To Alfred Deakin1    21 August 1886

Melbourne, 21st August 1886

Sir

Observing in the Argus of this day a letter in reference to the second part of the "Key to the system of Victorian plants",2 I deem it but right to offer some explanatory remarks on the supposed shortcomings of this work, as it is a Government's publication.3

In first instance I would observe, that the providing of woodcuts of an elaborate kind involves under any circumstances very considerable expenditure, even in European countries; Dr. Baillon thus4 in a letter to myself by last mail5 refers to the costliness of the woodcuts of his "Dictionnaire de botanique", now under progress in Paris.6 In adopting xylographic illustrations therefore, it is always an object, to re-use the woodblocks, so as to render the illustrations comparatively cheap in the end; consequently 57 blocks, which were prepared formerly for the little elementary school-book "Introduction to Botanic Teaching",7 were employed again for the present "Key"; but as the number of plates for the latter amounts to 210, (two in many instances being devoted to one plant,) the majority had to be prepared additionally for this Key. In a large number of cases the drawings were taken from the quarto-works "Plants of Victoria",8 because the choice then made for thus illustrating orders and genera rather than any particular species, has been considered by fair critics a good one, and saved the cost of preparing9 new original drawings ample analytic dissections always being given.10 Thus an alpine Buttercup (Ranunculus) illustrates the genus and order, to which it belongs, as well as any lowland-species; and I would further add, as particular objection was taken to this plate, that the several kinds of "Buttercup", occurring in the lowlands, are mostly very different in appearance from each other, one being a submerged floating aquatic; besides all our common Ranunculi have been previously illustrated in other works elsewhere.11 It was out of the question, to figure any large share of common plants, as the number of Victorian species is altogether 1852, leaving even12 Mosses, Lichens, Fungi and Algae out of account. Moreover of a good many orders, which are illustrated, only one or two species occur in Victoria, hence there was not much or no choice. Among the illustrations will be found many species of plants, to be found in or almost in the vicinity of Melbourne: thus among such the Sundew, Pelargonium, Sneezeweed, Misletoe,13 Milkwort, Sheoak, various coast Saltbushes, Pigface, Raspberry, two Gumtrees, Honeysuckle, Cypress-pine Statice, Waterlily, Gungang and some other aquatics14 a few Rushes and numerous Ferns, while very many others represent genera occurring in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. If my name through early discoveries under endless dangers and difficulties became largely connected with the Victorian Flora, then the same can be said of R. Brown, and for Europe, and even here of Linnaeus without need of evoking disparing15 remarks, particularly from any one in Victoria16 In bringing out illustrations for any kinds of botanic works, it is always desirable, to strive at originality, and not to choose plants for delineation, which have been illustrated before17 elsewhere. I freely admit that, some oversights have occurred in the part of the Key already issued; thus the quotations of the respective numbers of the last woodcuts were omitted, and a few plants were accidentally left out altogether in the list; this will be remedied in the part of the Key now under preparation, when also the additional species will be inserted, which may yet be discovered this season as new for Victoria, particularly in remoter regions. The larger work "Native Plants of Victoria", of which a portion appeared some time ago early to be continued,18 and to which "Student" alludes, is in its scope and elaboration very similar to Sir Joseph Hooker's excellent19 "Students Flora of the British Islands",20 except that ours is illustrated, and that far less of strictly botanical terms are used, and that synonymy is omitted;21 — whereas the little unpretensive work "Botanic Teaching" follows somewhat the lines of the admirable elementary publication, issued in Britain by the Revd. Professor Henslow for the very beginners.22 Furthermore it seems an ample allowance, when it is shown,23 that about half the species, illustrated in the Key, occur in the southern region, to which Melbourne belongs, especially as a book of this kind is expected to serve all parts of the colony, each division having allotted to it a fair share while what is common at Melbourne is not always frequent elsewhere.24 The whole however is tentative, and was not urged for the state-schools, but more particularly for the Field Naturalists Club, and somewhat25 against my own opinion as to the plan, — the dichotomous method, — adopted by the late meritorious Revd Mr. Spicer for the flora of Tasmania,26 mainly from works of Hooker, Bentham and my own. Nor is Spicer's book specially written or intended for school-children. Moreover the dichotomous method is not readily applicable to the natural system nor to large areas, therefore hardly now anywhere27 in use in any European country, and at best it is only a key to larger works, for which also, — so far as Victoria is concerned, — ample provision has been made long ago by the Flora Australiensis28 and other extensive publications.

I have the honor to be

Sir

Your most obedient servant

Ferd. von Mueller,

Govt. Botanist.29

 

The Honorable Alfred Deakin, MLA,

Chief Secretary

 

Pelargonium

Ranunculus

Statice

 
The letter is numbered F86/8274 within this file. MS written by G. Luehmann and annotated and signed by M. Some of these annotations are indicated, but changes to the sense of a sentence have not been noted. The file also contains a typewritten copy of this letter. M's letter was published in the Argus (Melbourne) on 28 August 1886 (B86.08.04).
On 15 August 1886 'Student' wrote to the Editor of the Argus that after seeing Part 2 of the Key: 'the Government may as well save further expense for all the use the book will be in our state schools'. 'Student' criticized the illustrations for having been used before and for not being of common plants. 'I do not deny that the illustrations are of value to the advanced botanist, but that is not what was wanted. It was desired, I believe, to have a text book in the simplest possible form that the Baron would condescend to write it, and illustrated by representations which any of the elder children in our state schools would recognise at a glance ... It is a sad disappointment to some who had looked forward to having a thoroughly practical key, but after reading the Baron's Botanic Teachings [B77.13.07] and School Botany [?B79.13.08] neither of which works has, I believe, been a success as a generally useful educational work, it was, perhaps, too much to hope for better things for the key. ... It is a remarkable fact that, out of the 152 illustrations, no less than 67 represent plants which the Baron was the first to describe, so that the well-known initials "F.v.M." become a weariness to the eye. The Baron seems to be so much in love with those plants, of which he is, so to speak, the godfather that he had selected them, rather than plants which we may all find easily, as illustrations for a text-book for botanical beginners.' (Argus, 21 August 1886, p. 5).
See also M to T. Wilson, 21 August 1886 (in this edition as 86-08-21a), in which M seeks permission to send his reply to the Argus for publication.
for instance deleted by M and replaced with thus.
Letter not found.
Baillon (1876-92).
B77.13.07.
Presumably B62.03.03 and B63.13.06.
the cost of preparing added by M.
ample … given. added by M.
elsewhere added by M.
even added by M.
Mistletoe?
and some other aquatics added by M.
disparaging?
If my … Victoria added by M.
in Britain or deleted by M afterbefore.
B79.13.08. early to be continued added by M. No further part of this work was published.
excellent added by M.
J. Hooker (1878a).
and that synonomy is omitted added by M.
Henslow (1880).
when it is shown added by M.
while … elsewhere. added by M.
somewhat added by M.
Spicer (1879).
now anywhere added by M.
Bentham (1863-78).

'Student' replied to M's letter on 7 September: 'The baron's defence of the illustrations in "Part 2" is based on two grounds, namely, expense, and the somewhat strange ground that it was not desirable to illustrate the book with examples which have been already figured in other books. When I look at almost any text book of botany, I find the plants figured are almost invariably those which are the most easy to be obtained.' 'Student' drew attention to Lindley's School botany[Lindley (1862)], Balfour's Manual [Balfour (1875)] and Brown's Manual [Brown, Robert (1874)] as examples. 'Instead of selecting for the woodcuts — (Why will the baron insist upon calling them "Xylographs"?) — plants which every child could find on its walk to school in the country, the illustrations, as a rule, represent the rarest specimens of our flora. ... Part 2 in its present form will be almost useless in the field to a beginner, as he will so rarely find figured the plant which he is striving to identify. As a supplemental volume, to be kept on the shelf for occasional reference, Part 2 will no doubt be of service, but beyond this I am too ignorant to perceive its merits. I see clearly that it will be necessary for some practical man to publish a useful series of illustrations after Part 1 makes its appearance. ... I believe that photography might be used in the illustrations, and that the cost might be thereby lessened. ... "Part 2." principally paste and scissors, bears too evident marks of hurried work. The baron speaks of some omissions. I could point out four myself.' (Argus, 10 September 1886).

On 11 September P. Dattari, as a member of the Field Naturalists' Club of Victoria, wrote a reply to 'Student'. Referring to 'Student's' first letter, Dattari suggested that the keys in Spicer's Handbook of the Plants of Tasmania were misleading and contradictory. 'Moreover, the Tasmanian key is not of any use to beginners, but only for advanced botanists, who, knowing the peculiar character of the orders and genera, may perhaps by that artificial method discover the name of the plant. In reference to the woodcuts, I think the Baron quite justified in illustrating some of the plants not to be found near Melbourne, as the key is intended for the use of the whole colony of Victoria, and not for a portion thereof' (Argus, 13 September 1886).

'Student' answered Dattari's letter on 14 September by rising to the defence of Spicer's book. He took a copy into the Argus office and spoke to a sub-editor: 'On entering his room I saw, to my delight, a pot of fuchsia in flower on his mantelpiece, and I asked him if he would like to be made a botanist in five minutes. He very courteously fell in with my views, and, making him use Spicer's book himself, he traced his fuchsia to the order, Onagreæ, to which it belonged.' 'Student' held to the view that M's choice of woodcuts was poor, asserting that Dattari has misunderstood the criticisms made. 'Mr. Dattari has just as much right to express his opinion as I have to express mine, and I must leave it to the Chief Secretary and the intelligent public to decide which opinion is entitled to the greater weight. ... I am not without a gleam of hope that the baron himself may be convinced, by the plain arguments which you have allowed me to make public, to cancel Part 2 and re-cast it upon less scientific but more commonsense grounds.' (Argus, 21 September 1886).

On 21 September Deakin requested that the Minister of Education be asked 'if he would wish to utilise a simple handbook of Botany such as is here proposed by "Student"', and that the cost of preparing the plates required be ascertained. Deakin was informed that the cost of the woodcuts would be from £1 to £2 each. It was also suggested that M be asked for a copy of Spicer's handbook for inspection; see M to T. Wilson, 29 September 1886.

Please cite as “FVM-86-08-21,” 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 28 March 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/86-08-21