To William Thiselton-Dyer   21 February 1890

21/2/90.¹

Private

Two days ago, dear Mr Dyer,² I wrote to you a private letter hurriedly in reply to your last one,³ touching my present relation to Mr Bailey. Before the subject passes from my memory, I like to make a few additional remarks. There is nothing to hinder Mr Bailey to continue communicating with me, if he likes to do so.

I have made an object of life, to elaborate the flora of Australia. I have set on it and on kindred pursuits all I had, which I could not have done, had I establisheda domestic home. The researches on vascular plants ought in my lifetime to be kept together here; but he not only wishes to create an imperium in imperio,⁴ but seemingly also an institution in opposition, and his tactics are calculated to weaken my establishment and I have nothing else in the whole world.

I am still willing to do anything for him in reason. But there seems to be more than one person jealous of me in Brisbane. I went so far formerly, to allow him to share in authorities for plants,⁵ when he not even had fixed the genus! He over-rates much his knowledge, which will ever remain very defective from many causes. The causa belli on his part seems to be, that I did not recognize all his plants as new, and that I did not insert the last lot in the Census.⁶ I had to omit my own supplemen[t] with many additional species including Monochoria vaginalis.⁷ But I was ovewhelmed with extrawork for the Austral. Assoc,⁸ quite irrespective of writing the adress⁹ and the essay on Sir W. MacGregors plants¹⁰ and I had not any money left to extend the print, being obliged on that ground to leave out even the preface, nor had I time to go into new calculations for the Census after additions, which I should have been obliged to take merely from his prints, to be in time, without vericifacation[.] from subsequently received specimens¹¹ I corrected his "veni ficum" into veneni ficum;¹² I gave him some names as late as November ¹³ of plants which he could not make out even for orders (e.g. Hyptiandra Bidwilli,¹⁴ — for all of this he has not a word of thanks!¹⁵

I sent him also lately a goodish parcel of New Guinea plants, the essay on Sir Will Macgregors plants [&c], which he does not think worth even of acknowledging as received!

As regards the Garden here, I trust, you will bear in remembrance, that £150,000 (Not £50000) have been spent on it since I left, quite irrespective of lately an enormous sum for water supply, and some few years ago large extras for buildings earthworks &c, while I in latest years was almost starved out. The obligations, which I all along had, to distribute vast numbers of trees &c, have since I left devolved on a special institution, the State Nursery of plants at Mt Macedon for which there is an ample vote quite irrespective of the bot. Garden.¹⁶ How far science and industries have benefitted from such lavish expenditure here, you can judge for yourself independently.

I am now trying to push culture into the Australian Alps, the whole as yet unsettled, though comprising an area nearly half as large as Switzerland!¹⁷

Regardfully yours

always

Ferd. von Mueller

Phytography is in my Department a mere byework; rural and industrial obligations take up in a young colony the maintime of a Department like mine.

Do not think me small-minded; but I must protect the interests of a public Department, and have thus explained this at length, as the question was raised by yourself, and as you evidently were under wrong impressions. I do not wish, to enter further on any explanations of this subject; so kindly allow the matter to drop now.

He ventured, what I could have done long ago, to decribe a Bambusacea without flowers or fruit.¹⁸ Such plants I do not feel justified to record.¹⁹

Bambusacea

Hyptiandra Bidwilli

Monochoria vaginalis