178 



Appendix III. 



Appendix 

 ill. 



facing each other, and put together in so untidy a 

 manner tJiat tlie safety of the specimens was seriouely 

 endangered -when replacing them in the cabinet. I 

 examined the specimens after his next visit and found 

 the complaint justified. I thereupoji instructed my 

 assistants that while continuing to Mr. Holmes full 

 access to the herbarium, the specimens he wished to see 

 must be given to him, and, when he was done with 

 them, restored to their place by an officer of the de- 

 oartment. This step was taken solely for the proper 

 preservation of the collections entrusted to my charge. 



Mr. Holmes says (Q. 411), " Some years ago a gentle- 

 man had occasion to make enquiry, and he found a col- 

 lection there that had been lost sight of, a very inter- 

 esting collection indeed." (Q. 451) "It was looked at 

 by a friend of mine, and I am afraid I cannot tell you 

 the name (of the collection) offhand." And when asked 

 to ascertain it and put it in his evidence he said (Q. 452), 

 "I will ; it was my friend Mr. Batters who saw it.'" In 

 the supplementary observations under (Q. 451) Mr. 

 Holmes says, '' The collection consisted of Hudson's 

 plants in Forster's collection ; Forster appears to have 

 purchased Hudson's plants. Hudson's house was burnt, 

 and the specimen sheets show traces of fire." 



May I, in the first 73! ace, point out that iji regard to 

 the serious charge (Q. 411) made by Mr. Holmes, it 

 was not till he was questioned by Lord_Avebury (Q. 451, 

 452) that he was compelled to admit that his statement 

 was second-hand, and that he did not even know what 

 collection he was referring to. In the supplementary 

 observations prepared at his leisure some days after- 

 wards he gives, under Q. 451, an incorrect account of 

 the collection, as will be apparent from the following 

 nai-rative. 



Twenty-four yeairs ago I purchased for the Museum the 

 cryptogamic collections of James IDickson (a famous 

 oryptogamic botanist, and one of the founders of the 

 Linnean Society) from his daughter, Mrs. Hickey. There 

 were included in tiie piu-cliase some twenity Algse or 

 thereabout, named in writing which I did not recognise, 

 but without localities, thou^ obviously British. These 

 specimens were done tip in a sheet of writing paper, on 

 the outside of which was written "Hudson," or "Mr. 

 Hudson." If they had been named by William Hud- 

 son, author of the "Flora Anglica, they would be im- 

 portant, as he was the first to introduce the Linnsean 

 binominal nomenclature to Britain. In the hope that 

 the writing might be identified the small parcel was 

 pilaced in a herbaniram cabinet at the emd of the Algse. 

 As spefeimens these Algse were wortthiess, their value 

 entirely depended on their connection with William 

 Hudson. Some time after this it anneared to me 

 desirable, on account of the many additions to the 

 algal flora of Britain since Harvey's time, to have a 

 catalogue of the British Algre prepared for publication 

 by the Trustees of the British Museum. I had a con- 

 versation with Mr. E. A. L. Batters, F.L.S.. whose ex- 

 tensive and critical knowledge of the British Algse 

 pointed him out to me as the most suitable person to 

 undertake such a work. He agreed to entertain my pro- 

 posal and began the critical examination of the ma- 

 terials in the ^Museum for this purpose. Among other 

 specimens I showed him the carefully preserved parcel 

 with the name of Hudson inscribed on it, and pointed 

 out what might be its value. Mr. Batters has a thorough 

 appreciation of the great value of such old historical 

 specimens, and after going into the evidence we con- 

 cluded that the ivriting was AVilliam Hudson's, and 

 after being labelled they found their places in the her- 

 barium. 



After Mr. Holmes heard that Mr. Batters was under- 

 taking the preparation of a catalogue of British Algse he 

 came to the Museum and complained to me because I 

 had negotiated with INIr. Batters without taking him 

 into consideration. He urged some preposterous reasons 

 why I ought to have taken this step. It was far from 

 agreeable to him ' to hear that in my judgment Mr. 

 Batters was the; best man for the work, and he could 

 not conceal his annoyance at what 1 had done. 



There is abundant material for animadversion in tie 

 evidence of Mr. Holmes, but I wfU trouble the Com- 

 mittee with only one other matter. In answer to 

 Q. 485 he says, "I have on one occasion spoken to 

 Mr. Carruthers about the matter, and asked him if he 

 would like me to write in pencil what I considered the 

 proper names to be, and he said ' f es,' but subsequently 

 the collection came under other^ands, and I found 

 there was an objection to my doing so." The liberty to 

 write on the sheets was withdrawn by myself a con- 

 siderable time before I left the Museum, because I found 



•that Mr. Holmes in his " off-hand " way had written 

 names which were not correct, and so instead of help- 

 ing to clear up confusion he was adding to any confu- 

 sion that may have existed. 



(Signed) William CAEutrxHEES. 



Norwood, 21st December, 1900. 



No. 8. 



Statement received from Mr. 



1901. 



Murray, lat January, 



Having seen the evidence given by Mr. Holmes and 

 the replies to it by Mr. Oairuthers, I desire to add two 

 statements. 



In his answer to Q. 407 Mr. Holmes says : — " I went 

 there " (British Museum) " the other day to find out a 

 plant I gathered near Guildford, but they could mot 

 recognise it at the British Museum. It was a Sinapi^." 

 Mr. E. G. Baker informs me that the specimen was 

 not in fruit, and it is unnecessary to remind boitanists 

 of the impossibiiity of determining a Sinapis in such 

 a state. That it was subsequently maitdhed (not de- 

 termined) at Kew was fortunate, ^ut the incident calls 

 for no further explanabioin or C0'inm.ent. 



In his answers to Q. 485-492 Mr. Holmes refers to 

 the condition of the Ddokie collection of Ailgse. It 

 would be absurd to suppose that anyone's collection of 

 plants contained no wrong deteirtminations, and no 

 doubt there were, and still are, such in the Dickie col- 

 lection. Mr. Holmes ait one time freely wrote what 

 he believed to be corrections of the naimes given by Pro- 

 fessor Dickie and others, but I, and other workers bo 

 frequently found his supposed corrections to be tihem- 

 selves wrong that I requested him to stop a practice 

 to which we invite all competent botoanis'ts. We take, 

 60 far as we can, every determination on its merits, 

 and it appears to have surprised Mr. Holmes tihiat we 

 have frequently preferred Professor Dickie's authority 

 to his own. 



(Sagned) Geoege Mtjeeat, 



December 28th, 1900. 



No. 9. 



Additional information furnished by Mr. Murray,, 

 1st January, 1901. 



Herbarium, British Museum : 

 Approximate number of .sheets : 



Phanerogams 592,000 



Cryptogams - - 88,000 



Approximate Total - - 680,000 



Number of cabinets in the British and General 

 Herbaria, including cryptogams, each cabinet 

 having eight trays 1,560 



1,560 cabinets x 8 - trays 12,480 



The number of cabinets moved from Bloomsbury was 

 509 ; ascertained from the old pattern in use unltdl the 



removal. 



A specimen means everything belonging to one liabel, 

 in every case — ^whether it be one or two plants — or in 

 the ease of diatoms, e.g., one or two millions or more. 



No. 10. 



Copy of a letter addressed by Mr. William Carruthers,, 

 F.R.S., to the Secretary, Botajiital Work Oom- 

 naittee. 



14, Vermont Road, NorwOKxi, 



3rd January, 1901. 

 Dear Mr. Jackson, — I asked, by letter, Mr. Batters 

 if he would be so good as send me a statement al to 

 whait he 'Said to Mr. Holmes albout the Hudteon A!lg«, 

 which he found in the Museum. He has sent me the 

 enclosed statement. 



