I 12 
SIR JOSEPH BANKS. 
Brown to J. E. Smith.* (Undated, but written in 1810 .) 
I beg you will accept of my best thanks for your kind attention to my quaeres 
on Proteaceae, &c., and for the inspection of specimens of your Conchium com- 
pressum.f and sphceroideum,% which I received with jmur last letter .... 
The Society^ has hitherto been at no loss for matter to read at their meetings, 
and for this they are partly indebted to 1113" long-winded paj^er on Proteaceae. 
In mentioning to you this paper, Mr. McLeay has righth- informed you that I 
have retained the name Hakea, but I am sorr\- he thought it necessary to add 
that he “ was sure this was not done from any want of respect for 3’ou.” My 
conscience indeed very fuU3' acquits me of being actuated b}- a motive which I 
trust appears to 3'ou as improbable as it does to me unworthy. 
In 1113’ paper I have assigned no reason for retaining the name of Hakea* * § for though 
I could not acquiesce in your determination on the subject, I feel it would be 
unbecoming in me to have expressl3’ combated anything 3’ou had so recentlv 
said in the Linnean Transactions. But as I am most anxious to avoid the possibilit3'' 
of a misunderstanding, I must here trouble 3'ou with the detail of ever3" circum- 
stance that has influenced me in this matter. 
Were the insignificance of generic names the onlv or even principal consideration 
in such cases. I surel3' could not have hesitated in adopting 3"ours which is admirably 
expressive of the form of the fruit. 
But as Schrader has a no less decided claim of jiriority and as I wa; unacquainted 
with any botanical exception to it (for your j^aper onh' hints at the possibility of 
there being any such) I was guided by the rule generall3' followed bv Botanists 
and expressl3' inculcated b3' Linnaeus himself. If, therefore. I have err’d it has 
arisen from my giving implied credit to the assertions of Schr ider (see dedication 
and preface to Sec. France), whose veracit3% however, I had no reason to doubt; 
but the moment I am convinced that Hake, either as a Botanist or an enlightened 
promoter of the science, has no claim to the distinction, I will most gladly 
relinquish a name for 3murs, which has not only the advantage of being descrip- 
tive, but, in 1113' mind, has been long associated with the plants themselves. 
Cavanilles, as you know, adoj)ted Hakea at a time when he was acquainted 
with 3'our name, and he has so explicitly assigned his reasons, that unless on the 
score of Hake’s unworthiness** I confess I do not understand how he could have 
changed it in au3' future publication ; as in 3'our paper 3'ou have not mentioned 
Labillardiere, I conclude his work was not before 3mu when 3’ou were engaged 
in it, for he also has adopted Hakea and described three very distinct species. I 
do not rest much u])on Persoon who in his S3’nopsis likewise uses it, but I am 
acquainted with no foreigner except Ventenat who has adopted Concilium, and 
this I must observe he has done without assigning an3’ reason, though he had 
previously, in mentioning the genus, always used it, and at the time of his publica- 
tion knew that no less than seven snecies had been describetl under that name. 
♦ Sir J. E. Smith, M.D., the purchaser of the Linnean Herbarium and founder of the Linnean 
Society. He described many Australian plants, 
t Hakea acicularis, K. Br. 
i Hakea gibbosa, Cav. Conchium had recently been described by Smith in Trans. Linn. Soc., 
§ The Linnean Society. Writing to Smith under date 12th January. 1806. Brown says — “ Since 
I received your letter I have undertaken the office of librarian, &c„ of the Linnean Society, a situa- 
tion which in some respects is more suitable to my inclinations than abilities.” 
II “ On the Proteaceae of Jussieu," Trans. Linn. Soc., x, 15. Read, 17th Januarv, 1809. Published 
1810. 
Brown’s adoption of Schrader’s generic name Hakea in preference to Smith’s later name 
Conchium has been followed by modern botanists. Smith’s paper is ” A Botanical sketch of the 
genus Conchium." {Trans. Linn. Soc., ix, 117). 
•• This scarcely seems a ground for interference with ttie law of priority, which is far too stable 
for change to be warranted for such a reason. 
