Ferdinand von Mueller

1

Letter not found. For the text given here, see ‘Important Botanical Work’, Brisbane courier, 17 March 1893, p. 2. The letter was also published in Evening observer (Brisbane), 18 March 1893, p. 7, under the heading 'Important Botanical Work | To the Editor of the Evening Observer'. There is a clipping containing the latter version at Kew [RBG Kew, Letters to Joseph Hooker, vol. 16, ff. 3-6. 8], apparently enclosed with M to J. Hooker, 28 March 1893. The heading notwithstanding, the clipping is annotated, in what is probably M's hand, 'Courier 17th Mar. 92'.

Sir, —

It is announced in this morning's issue of the Courier

2

‘Important Botanical Work’, Brisbane courier, 16 March 1893, p. 5.

— and it is a matter for congratulation by all who have the interests of botanical science at heart — that at length there is a probability of the seven volumes which the classical "Flora Australiensis" comprises

3

Bentham (1863-78).

being added to by one which shall include descriptions of the other plants found to be Australian since the publication of this important work. You also inform your readers that its preparation is to be undertaken by our Colonial Botanist, F. M. Bailey, F.L.S., who "has had the distinguished honour conferred upon him of being asked by the botanists of the other colonies" to do it. He, you also state, "has already done more to advance the knowledge of Australian botany than any other man alive." The purpose of this letter is not, however, to detract from this certainly questionable reputation, but to point out that at least one student of plant life is of opinion that Mr. Bailey is not, as he invites us to believe, "probably the most suitable of the Australian workers to undertake the work." Who the botanists of the other colonies you allude to might be it is difficult to surmise, and it would moreover surprise one if the late Rev. W. Wools, Professor R. Tate, and Mr. J. H. Maiden, who with Mr. Bailey himself were amongst the acknowledged leaders in the science as far as Australia is concerned, were amongst their number. Baron Ferdinand Von Mueller, the distinguished botanist of Victoria, is certainly not one of them, and he it is, it is submitted, who is the one man competent above all others to undertake the elaboration of the work to which you allude. On the title page of each of the seven volumes of the "Flora Australiensis," the names of George Bentham and Ferdinand von Mueller are given equal prominence, the former being assisted by the latter, and what is implied by assistance — "very essential assistance" as Bentham has it — may be inferred from a perusal of the three pages of letterpress in the preface to the first volume, published in 1863, in which it is enlarged upon, and of the concluding preface in the seventh volume, published in 1878, in which "the handsome manner" in which Baron Mueller proffered "every assistance" is again commented upon. Bentham also informs us that "when indeed it was first contemplated to bring out a general flora of Australia under Government sanction Dr. Mueller was naturally looked to as the botanist the best qualified for undertaking the task of preparing it," and that it was "a signal proof of the generosity of his disposition and the absence of all selfishness when it was proposed to him that the preparation of the flora should be confided to me that he not only gave up his long-cherished project in my favour but promised to do all in his power to assist me — a promise he has fulfilled with the most perfect faith." (This assumption of labours, projected by Baron Mueller, by Mr. Bentham was in consequence of the inaccessible nature of the European herbaria to an Australian student.) The botanist who was naturally looked upon in 1863 by the facile princeps of European botanists as the best qualified to undertake the sole authorship of the "Flora Australiensis" in its entirety, and did actually largely assist in its preparation, is surely now, after an additional thirty years' devoted exclusively to botanical research, the best qualified to prepare its supplement. No one who had inspected his splendid monographs on the eucalypts,

4

B79.13.11, B80.13.14, B82.13.17, B84.04.04, B84.11.02.

the acacias,

5

B87.13.04, B88.13.01.

the myoporinae,

6

B86.13.21.

the salsolaceous plants,

7

B89.13.04, B90.06.06, B91.13.24.

and other works written since the issue of the "Flora," and which evince every evidence of augmented knowledge would, it might have been expected, dispute this contention. And yet there are other reasons still which indicate Baron Mueller as the most suitable — and the only suitable — botanist for the preparation of this work. 1. He has in his possession the actual specimens which were worked up by Bentham in the preparation of the "Flora Australiensis," and with few exceptions only the types of all the species which have since been described as Australian, and no continuation of the flora of any value could be prepared without examining these. 2. At least 95 per cent of the plants, excluding cryptogams, added to the flora of Australia since the publication of the "Flora Australiensis" have been described by Baron von Mueller himself, and it may be assumed that he is the most competent to redescribe them. 3. Baron von Mueller in his profound studies has arrived at important original conclusions regarding the systematic relations of plants which, though sometimes at variance with the scheme of classification adopted by Messrs. Bentham and Hooker,

8

Bentham & Hooker (1862-83).

would be most acceptable to the school of progressive botanists, and which should not be subordinated to any advantage which might accrue from slavish adherence to any apparently stereotyped system.

In mentioning Baron Von Mueller in this connection it must not be presumed that the writer wishes in any way to disparage the work or capabilities of our colonial botanist; though it is at a but comparatively recent date that he has come before the public as a writer on Australian botany. His knowledge in some departments of this science is probably unrivalled; his zeal in making known the flora of Queensland both in its scientific and utilitarian aspects most commendable; but Mr. Bailey’s great work, however, has been in compilation. The student of the Flora Australiensis requires something more than this, and any work dealing with recent discoveries should involve a comparative study of the forms of plant life with which it deals and of those with which they are related at the hands of one — who like Mueller — has grown old in performing similar labour. Personal sympathies when the interests of science are concerned must be forgotten.—

16th March.