fill! JOtiEVU BASKfi. 
' '4 
It is a pity, therefore, tliat this curious matter slid, be kept back so long, and I 
shall be sufficiently obliged to Mr. Dryander if (in whatever way he may publish 
it now) he would still allow me to append it to my book hereafter. I have indeed 
got the Proteace®,* * * § but, shall not keej) it — I mean hereafter not to notice at all, 
or very slightly, that or any other of the author’s jiroductions. He is now taken 
oil my hands by the enemies he makes on all sides, and is a striking proof how 
much bad principles and feelings not only jirevent. but absolutely sink, good 
natural talents. I am ha|)py to say my resentment has become extinct much 
faster than my friendshij) did. When I take the trouble of looking after him 
even in his own pedantry of natural affinities, he really proves often very weak. 
In the higher line of seizing and defining characters, and in clear elucidation he 
is truly paltry, and scarcely beyond Gawler,t whom he so much resembles in 
many odd aberrations of affinity, if you will allow the expression. But enough 
of this par ignobile. 
I rejoice to hear your ProdromusJ is really printing, which is more than I hoped 
as yet. I am also hap|)y to hear McLeay’s§ accident is not so serious as I at 
first suppo.'-ed. He is in all respects a most valuable man. 
With best compliments to Sir Joseph Banks, Dryander, and all friends, 
(Signed) J. E. Smith. 
• A reference to the reputed work of Joseph Kniglit, nurseryman, King’s Road, Chelsea, — 
“ On the cultivation of the plants belonging to the Natural Order Proteaceae, with their generic 
as well as specific characters and places, when they grow wild.” London, typ. Savage, 1809. 4to. 
.\ix, 128 pp. 1 tab. col. 
We have no evidence that Knight had the slightest claim to be considered a botanist, and there 
can be little doubt that the whole of the botanical portion of his work was written by Salisbury. 
(Journ. Sot., xxiv, 297.) 
In regard to the bitter feeling that was engendered by Knight’s work, in the " Banksian Corres- 
pondence ” are copies of letters which passed between Smith and Salisbury, which were sent 
by Smith to Banks, as well as the correspondence between Smith and Banks on the subject, an 
abstract of which may at some time be worth publishing. {Ib., p. 297.) 
Robert Brown read a paper before the Linnean Society on January' 17th, 1809, “ On the 
Proteaceae of Jussieu.” which was not published until 1811. Meanwhile, during 1809, Knight’s 
book was issued, containing descriptions of many of the plants taken up by Brown in his paper, 
i 1 the preface to which we read : — ” Perhaps few works have greater claims to originality than the 
present, not a single line being copied from any other.” There is no reference in the book to 
Brown’s paper, at the reading of which Salisbury was present. (” Salisbury ejusdem coram 
Societate Liimeana lectionem audivit.” Brown, ” Prodromus,” 376.) 
It may be that the sentence just quoted was written as a defence against the charge he had 
good reason to expect. At any rate, the charge was soon made. “ How shocked was I,” writes 
Goodenough to Smith. December 26th, 1809, ” to see Salisbury’s surreptitious anticipation of 
Brown’s paper on the New Holland plants, under the name and disguise of Mr. Hibbert’s gardener. 
Oh 1 it is too bad. I think Salisbury is got just where Catiline was when Cicero attacked him. 
viz., to that point of shameful doing when no good man could be found to defend him. I would 
not speak to him at the aniiiversary of the Roy'al Societv.” (“ Memoir of .Sir .1. E. Smith,” i, 
588.) 
Brown speaks lot the book as ” nimis fostinanter conscriptus.” (” Prodromus,” 391). (.lames 
Britten in Journ. Sot., xxiv, 298.) 
I have referred to the matter of the scientific ostracism of Salisbury by reason of his plagiarism, 
in Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.. xxvii, 697 (1902). 
” Robert Brown and Salisbury were too good observers to rest contented with the Linnean 
method of classification, but the former gave himself cliiefly to observation of the minute parts 
of plants, and the discrimination of sundry genera, whilst Salisbury was never fairly represented 
by any productions worthy of his great ability.” (Historical Introduction, p. xxxviii, in ” Guide 
to the Literature of Botany,” by B. D. Jackson, 1880.) This seems a fair tribute to pay to the 
memory of Salisbury, whose great talents were in a measure concealed by infirmity of temperament. 
t Ker, John Sellenden Mini Gawler) (1765-1842?) b. Ramridge, Andover, Hants? 1765?; d 
Ramridge, June, 1842. ” Recensio Plantarum ” (anon.), 1801; see Ann. Bot., i, 17. Edited 
Sot. Jteijistr'r, 1815-24. ” Strelitzia,” 1818. ” Iridearum genera,” 1828. Contrib. to 
Sot. Mtiij. (see pref. to vol. xv), T'-nnr. Linn Soc., x, 166, Pritz.. 162; Jacks., 565; R.S.C., iii, 
639; iv, 279 (the papers attributed to Masson); Gen>. , 1842. ii. 220: Diet. Nat. Biog.. xxxi, 
52; Portr. (as a boy), by Reynolds, engr. bv J. R. Smith. Bellendena, Br. (Britten and Boulger, 
p. 97.) 
t The “Prodromas Nova Hollai.dia“,” 1810. 
§ Alexander Maelcav, Seoretarv of the Linnean Societv, 1798-1825, Colonial Secretary of 
N.'S.W., 1825-36. 
