Ferdinand von Mueller

1

The two sheets of this letter have been filed separately in different sections of the Kew archives. The first, filed at the location shown, has been stamped with date of receipt: 'Royal Gardens Kew 11. Dec. 93' and annotated by Thiselton-Dyer: 'Sir F. von Mueller'. The second sheet commences: '2, As regards pre-linnéan plant-names'. It too has been stamped: 'Royal Gardens Kew 11. Dec. 93'. It is filed at RBG Kew, Kew Correspondence, Australia, Mueller, 1891-1896, f. 53.

3/11/93

Your letter of the 12 Sept

2

Letter not found. Presumably Thiselton-Dyer's answer to M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 4 August 1893, which announced the intention of the Queensland Government to abolish Bailey’s post.

has just reached me, dear Dr Dyer, and I will answer it seriatim. By action and advise I have done for Mr Bailey what I could. I have sought the support of two Brisbane Physicians for him directly, Drs Bancroft and Lauterer, and I have pleaded his QL.

3

Qld.

claims indirectly with other leading men of Science in Brisbane.

4

See J. Thomson to M, 27 November 1893, and M to J. Hooker, 19 December 1893.

The civil service regulations here forbid my acting officially in his favor with his own Ministry or Parliament,

5

Thiselton-Dyer, however, wrote to Sir James Garrick, the Qld Agent General, urging Bailey’s reinstatement. Garrick sent Thiselton-Dyer's letter of 16 September (draft at ff. 43-4) 'to the colony for the information of the Chief Secretary' (f. 45). Thiselton-Dyer also wrote on 15 December to Sir Robert Meade, Permanent Secretary at the Colonial Office, (draft at ff. 51-2). Bailey was reinstated at a reduced salary on 1 January 1894, and wrote on 7 February 1894 (ff. 53-4) to thank Thiselton-Dyer for his support: 'nothing which has ever been done by an Australian Government has caused such universal dissatisfaction, the press and the people from all parts of Queensland wrote and waited upon the members to try and prevent the abolishment of my office, but it was of no use until your letter was sent out by the Agent General'.

and as a proof of this I like to mention, that when the S.A. Government wished on its own accord to have my opinion of Mr Holtze's already a S.A. Garden-Director then (Pt. Darwin), capabilities and fitness for the Adelaide Director Ship, the Minister concerned wrote to my Minister here to be allowed to give my opinion.

6

Letter not found. M. Holtze was appointed Director of the Adelaide botanic garden in 1891 following Richard Schomburgk's death.

It would be very difficult to restore the Office of Gov. Botanist of Queensland after it had been suddenly and unexpectedly abolished by the local Parliament;

7

The retrenchment of F. Bailey had been announced in October. Newspaper clippings on the debate about this in the Qld Legislative Assembly on 4 October 1893 are bound at ff. 48 and 49. Key sections have been marked in red ink.

but if his friends make an united effort a pension might be secured for Mr Bailey just as for Mr Walter Hill before; or failing this — a compensation should be applied for. His son, I understand — is retained in the Herbarium, and he could enjoy probably various official advantages even after retirement while engaged in congenial work.

8

In the newspaper report, the Secretary for Lands is quoted as saying: 'As to the museum of economic botany, it might not be known to hon. members that Mr Bailey's son — a young man of considerable attainments — was in the department; the museum was not going to destruction'.

I mentioned already before, that Botany plain and simple does not present itself as needful to the Colonists in general;

9

For an early example, see M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 1 January 1881 (in this edition as 81-01-01a).

hence I make the great and special efforts here, to apply it to rural and technologic interests as you do at Kew. But I am afraid to say almost anything in this sad affair, lest it be misconceived or misconstruc[t]ed.

10

misconstrued?

Mr Bailey’s sedulity and cleverness we all recognize

2, As regards pre-linnéan plant-names I have fairly given my views many years ago in the "Papuan plants",

11

B76.06.01, pp. 37-40.

and if they are absolutely identical with those of Linné, then, I hold, it is a grave injustice to deprive the original authors of their rights. Linnaeus rested mainly on works through centuries of his predecessors and was not always mindful of them and their claims. It is futile to have any code of priority unless based like other laws on absolute justice. In reference to genera, I agree with many others, among them so undisputable authority as Asa Gray, that we should go back as far as Tournefort at all events, if they became by the spec. plantarum fidemised !

12

A fusion of 'bona fide' and 'legitimized'?

Why for a familiar instance should Lindern be set aside as author of the genus

Limosella

Search for Limosella in

• This website
• VicFlora
• Australian Plant Name Index

? Bentham was open for reconsidering questions and I aided in he adopting the oldest species-name within the correct genus, after he had followed DC for a long time in using the oldest species name from the wrong genus! This is still considered by the majority of Phytographers as heresy!

If you, my honored friend, had known all the circumstances of my relation to the Academy for bot. Geography of Le Mans,

13

International Academy of Botanical Geography.

you would have written in a different tone. I did not know its existence when I was elected Director for a year . I saw great names on the list, among them Duchartre's the Nestor of French Botanist[s]

14

editorial addition — Text obscured by binding. All square brackets in the following text have this meaning.

and the designed

15

designated?

Director for 1894. I all along urged that there should be a local Council I disadvised the creation of an Order, but then suggested a medal though regarding it far too early. I was against large numbers of medals and any payment e[ver] so small for them. I induced Dr Rougier the Cholera-Investigator and nephew of Pasteur to proceed personally to Le Mans, to argue with Prof Leveillé on points in which I did not concur. I had allotted to Prof Leveillé some discretionary power, which he thought he could use for classifying the gift of medals, for which I am not responsible , though my name is attached and his counter-signature wanting, nor do I share the responsibility of the list in N. 25 of Le Monde, to which however my signature does not appear.

16

A list of recipients of vermillion, silver and bronze medals awarded by the International Academy of Botanical Geography was published over M's name in no. 24 of Le monde des plantes (1 September 1893, p 385), and no. 25 (1 October 1893, p. 1) contained a further, much longer list of recipients of bronze medals without M's name attached. In the earlier of these lists, J. Hooker was among those to receive a vermillion medal. Issue no. 23 (1 August 1893) included a list of prices for different categories of award. A later issue (no. 27, 1 November 1893, p. 42) announced, over M's name, that Duchartre had declined to become Director. His letter of refusal was published in full in no. 29 (1 December 1893, pp. 81-2), followed by an announcement that on account of Duchartre's withdrawal, M would continue as Director in 1894, until a successor could be elected.

I insisted on recipients being asked before hand, whether they wished to accept the medal and compromised no one. I wrote you already 2 weeks ago, that I had resigned at the Academy of Le Mans before [effect of these.]

17

M's resignation was not mentioned in Le monde des plantes. However, in no. 31 (1 January 1894) G. Rouy was listed as Director. See also M to H. Léveillé, December 1893 (in this edition as 93-12-00e).

Kindly show this letter to Sir Joseph.

I did not like applications to various Governments for subsidy.

I was aware that no medal can be worn except military.