Melbourne botanic Garden,
25/10/64.
Dear Sir.
Soon after the departure of the last mail Miss Hodgson kindly brought me the box with the root of Papyrus antiquorum, intended by you considerately for this garden[.]1 Notwithstanding all the care that excellent Lady bestowed on the consignment, it was impossible that the roots could have reached me in vitality. Packed as they were in a retentive wet soil without any drainage, how could they survive a three month voyage? Had your gardener placed these roots in a mixture of sandy soil and moss or into some other material admitting of perculation and had he placed the box slightly raised into a shallow other one (which might have been tarred inside) the plant would doubtless by a sprinkling of water being daily applied to them have reached us here in a growing state. As it is they came absolutely decayed.
Nevertheless I feel indebted for your welmeaning intentions.
Recently a Commission was appointed by Government to report on the timber of indigenous trees for ship building. It was mortifying to me to confess to the Gentlemen, that I had never heard a word of [an]y results of investigations instituted with our timber in England, not even received the jurors report of the Exhibition on either this or any other contribution sent by my Department. Pray let me know, whether really the woods were never in England subjected to any examination; if not it will be incumbent on me to follow up the researches here locally, altho' of course with very much less facilities than are enjoyed at home for such a purpose.
The minister for the Colonies has sent me the Kew-report; in this document, perhaps inad[vertently], my collateral share in the work on Australian plants, involving to me very heavy work & ruinous sacrifices is, I say it with pain, like in the report of last year entirely ignored. I stand thus at an absolutepar with Mr. W. Hill of Brisbane, and I leave it to you whether, even if I waive this as a personal matter, it is just to me in my public position & towards my department.2
I have to thank you for the information you conveyed to me attentively about the two fibrous vegetable products from America.3
The work on the Chatham plants was forwarded to you by last mail.4 The Carices & Unciniae reached me safely with the returned Leguminosae lately.5
Did I not fear to be intrusive I would repeat my often solicited & expressed request, to refil any of my empty Wardian Cases at Kew, even if only with Cork-Oaks, which I know you have readily available for the purpose.
I remain, my dear
Sir, your very obedient
Ferd Mueller.
Dr Jos Hooker,
Assist Director of the
Royal Gardens of
Kew.
Carex
Leguminosae
Papyrus antiquorum
Unciniae
In the 1862 and 1863 Kew Director’s Reports, Bentham alone was named in connection with Flora Australiensis . M was mentioned, along with others, only as contributing herbarium specimens, seeds and growing plants. See W. Hooker (1863), (1864).
M's unhappiness was known to correspondents: Henry Barkly reported that 'I had a very dispirited letter from Dr Mueller by the Mail. He seems to think his vocation is gone as soon as Bentham's Flora is out & to regret having acquiesced in the design!' (H. Barkly to W. Hooker, 3 November 1864; RBG Kew, Directors' correspondence, vol. 60, f. 39).
B64.13.02. Mueller distributed copies widely, many immediately after publication and some much later (Lucas [2010], p. 110).
Recipients varied in their reactions. Gunn did not accept the arguments that M had intended to refute Darwin’s account of speciation (M to R. Gunn, 6 January 1865), while Hance, when responding to the defence of Darwinism in J. Hooker (1869) and struggling to reconcile that position with his hope that 'there is a life beyond this world', wrote that he fancied that 'many scientific, & I presume candid, men feel as I do. Ferd: Mueller sent me a copy of his little book on the Chatham Islands, with the characteristic inscription that it was "opposed to a doctrine antagonistic to Christian faith”.' (H. Hance to J. Hooker, 20 February 1869 (RBG Kew, Directors' correspondence, vol.150, ff. 504-5). The ‘wretched book, by a graduate , which was epitomized in Seemann's Journal, apparently as a masterpiece of anti-Darwinian argument’, mentioned in the next paragraph of Hance’s letter, does not refer to the notice of B64.13.02 in vol. 3, p. 9.
Please cite as “FVM-64-10-25a,” in Correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller, edited by R.W. Home, Thomas A. Darragh, A.M. Lucas, Sara Maroske, D.M. Sinkora†, J.H. Voigt† and Monika Wells accessed on 26 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/64-10-25a