To William Thiselton-Dyer   2 April 1893

Easter 18931

 

Private 2

 

The byefollowing speaks for itself, dear Dr Dyer, and it is from a Gentleman, whom I have never given any offence, unless it be that I could not make out, that the Austral. (N.S.W. V. T.)3 Cystopteris fragilis differed from the one in Europe.4 By last weeks mail I wrote about the extraordinary proposal of the Gov. Bot. of Q.L.,5 to couple his name with Benthams in the Flora Australiensis, an attempt, by which I have been taken perfectly unawares. I wrote to Sir Joseph at length and to you briefly, but the subject affects me so seriously, that I send this as a sort of duplicate-letter.6 It will be for the Bentham-Trustees particularly, whether all the unfair & wrong statements are to remain unchallenged. Mr Bentham, I consider wrote the Flora of Australia as a honory engagement. The subsidy went mainly to Reeve’s firm and value for it was received in copies sent to each of the 4 supporting colonial Governments Q L. £350, N.SW. 350, S.A 350, V. 700. = Total £1750. Why should any one in Queensland make it a total of £12000!7 – of course I am to Mess Bailey, Prentice, Norton, Shirley &c nobody as regards the “Flora”, though I sacrificed even family-happiness for it, and travelled observation lines of over 30000 miles in Australia for it since 1847 on horse or on foot.

The Gov Bot of QL. did only travel in QL (I in all the colonies) I do not think that he has seen more than 1/8 of the QL. territory himself there, notwithstanding railways & coaches since he commenced to work for the Austral Flora on my own instigation, and that was only, when the 6th vol. of the Flora was nearly finished. He must be nearly as old as myself, and I am 67 not 70.

The S.A. Botanists feel all hurt and the subject will on their own impulse be brought before the R. S.8 there. None there were consulted. The feeling in N.S W. is nearly the same, only Mr Turner, who is simply agricultural Botanist there, canvasses for Brisbane. The assertion that Woolls supported this movement I cannot believe to be correct, it must rest on some misconception, likely to be cleared up. I never said, that I would not follow stricto pede the system of Bentham but he did not wish the Flora to be interferred with, as stated in the 7th vol., and only desired an additional synoptic volume of mine.9

Baileys main merits are that of an assiduous Collector of Cryptogams in QL, not of an elucidator of Descriptor. His Bellenden Ker work was entirely brought about by my sending Sayer there, when for years he did nothing in N. QL.10 Real progressive work of [a]ctual and reliable novelty, done by him is very limited, and his descriptions are very superficial as a rule with little critical acumen. His proper duty would be to write, to supersede his meritorious synoptic compilations largely from litterary property of my own, a full Q.L. Flora.

Regardfully always your

Ferd von Mueller11

 

The only genus, ever [established] by him (Cyanocarpus)12 is = Helicia!13

A vast number of Austral. plants not contained in the Brisbane collection even from a single station, among those wanting also many even from QL14

My Herbarium doubles and triples since 1864 the localities recorded in the Flora. My age 67, little more than Bailey’s, and my health good.15

 
 

Cyanocarpus

Cystopteris fragilis

Helicia

1
Easter was on 2 April in 1893. Date stamped:Royal Gardens Kew 8 May [93] [year obscured by folio number].
2
A news-cutting of a letter from Charles Prentice is glued to the front of the first folio and annotated by M ‘Brisbane Courier 27th Mar. 93’ [p. 7]. The beginning of the letter is written around the cutting. Prentice argued that the proposal that Frederick Bailey produce a supplement to Bentham’s Flora Australiensis was not a ‘compliment’ to Bailey, but part of his duties as Queensland Government Botanist, with the bulk of the necessary materials in the Queensland collections. He wrote, incorrectly, that M was ‘now past 70 years of age’.
3
i.e. found in the colonies of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania.
4
Prentice described the fern, collected from the Australian Alps, as Woodsia laetevirensin Bailey (1891), pp. 37-8. See M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 28 November 1890 (in this edition as 90-11-28a).
5
Government Botanist of Qld.
6
M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 21 March 1893; M to J. Hooker, 28 March 1893.
7
See M to C. Prentice, 4 April 1893. See also M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 20 May 1893, and M to O. Tepper, 9 April 1893, for the lack of response from Prentice to the demand that he retract publicly his assertion.
8
Royal Society [of SA].
9
Bentham (1863-78), vol. 7, p. iii. For discussion of M’s failure to publish a supplement, see Lucas (2003); for the dispute between M and Bailey, including extracts from associated Bailey correspondence, see Clements (1998).
10
Sayer’s visit to North Queensland was in 1886 (see M to W. Thiselton-Dyer, 10 January 1887), Bailey’s in 1889 (ADB).
11
Regardfully … Mueller written in the left margin on the back of f. 97.
12
Cyanocarpus (C. nortoniana) was erected in Bailey (1889). p. 55.
13
The only genus … Helicia written in the right margin on the back of f. 97.
14
Vast number … from QL written in the right margin on the back of f. 96.
15
My Herbarium … health good written in the left margin on the front of f. 97.

Please cite as “FVM-93-04-02a,” 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/93-04-02a