92 
SIR JOSEPH BANKS 
He treated his master, the great Linnaeus, very badly, “ He assured 
me he would write to you and all his family,” writes Ellis to Linnaeus 
on the eve of Solander’s departure on Cook’s Voyage. Evidently by 
that time his neglect to write home had become a settled habit. 
AVhen the expedition returned, Ellis again wrote to Linnaeus, “ I 
hope Dr. Solander will write to you soon himself; I shall beg of him 
not to defer it.” 
The letter of Linnaeus to Ellis, 22nd October, 1771, is pathetic. 
He evidently found it was useless to write to Solander direct, as he 
would probably not get an answer, so he writes to an intermediary. 
Indeed in this letter he states, “ I have no answer from him to the 
letter I enclosed to you, which I cannot but wonder at.” He refers 
to his ingratitude, “ You yourself know how much I have esteemed 
him, and how strongly I recommended him to you.” 
His appeal would have melted most hearts, but it was made in vain 
to Solander. Linnaeus was quite right; Solander would make no 
response. 
Ellis to Linmeus, 19th November, 1771, says, “ I shall do what I 
can to persuade him to print the botanical account before he goes 
(on Cook’s Second Voyage), as it is all ready.” He did not go on 
Cook’s Second Voyage, but the “ account ” was never printed till 
1900, when the “ Illustrations,” edited by Mr. Britten {see p. .37), 
appeared. 
Linnaeus continues to plead • with Ellis, and in the letter of 20th 
December, 1771, he states what Solander owes to him. I do not see 
how Solander’s conduct towards his great master can be designated 
other than by an ugly name. 
Dr. Garden was solicitous about the delay in presenting to the 
world the scientific results of the voyage of the “ Endeavour,” and we 
know, from other sources, that the whole of the scientific world shared 
this anxiety. 
When Solander died letters from his mother were found unopened 
in his room. 
As regards the botanical results of the voyage of the “ Endeavour,” 
to Solander was allotted the descriptive part of the work, while Banks 
superintended the engraving of the plates. 
Solander’s failure to complete his portion of the work* is attributed by Smith 
to the interruption caused by other avocations, the dissipation of London society, 
to which so agreeable a companion was always acceptable, and the indolence 
induced by a sedentary and luxurious life.t 
• Following is praise of Solander by a man who was very sparing of praise; — " For the figure 
here given I am also indebted to the liberality of the illustrious President of the Royal Society, 
who has enabied me to complete the account of this remarkable plant, by permitting me to copy 
Ur. Solander's description, which I was the more desirous to give, as it exhibits a specimen of 
the accuracy with which subjects of natural history were investigated in that celebrated voyage ; 
of whose important results it is to be lamented so Uttle is known to foreign naturalists, though 
in this country they have ever been open to the public, and in the most advantageous manner." 
R. Brown’s Coll. Works (Ray Soc.), p. 163. 
t Corresp. : Linnaeus, ii, 2. 
