Document information
Physical location:
RBG Kew, Kew correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1858-70, ff. 317-19. 68.04.25Preferred Citation:
Ferdinand von Mueller to Joseph Hooker, 1868-04-25. 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//letters/1860-9/1868/68-04-25-final.odt>, accessed June 9, 2026
25/4/68
I have only leisure, dear Dr Hooker, to write a few lines by this mail. But I wish
to thank you sincerely for your attentive goodness in getting the Edinburgh plants
named. It is now 21 years since I left Middle Europe, and plants then familiar to
me, I cannot now without careful reference (at least in many instances) refer to their
specific position. I have reflected again and again on your proposal to secure duplicates
from Gay's collection,
but I have
no
departmental vote for the purpose and after spending about £7000 of my slender private
means in the Department I could, with fluctuating health, not well spend more. This
is the reason also, that finally I could not manage to secure, as I so much desired,
one of the three sets of Mr Smiths ferns.
1
Joseph Hooker purchased Jacques Gay's herbarium for Kew for £400 in 1867 or 1868.
See Huxley (1918) vol. 2, p. 48. The proposal that M purchase duplicates has not been
found.
2
In 1865, John Smith (1798-1888) offered his fern general herbaria for sale (see G.
Bentham to M, 18 October 1865). In 1866, the British Museum bought 2,000 species of ferns on 6,000 sheets (see
Smith's obituary, Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1887-8), p. 97).
You speak in your letter of your obligations and cares as the head of a family.
True the cares must be great, but you can at least calmly look forward to the moment
when those dear to you will surround your deathbed, (may the day be very very distant)
— and after all there is no better investment of a fortune than bringing up a family,
and I trust you will have D. C. gratification of seeing a Hooker, nepos, come forward
in the botanic world.
3
Letter not found.
4
Augustin Pyramus de Candolle (1778-1841) was succeeded by his son Alphonse (1806-93).
Hooker was succeeded as director at Kew by his son-in-law, W. T. Thiselton-Dyer.
Mr Bennett
& Mr Kippist have expressed a wish that I should contribute the new Australian species
to R.Br's collection in the British Museum.
You will be aware, that I all along thought Linne's, Banks's, Brown's &c
collections could be only brought to their maximum utility at Kew.
At the same time it would appear, that many metropolitan phytographers can not afford
to visit your glorious emporium frequently and that to them the phytologic division
of the British Museum is a
real boon
. So long therefore as such a branch exists in the great national Museum, I feel bound
to support it and under these considerations I would be quite willing to concede to
the collections of the Brit. Museum
one
specimen
of any
plant
not
at
all
possessed
by them
when
it can be spared
from
my
collection
, as often will be the case. But I really have no leisure to go through the tedious
task of picking out odds & ends, moreover I do not know the exact requirement of the
British Museum
5
J. J. Bennett.
6
Letters not found.
7
The herbaria assembled by Banks and by Robert Brown (1773-1858) were at the British
Museum, that of Linnaeus at the Linnean Society.
8
See, for example M to J. Hooker, 17 March 1860.
On reflection it has occurred to me, that Mr Carruthers might deem it worth while
to select specimens from my collections at Kew prior to the return of the specimens
to me. As however such an arrangement could not be entered into without a special
acquiescence of yours, I bring my idea just for consideration before you, without
without
writing to Mr Bennett or Mr Kippist at all, leaving the whole affair in your power,
to refuse or concur as you think proper. There are perhaps inconveniences in such
an arrangement, which I should most distinctly be disinclined to burden on your Department
9
repeated word in MS.
Always your regardful
Ferd von Mueller
Will Dr Th. Thomson & yourself be able to do justice to the Indian Flora without visiting
the Leyden Museum?
10
Flora Indica (J. Hooker & Thomson (1855)) was not completed. The preface to the work that finally
emerged, J. Hooker (1875-97), contains an explanation of the delay in completion of
the intended work. See also Huxley (1918) vol. 2, p. 18 for Hooker's complaint that
Thomson 'will never do a stroke' of the work. In mid-nineteenth-century usage, 'India'
often embraced all the territories in which the East India Company was active and
thus included Sumatra and Singapore, for comprehending the botany of which the Dutch
collections were essential. In line with this usage J. Hooker & Thomson (1855), p.
8 declared that the limits of the Flora indica on which they had embarked extended from Persia to the Chinese dominions, but Afganistan
and Beluchistan included in 1855 were excluded from J. Hooker (1875-97), vol 1., p.
v.
I had only a few plants of the Bermuda Cedar, not yet fully bearing. So the seeds
were very welcome.
After spending about £7000 of my
private
means in this department & giving away as a donation my whole private collection,
I cannot well purchase plants out of private means & have no departmental vote for
the purpose.
11
'After spending ...for the purpose' is written on a separate, smaller sheet bound
as f. 319.