40 
SIR JOSEPH RANKS. 
!Mr. Maiden does not seem to have realised that, as 1 have explained in the 
introtlnction to the work (reproduced in this Journal for 190o, pp. 284-290) the 
preparation of the plates was a private undertaking on the jiart of Banks, who 
spent u|)on them large sums of money. “ British science ” officially was in no 
way responsible for the delay during Banks’ lifetime, and when the plates became 
the ])roperty of the British Museum, no condition as to jiublication was attached 
to their acquisition. The jilates only came into the possession of the British Museum 
in 1820, so that the jieriod named by Mr. Maiden must be reduced by at least 
fifty years. Mr. Carruthers, during his keepershi]) of the Department of Botany, 
more than once urged upon the trustees the desirabihty of publishing the ])lates, 
but financial considerations prevented the undertaking until 190((. And, although 
I am ])robably the last person to de])reciate the value of a work in which I have 
taken the greatest interest, it seems to me that on many grounds it may be doubted 
whether the actual scientific value of the book, apart from its historical interest, 
is equivalent to the expense necessary to its production; and this reason has so 
far weighed with the trustees that the remainder of the plates of the ]>lants of 
Cook’s Voyage will not be proceeded with. 
.Mr. Maiden emls his notice with the following paragraph : — 
“ In conclusion, the publication of these fine folio volumes simply whets the 
appetites of Australians for more. We yearn for the publication of Solander’s 
and Brown’s manuscripts, anti trust that they will not be kept back from any 
considerations of nomenclature of species. Such a reason, if ailvanced. seems to us 
inadequate in the case of jiriceless historical documents of the deepest interest to 
Australians. We would have liked our fathers to have had the privilege of seeing 
them ; shall the ])rivilege be denied to the living and only be bestowed on a genera- 
tion yet to be born? W’ith all respect to the eminent specialists forming the 
scientific staff of the British Museum, we feel sure that these manuscripts must 
contain observations which can only be fully interpreted and appreciated by 
Australians.” 
It would seem that our Australian friends have an exaggerated estimate of the 
MSS. in the possession of the iluseum, both as to their value and extent ; the note 
as to Solander’s sup))osed Journal (see Jourti. Hot. 190G, p. 71) illustrates what 
I mean. So far as Solander’s MSS. are concerned, they consist solely of descriptions 
of ])lants in terms, as shown by those already ])ublished — the greater number — 
largely obsolete, and it is difficult to see who would benefit by their publication. 
It is a straining of language to call these technical descriptions “ priceless liistorical 
documents,” and I am at a loss to understand what Mr. Maiden means by the 
suggestion that “ any considerations of nomenclatiire of species ” could be 
“ advanced” as a reason for “ kee))ing them back.” With regard to Robert 
Brown’s .MSS. again, it seems doubtful whether at the present time there would be 
adequate gain in publishing descriptions a hundred years old of ])lants most if not 
all of which must be familiar to botanists. It would certainly be undesirable to 
])rint the large number of unpublished names which occur in both Solander’s and 
Brown’s MSS., and I am sorry to see that Mr. Maiden defends the jii'actice.* When 
distributing Brown’s herbarium we were most careful not to send out any unpub- 
lished names, and the same plan was adopted with the set of Banks and Solander 
])lant.s sent to Sydney. 
I am the more surprised that .Mr. Maiden should refer again to the supposed 
“ kee))ing back” of the Brown MSS., becau.se in this Journal for 190.3 ()>. 252) 
I dealt with the similar complaiiit contained in his “ Revision of Eucalyptus ” (Part 
I, j). 20), where he assumes the “ suppression of these descriptions,” and expresses- 
a doubt “ whether this siqqwession eventually met with the acquiescence of Robert 
Brown himself or whether he was controlled in this respect by su])erior authority.” 
I am unable even to guess at what Mr. Maiden intends to suggest by his refereiices 
• Proc. Linn. Soc., N. .S. iratcs, xxvii, 700. 
