PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS—SECTION D. 99 
could not be called useful, and had no’ recognised commercial 
value outside the colony. Sir Joseph Banks was the adviser 
of the Government in all matters relating to Australia. From 
the documentary evidence furnished by the “ Historical Records” 
it is evident not only that Sir Joseph was responsible for the 
appointment of Archibald Menzies, the naturalist of the ex- 
pedition under Captain Vancouver who discovered King 
George’s Sound in 1791; and also of the scientific staff, includ- 
ing Robert Brown and Ferd. Bauer, of the expedition of 
Flinders; but it is also quite evident from the start that in 
both cases botany was to be the first consideration, and that 
zoology was to be relegated to an altogether subordinate and un- 
important position, even compared with mineralogy. It may 
have been, perhaps, that Sir Joseph Banks felt some delicacy 
in proposing that money should be spent in collecting animals 
which, strictly speaking, could not be called useful. Sir Joseph 
sent out George Caley in 1799, and maintained him in the 
position of collector for about ten years. Allan Cunningham, 
too, came out to Australia to collect under instructions from 
Sir Joseph. But though Robert Brown, George Caley, and 
Allan Cunningham were responsible for their botanical collec- 
tions, every one of them finally disposed of any zoological speci- 
mens he may have collected as he chose. Lastly, the dis- 
appointing attempts of Drs. Latham and Shaw must have been 
quite sufficient to damp the ardour even of Sir Joseph, and 
lead to his concentrating his energy on the flora. 
It is true that a great deal is known about the Australian 
fauna. It is not less true that the same amount of energy ex- 
pended in a more judicious manner might have yielded a much 
richer harvest than we to-day possess. The investigation of the 
fauna is a very much more stupendous undertaking than that 
-of the flora. There was all the more need, therefore, for organi- 
sation and co-operation in faunistic work. The question of 
statistics, however, may be left out of account. The botanists 
not less than the zoologists' were quite in the dark at the 
beginning as to what they were undertaking. The difference 
to-day is not that the botanists have finished, while the 
zoologists have made a proportional advance in a _ bigger 
enterprise. Unfortunately, the zoological advance is far from 
proportionate. During the first half-century of colonisation the 
advance of the botanists was prodigious, but sure. Splendid 
collections, personal knowledge, the work kept in few but 
effective hands, the subject studied in its larger aspects—these 
were some of the elements of success. But when we turn to the 
fauna it is not too much to say that on the whole the zoologists 
were half a century late in beginning really effective work. 
In the absence of large and representative collections in too 
many cases they concerned themselves with specimens merely, 
G2 
