Document information
Physical location:
RB MSS M3, Library, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne. 61.05.24
Plant names
-
Memecylon
Search for
Memecylon
in
Preferred Citation:
Joseph Hooker to Ferdinand von Mueller, 1861-05-24. 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/61-05-24>, accessed April 8, 2025
1
MS black-edged. For a published version of this letter see Daley (1927-8), pp. 95-6.
Also published, with elisions, in Moyal (1976), pp. 178-9.
May 24th /61
Dear Dr Mueller
I three days ago received your kind letter enclosing the curious vacciniaceous-looking
plant,
which is a most interesting discovery for Australia — also the last part of the Fragmenta
— I think I told you that your Myrtaceous looking thing is the common Indian
, or something extremely like it
— I wrote you the other day
with a copy of Bentham's letter about the Australian Flora,
& my father & he & I are all much concerned to find that we are now again at cross-purposes
with you upon that subject
— I need not I hope assure you that in regard to the authorship of that work, our
only
desire is to see that it is done by whoever is, whether by position or attainments,
the best qualified to do it well — now putting attainments out of the question it
must surely be evident to you, that to work out the Australian Flora without reference
to the collections of Brown, Fraser, Cunningham, Drummond
& the Paris Herbarium, would be a proceeding that no Botanist could approve & from
which indeed, I should have thought, that most Botanists who regarded the interest
of science & the right of collections as paramount would have shrunk. Indeed we all
congratulated ourselves that you had entertained the same opinion of Benthams fitness
that is universal in Europe, & we certainly so
understood
your letters to
himself
to my father & to me in which you joined us in thinking that it was a matter of congratulation
to Botany, that a man who is of all others the most skilfull, & accurate in descriptive
Botany, should undertake a task that called for so eminent a display of these qualifications.
There has, I am sure, been no desire or wish in this country to disparage your labors
— either as traveller or Botanist, indeed we have fought hard enough for you in every
way: but we are not going to lose sight of justice to your predecessors, whose claims
you naturally think so lightly of in comparison with your own, because in your isolated
position you cannot avail yourself of them, or feel or know the opinion that is formed
of them in this country. It would I am well aware be of little use to point out to
you the difficulty of the efficient construction of so gigantic a Flora as that of
Australia, how much tact it requires to seize prominent characters & to make the diagnosis
both brief diagnostic & accurate, in doing which Bentham has had 40 years experience
& you none — nor how much advice & counsel the wisest & best Botanists amongst us
take of one another in all these matters, before arranging a plan that is to include
8000 species so arranged and described as to be
really useful & not troublesome
, — all this I
assure
you requires work of a very different character from what you have been accustomed
to & a head for systematic methodology that you have never felt called upon to exercise.
I will tell you candidly that excellence in these matters requires deep, long study
& thought — without which Bentham himself would never have attained even mediocrity.
For my own part I feel myself wholly unfit to cope with him & should not attempt any
extensive Flora that he would do, — under any circumstances. Nor do I see how you
could do the work with care within a reasonable period. — Bentham who has nothing
(or little) else to do, works all day long at Kew, & even with Floras the most familiar
to him he rarely describes more than 5 species a day including all arrangements comparisons
of genera &c &c &c — & he calculates that the Australian Flora would take him 7 or
8 years at least to do it so as that his work should
last
& the book be a standard for all time. With your multifarious duties & such a work
as the Victoria Flora in hand you would I am sure find it impossible to do the Australian
well
Candidly then let me assure you as a friend that in the opinion of your best friends
here
circumstances
are against your undertaking the Australian Flora far more than against mine even
& I had for many years set my heart upon it too but I have abandoned it long ago in
favor of Bentham; because I have no time to do it justice & because it would be a
public calamity if it were taken out of his hands.
2
No relevant letter to J. Hooker has been found. A specimen of Wittsteinia vacciniacea may have been enclosed with M to W. Hooker, 24 January 1861 (in this edition as 61-01-24a), which was accompanied by B61.02.01 in which the discovery of the species is mentioned.
3
B61.02.02.
Memecylon
Search for Memecylon
in
4
No relevant letter from J. Hooker has been found. Hooker is referring to the specimen
sent as a 'myr[cioid] plant' with M to W. Hooker, 24 November 1860, that M himself re-identified as a '
seemingly identical with an Indian species' in M to W. Hooker, 25 April 1861.
Memecylon
Search for Memecylon
in
5
Letter not found.
6
G. Bentham to W. Hooker, 6 May 1861 (in this edition as M61-05-06).
7
See M to W. Hooker, 24 March 1861 and G. Bentham to M, 22 May 1861.
8
Robert Brown (1773-1858), Charles Fraser, Allan Cunningham, James Drummond (1748-1863).
9
See, for example, M to W. Hooker, 20 April 1860.
I hope you receive through Pamplin the collections of Indian plants, the last including
grasses will go soon & I hope give you pleasure — I should have acknowledged your
draft for the Royal Soc which I will take care to pay as soon as due.
10
Membership fees in anticipation of M's election as a Fellow of the Royal Society of
London.
Ever sincerely yr
Jos D Hooker