7/7/77.
A few days ago, dear Dr Hooker, the attached print appeared in the Argus. I feel sure, that by some oversight or inadvertence this communication did not go to me as Gov. Botanist, because I am certain, that you wish my official position here respected, particularly since it is so much impaired. A honored colleague like you will at a moment receive,2 particularly as a professional Gentleman, that if even on occasions like this I am passed, nothing will remain of my position. My other Colleagues in large numbers still continue there3 sendings of seeds & other horticultural concerns to me, as you will see by the enclosed ticket from Dr King,4 who sent as usual seeds by last mail. Even suppose, that the Gardener at the bot Garden had applied for the Prosopis seeds, which I do not think, you would surely allow me as Gov. Botanist to be the channel of any professional information, such as the Subdirectors letter conveys. Excuse me, what might MrDyers feeling be, supposed the case was reversed. As an occasion arises, to plead for your confraternal consideration in reference to the Prosopis, perhaps you will allow me a few special remarks thereon. I do not for a moment compare the value of the Prosopis-pod, irrespective of any poison-principles, to that of the Ceratonia. The Spaniards at their conquest more than 300 years ago took the Ceratonia at once to South America, but I doubt whether they would have set the same value on the Prosopis, which as yet is not cultivated in the countries at the mediterranean Sea. Had the Ceratonia been a native of Peru or Chili, the Conquistadors would have doubtless brought the plant at once home with them. Nevertheless I thought it advisable to accept Prosopis dulcis among the "select plants" of my little work,5 altho I have mentioned P. pubescens merely as a hedge plant. Mr Thomson's idea, that the germinating of the seeds in the stomach of the horses causes their death, is surely based on some erroneous conceptions. Even if after crushing or mastication any germs were developed, which I consider unlikely, they would rather be in a state to serve for assimilation into chyme & chyle. I deem it far more likely, that the enormous quantity of catecho-tannic acid, known to exist in the pericarp of Prosopis, acts as a powerful adstringent on the coat of the stomach, dries up the mucous secretion and gastric use,6 prevents the secretion of bile, may possibly even contract the pylorus, and most likely set up enteritis and peritonitis. I have given my views with freedom, as you may feel induced to investigate this subject further and set at rest, through physicians in Jamaica, whether it is the tannin or perhaps a distinct poison-principle (such as now known in Lathyrus, Laburnum Swainsona, some Lotus, Gastrolobium &c), which causes the mischief.
I am making just now with the aid of a few friends a powerful effort to resuscitate my Department under the new Ministry, and have for this purpose been twice examined in the course of a few days before a parliamentary Committee.7 Your kind issue of the Xanthorrhoeaplate8 is a support to me in my "struggle for existence" and had your communication on the Prosopis gone to me it would have been a professional support in my undeserved trials also.
Regardfully your
Ferd von Mueller.
The Committee is likely to recommend at least that I get office-buildings again, laboratory, Director title and some votes9
Dr Kings sending of seeds by last mail was as usual spontaneous just as in the years of my Directorship.
The direction of this communication to the Garden has caused here in professional circles much surprise.10
Ceratonia
Gastrolobium
Laburnum
Lathyrus
Lotus
Prosopis dulcis
Prosopis pubescens
Swainsona
Xanthorrhoea
The text of the first page of letter is written beside a press-cutting from the Argus, 23 June 1877, p. 5 glued to the LH side of the page, the text of which is as follows:
THE MESQUIT BEAN.
We have been informed by Mr. W. R. Guilfoyle, director [`director' heavily scored through in ink] of the Botanic gardens, that he has received important information respecting the above plant, of which a full description was lately given in this journal [Argus, 30 April 1877, p. 9]. We subjoin copies of the letters sent to Mr. Guilfoyle, from which it will be seen that grave doubts exist as to whether the plant is not, after all, highly detrimental, and even poisonous, instead of being the desirable acquisition previous reports pronounced it. A very large number of persons having been induced by our account to obtain seeds from Mr. Guilfoyle for propagation, the warning given by the high authorities quoted will be worth their attention: -
The text of letters from Thiselton Dyer to Guilfoyle, 4 May 1977, and from Robert Thomson, Cinchona Plantations, Jamacia, to Thiselton Dyer, 6 April 1877, concerning experimental feeding of the pods of Prosopis pubescens to a horse, which died, is then reproduced.
Please cite as “FVM-77-07-07,” 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 27 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/77-07-07