FRANCIS HAMILTON (ONCE BUCHANAN), xli 
placed them in the Library of the Com 
pany in Leadenhall Street, but some were 
apparently given to Mr. Fichtel 
» 8 mutual acquaintance of Roxburgh and Buchanan. 
There is no indication that Buchanan made any zoological collection at this time, but 
a very considerable herbarium was formed and many drawings and descriptions were 
prepared. This particular collection was greatly damaged o 
of the parties entrusted with its 
from Madras, to Calcutta. 
wing to the carelessness 
conveyance from the vessel, in which it had come 
Such as it was, however, it was given, along with the 
drawings, to Smith. How, exactly, it happened that the Court of Directors consented 
to its being given to Smith and not to Banks the writer has been unable to discover, 
It was, аз we learn from the preface to the Mysore journal, Buchanan’s intention to 
have published some, if not all, of these drawings in a botanical appendix to the journal. 
The publishers were, however, unable to incur the cost of the plates and only one 
of the drawings, with its corresponding description, was ever published. 
A large herbarium was accumulated during the journey to and residence in Nepal; 
numerous drawings and many descriptions were also made. The whole collection was 
made over to Smith who explains that Buchanan gave him 1,500 specimens with all his 
drawings and all his descriptions? The drawings, according to Britten and Boulger,’ 
were 400 in number. Of this fine collection Smith published only 12 species, with 
Buchanan’s drawings, in Erotic Botany, and some others, without drawings, in Rees’ 
Cyclopedia. A duplicate set of the specimens of this collection, as complete as Buchanan 
could make it, was given to another botanical friend, Lambert. This set was put to 
greater use than Smith put the original set, because it formed, along with Wallich’s 
earlier, or 1819, Nepalese collections, the basis of D. Don’s Prodromus Flore Nepalensis. 
From Buchanan’s letters we gather that he had hoped that Don might be able to 
consult the fuller original set of specimens and the drawings and descriptions he 
had given to Smith, but from Don's preface we learn that in preparing the Prodromus 
he was entirely restricted to the use of the less perfect Lambertian collection. This 
doubtless to some extent explains the fact that, as Buchanan tells us, Don's work 
abounds with errors. The fne original collection given to Smith should still be in 
Smith's herbarium; if not there, the authorities in charge of the Linnean Society’s 
collection should be able to say where it now is. Тһе fate of the duplicate 
collection which formed part of Lambert’s collection is one of the minor tragedies with 
Which the history of botany is replete. Тһе fact of its having formed the basis of 
the Prodromus Flore Nepalensis converted its specimens into types of the species that 
Don had described and thus rendered it priceless. Yet, when the Lambert collection 
was dispersed, and the bulk of Lambert's plants were purchased by Decaisne and 
other botanists in charge ofthe large national collections in Europe, the packages of 
Nepalese plants provoked no competition and bundle after bundle fell to Mr. Pamplin 
for quite trifling sums. Even for Mr. Pamplin the adventure proved unfortunate, for 
there is no record of his ever having been able to resell them, and they appear 
now to be irretrievably lost. At all events the writer, who has been endeavouring for 
! Exotic Botany ii. t. 119, 1805, where Smith published Buchanan’s figure and edited Buchanan's deserip- 
tion of, and his notes regarding Utricularia reticulata. x | 
з Exotic Botany ii, p. 73. The gift of this collection to Smith had consequences, which Buchanan appears 
not to have foreseen. 5 4 
3 Biographical Index of British and Irish Botanists, р. 76.- 
