36 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, VoL VIII, January, 1934 
to his new species based on Forster collec- 
tions from Tahiti, New Zealand, and else- 
where are such that one would infer that Baeck 
was the collector. Examples are Aeschynomene 
coccinea L.f., and Melaleuca villosa L.f., "Equ. 
Back,” Anthoxanthum crinitimi L.f., ”Eques 
Back,” etc., as well as included}. R. and G. 
Forster species credited to Baeck as their 
source although the specimens were collected 
by the Forsters. 
Surely the younger Forster was wisely ad- 
vised in eliminating the footnote above quoted 
when the Berlin issue of his minor work was 
printed. After all, from the liberties he took 
with numerous Solander names, he certainly 
had little justification in criticizing the actions 
of others whose work impinged slightly on 
his own tardily developed field. There are at 
least hints that there were some rather caustic 
letters from Forster to the younger Linnaeus, 
but I have not followed this lead, such data 
being irrelevant now. 
In our day, when sets of duplicates are sold 
by collectors, the situation is different than 
it was in earlier times, because now no reserva- 
tions are made or implied. It is safe to assume 
that the sets of Forster specimens recorded 
by de Candolle as being at Paris and at the 
University of Kiel were actually sold by the 
older Forster, because of his financial straits 
following the London debacle in 1777 caused 
by his breaking of his signed agreement not 
to publish a journal of Cook’s second voyage. 
This restriction was neatly by-passed: the son, 
17 years old when the expedition left England, 
is the indicated author, as nobody thought of 
requiring him to sign an agreement not to 
publish an account of the trip. It seems to be 
clear that the father contributed materially to 
it, or at least guided his son in the prepara- 
tion' of the text. At any rate the younger 
Forster’s account of the voyage was pub- 
lished in both English (London, 1777) and 
German (Berlin, 1778), the former several 
months before Cook’s official journal was 
issued in London in 1777. 
This strange act alienated all the Forsters’ 
friends and supporters in England and nat- 
urally offended the Admiralty. The situation 
became so acute that neither father nor son 
was able to secure remunerative employment 
in that country. Thus they were forced to 
return to Germany, their situation being ame- 
liorated by the elder Forster’s receiving an 
appointment at the University of Halle in 
1780. A brief summary of this nov/ more or 
less forgotten episode appears in the bio- 
graphical sketch of J. R. Forster included in 
volume fifteen of the Rees Cyclopedia (1810). 
In it there is a beautiful example of British 
understatement regarding this episode: . .the 
father was supposed to have had a consider- 
able share in it.” Stansfield in 1933 summar- 
ized the episode thus: "This action of the 
Forsters, which was admittedly sharp practice, 
prevented their obtaining further posts in this 
country, and for a time they both fell on lean 
times” — another example of British under- 
statement. This is no reffection on the ability 
of the individuals concerned, as they were 
both highly educated, able, and productive; 
but today we would say that they were dis- 
tinctly unethical. However, for practical pur- 
poses the action taken by them in London in 
underhandedly breaking the signed agreement 
appertaining to the journal prevented much 
further detailed consideration of results of 
their field work in the Pacific, because at that 
time it was only in London that library facili- 
ties and extensive reference collections were 
available to them. What the younger Forster 
later accomplished on the Pacific collections 
was in no respect noteworthy, and what was 
published came approximately a decade after 
the London debacle. I have not elaborated 
this episode in detail because certain docu- 
ments are not available to me, but William 
Wales (1778) apparently took some part in 
the controversy, to which the younger Forster 
responded (1778). 
I had noted, incidentally, that most of the 
new species of Forster f. which appeared with 
very ample descriptions ifi De plantis esculentis 
(1786) appeared also in the Prodromus (1786) 
