No summary available.
Showing 1–11 of 11 items
The Joseph Dalton Hooker Collection
The Joseph Dalton Hooker Correspondence Project at Kew is making available online the personal and scientific correspondence of the botanist and explorer Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817–1911), Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens’ Kew from 1865-1885. The project was conceived by staff of The University of Sussex and Kew's Library, Art and Archive department and began as a partnership between Kew and the University of Sussex's Centre for World Environmental History. It has been made possible by support from the Stevenson Family Charitable Trust. Letter summaries can be searched through Ɛpsilon, with links to images and transcriptions at the project site at Kew (https://www.kew.org/explore-our-collections/correspondence-collections/joseph-hooker-collections).
No summary available.
No summary available.
No summary available.
No summary available.
No summary available.
No summary available.
No summary available.
No summary available.
JDH thanks Asa Gray for his note of 10 Mar [1857]. Is impatient for LESSONS, apologises for not reviewing the MANUAL in the JOURNAL OF BOTANY. William Jackson Hooker wants JDH to review [Miles Joseph] Berkeley's INTRODUCTION TO CRYPTOGAMIC BOTANY, JDH praises its content but calls it 'appallingly written & arranged', a common failing of parson-authors such as Sedgwick & Buckland, Copewell[?] & Baden-Powell. An abstract of the Linnean Society's ideas on genera will appear in the LITERARY GAZETTE & a summary by Bentham in the Linnean journal. JDH is critical of the way Germans approach a subject, A. Braun's work on genera is an exemplar. JDH dismisses [Berthold Carl] Seemann's 'twaddle' about genera being objective or subjective, gives Rosa & Salix as examples of the former & Unbellifers as the 'confoundedly bad' latter. Discusses [Thomas] Thomson's paper on germination & embryos of Careya & Barringtonia. JDH worries about Gray doing a book on forest trees. Notes [Richard] Spruce is stranded in Tarapoto, in the Andes, en route to Lima. Mentions UK government expedition to the source of the Missouri & the East Rocky Mountains, [Eugène] Bourgeau is the botanist & the commander Mr Palliser. JDH's children & wife [Frances Hooker] are in Brighton. JDH suggests a visit to the UK would stimulate Gray's work on the Flora of North America. [Walter Hood] Fitch has produced plates of British natural orders, designed by [John Stevens] Henslow, for the National Schools under the Board of Trade. In a post script dated 30 Mar JDH gives a detailed opinion of Gray's ELEMENTS. JDH cannot visit Canada & USA until 1858, he has too much work, with the Indian Herbarium & Tasmanian flora for the Van Diemen's Land government, & not enough money. Comments briefly on Gray's notices in SILLIMAN & at length on De Candolle's botanical geography, referring to the work of de Heer, Henfrey, Brown, Forbe's Atlantis theory & Duchastre's encyclopaedia. Recommends that Gray get the GARDENERS' CHRONICLE.
JDH thanks Asa Gray for his letter & review of [Rev. Miles Joseph] Berkeley. Berkeley will not like Gray's review or JDH's in JOURNAL OF BOTANY. JDH comments on Gray's criticism of his ideas on physiology, comparing them to a firework, and to his own less ordered style of critique. Declares that he will not take account of a 'vital force' until anyone else does. Compares American & British terminology i.e. in the United States physiology is synonymous with biology. Discusses nomenclature & the use of the English 'anth' in names such as Ranunculanths, compared to using the suffixes: 'ads' or 'worts' in place of aceae. This was started by [John Stevens] Henslow & despite misgivings JDH has advised [George] Bentham to retain them as they are now effectively sanctioned by the government; being used in the National Schools. He asks Gray not to deter Bentham from using the system as it is the current vogue & it is hard enough to get government to publish such books for the amateur, & this class of people cares a great deal about terminology. JDH thinks [John] Lindley is correct to refer Podostemons to near Lentibulariaceae though he previously thought their place was with Scrophulariaceae.
No summary available.