Ferdinand von Mueller

The Gardeners' chronicle, 1872. p. 633, cols. 1 and 2, Saturday, May 11, 1872:

'The receipt of the seventh volume of Baron VON MUELLER'S useful Fragmenta Phytographiae Australiae, affords us another opportunity of calling attention to the really unparalleled exertions which that most indefatigable and industrious botanist has rendered to the land of his adoption, to the science of botany, and the application of its resources to the purposes of commerce and practical utility. In this country no such reminder is necessary. His extraordinary zeal and diligence have been manifested in so many different ways for so many years, that they have excited the admiration and elicited the astonishment of his fellow-workers on this side of the globe. There is more room for these feelings when we take into consideration the comparatively isolated position which a man of science of the Baron's position necessarily holds in a young country. | Under such circumstances, it can be no matter for surprise that occasional errors of judgement or of imperfect observation should have been made; nor is it within the bounds of possibility that a man who has done so much and so many things could excel in all that he has undertaken. The wonder is, how so busy a worker, and so productive an author, with his mind always occupied with so great a variety of subjects, should have fallen into so few blunders. Baron VON MUELLER, though, indeed, he appears to us a very Titan in point of work, is but a fallible man, and doubtless not free from the imperfections which mar the best and noblest among us; but even with the splendid services of that band of Indian botanists, from ROXBURGH and WALLICH down to those of our times, before us, we ask what colonial botanist, what director of a botanic garden, ever fulfilled his duties more efficiently than FERDINAND VON MUELLER, or who has sacrificed health, fortune, personal convenience to a greater extent in the discharge of his duties — many of them self-imposed — than he? All this is well enough known in Europe, but we have been pained for a long time past to perceive signs that a very different estimate is placed on the Baron's services by a section of his fellow colonists. For many months we have had before us evidence of this antagonistic feeling, but we have forborne to allude to the matter from the feeling that there might be modifying circumstances unknown to us here, or which, from force of circumstances, we could not fairly or impartially appreciate. But even if this be so, if there are local matters which we are not in a position to adjudicate upon, it is easy to appreciate at its proper value the spiteful character of much of the opposition that has been raised against Dr. VON MUELLER. On the other hand, there stands out before us the monument of self-devotion, zeal, industry and talent which the Baron has raised, and which it is utterly beyond the power of his adversaries to destroy or even permanently deface. Many of the statements and insinuations that have defaced a portion of the Melbourne press are obvious misstatements, and some ludicrous blunders. | The time will come when the people in all civilised lands will recognise gratefully the services of their men of science — services at present too often ignored, or even depreciated. The diffusion of scientific knowledge among the people now is great compared to what it was 20 years ago. Every year will add to the estimation in which it and its votaries are held; in the meantime, the men of the pre-scientific era, especially those who happen to hold office, are rather disposed, in their ignorance, to thwart the movement, and to depreciate, or even show open hostility towards, its professors. We have had instances at home of late; America has not been free from such manifestations; Australia, as we have seen, shows her ignorance of her own interests in like manner. Perhaps among the Germans we may look for the fullest recognition of the value of scientific training and scientific pursuits to a nation. | It is a more agreeable task, however, to refer to the contents of the volume before us, which, like those that preceded it, and which have been from time to time noticed in these columns, consists of a series of descriptions of newly discovered Australian plants. Among them we find a full description of the splendid Iridaceous flower, the largest of its kind, and of which, thanks to Dr. BENNETT, of Sydney, we have already given an illustration (p. 393). | The recently introduced Palms from Lord Howe's Island and New Caledonia also find a place in this volume. Of Kentia Canterburyana (p. 327) the Baron thus writes:— "A noble plant, but as yet imperfectly known, and therefore assigned to the genus Kentia provisionally". The genus Veitchia (F. M.), according to the Baron, is not tenable, but must be reduced to a section of Kentia. Several Orchids are described, among them it is curious to note the existence in North Australia of the Indian Vanda suavis.'

The article was reprinted in two of the Melbourne papers supporting M, the Herald and Daily telegraph, 30 July 1872, p. 3 in both cases, leading the Argus to charge him with 'procurement', 31 July 1872, p. 4. Since the Argus says that the article was reprinted in 'no fewer than three' Melbourne papers, it is probable that it also appeared in the Leader. There is, however, a gap for this period in the SLV holdings of the Leader. The Daily telegraph (Melbourne) commented: 'The case against the director must be very weak if it can only be supported by insinuations against the integrity of the motives of journals that have been driven, in sheer manliness, to screen a victim from persecution.' The editorial claimed that although M's opponents now supported William Ferguson being sent to 'conserve his forests', they 'insist that "another competent gardener" should be appointed — some other man with a taste for growing daffodils for the dandies, and for constructing lean-tos for the lovers' (1 August 1872, p. 2).

(Cuttings from the Herald and Daily telegraph are at RBG Kew, Miscellaneous reports, 7.7, Melbourne, Mueller, 1853-96 (MR/30), pp. 131-3).

The article was also reprinted in the Geelong advertiser, 31 July 1872, p. 3, and the Weekly times (Melbourne), 3 August 1872, pp. 6-7. In all cases it was reprinted without comment. There is no reference to M or any of this in the Age.

Berkeley had recently supplied notes on fungi sent to him by M. See M to M. Berkeley, 14 July 1872 (in this edition as 72-07-14a) and also J. Hooker to M, 20 November 1872.