Home Government. His Excellency is strongly of my opinion, as the labourers are few and the material is large, that it were to be regretted if two Botanists should work up simultaneously the plant of one country. The establishment of the Canadian bot. Society clearly proves, that that more ancient country is an infinitely more adapted state, to foster a botanical work by a multitude of amateur collectors & students than this young colony and under these circumstances would certainly deserve preference in the series of Colonial floras. I can assure you, Sir William, however many may be desirous to consult an Australian Flora at home, that there are not 6 Colonists who could find leisure in our unsettled country to devote time for turning out such a work to extensively useful account. As a proof of the unsettled state of things here, I may mention, that even last night in Parliament a long debatte commenced, whether my salary, which is already much lower than that of other scientific Officers, should or should not be decreased, and even some members went so far to recommend, that I should be no longer Director of the Gardens, which with so much anxiety & work I have finally brought to advancement & order.

8

Vic. Hansard, vol. 7 (1860-1), pp. 743-5; Argus, 26 April 1861, pp 6, 7.

Is it not a hard case, if after all the trouble I had in forming this establishment, I should suffer to cease to hold a position there? I would have not a moments security, that next year my Office as Botanist is regarded as superfluous also, and whilst I saved nothing in a series of years, perhaps I have to wander away with a broken health & commence anew in an other part of the world! All my collections are given away in the bargain.

9

That is, M would lose access to the collections of Australian and foreign plants assembled in the Herbarium since he became Government Botanist.

Pray give the excellent Mr Hanbury

10

Daniel Hanbury.

my kind regards. He wrote to me whilst I was in North Australia, but I ommitted to reply, having failed to obtain a good collection of pharmacological objects for him.

11

Hanbury’s letter book (Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, Western Manuscripts, ms. number 5304, Hanbury Out-Letter Book, p. 226) contains a letter dated London 24 May 1860, that is crossed through, with a marginal note ‘not sent’:

‘Dear Sir,

Your great acquaintance with Australian Botany induces me to trouble [you] with an Enquiry as to the origin of the enclosed bark, which has been imported here in considerable quantity, under the supposition that it contains some valuable bitter alkaloid. This supposition may or may not be well-founded, — my question is as to the tree from which the bark is obtained, — what is it? The same bark was shown among the Australian products in the Paris Exhibition of 1855, where I had the pleasure of examining it in company with my friend Sir W. J. Hooker, and obtained a specimen. It is now imported as an article of trade from Melbourne.

With many apologies for troubling you, I am | Dear Sir | Yours &c | D[aniel] H[anbury]

Dr Ferdinad Muller | Governmt Botanist, Victoria | Australia’

Mueller exhibited Sassafras Bark (Atherosperma m o schatum) at the preparatory Exhibition in Melbourne in 1854 (Official catalogue of the Melbourne Exhibition, 1854, in connexion with the Paris Exhibition, 1855 (1854?)). The official catalogue of the Paris Exhibition (Commission Imperiale (1855)), second edition, p. 352, has a note to the heading ‘Colonies Anglaises’: ‘Le Commissaire du Catalogue n’avaint pas reçu, le 12 mai, les bulletins des exposants et les listes de produits’. The Supplement, p. 493, includes a short list of exhibits from Victoria but M's is not listed. However, in the Tasmanian products, J. Boyd exhibited ‘Bois de sassafrass, de chêne, de musc, de laurier, etc. Ecorce. Porte et brouette de bois de fer’ [Sassafras wood, oak, musk, bay, etc. Bark. Ironwood door and wheelbarrow]. Sir William Denison and C. W. Hall also exhibited woods and barks that are not further identified (p. 494).

My appointments at the gardens & latterly my frail health have prevented me from doing all I would have wished for that Gentleman. But sooner or later I intend to collect for him.

My opinion is, that under the care of a good Captain, Wardian Cases would arrive infinitely better, if occasionally opened during the voyage on calm days and a sprinkling of water were given to the plants, other wise packed rather dry.

12

See W. Hooker to M, 31 January 1861 (in this edition as 61-01-31a).

I received recently plants from India much better brought loosely in the cabin, than by coming in sealed cases.

I cannot enough be grateful for all the support I have enjoyed from you, and which has materially tended to consolidate & maintain my position.