s 
,A - 2 - 1 
The extraordinary thing about this introduction of Iievea is 
that Kew never wrote any account of it. Dyer furnished data to Trimen 
who wrote his account of 1881, and when in 189 ^( 0 ) Kew put out a history 
of rubber cultivation, they simply adopted Trimen's version. Hence our 
difficulties. And they are not lessened by the fact that Dyer, who claims 
to have been in charge of the whole operations, never tells the same tale 
twice. Both he and Ridley show an amazing disregard of dates, numbers, 
and facts. Trimen stated that the second consignments were Cross’s trees; 
Kew raised no objection, but actually adopted the statement; now the new 
generation at Kew claims that Cross’s trees were never sent to t^e East. 
Of course, there is, as usual, a "backstair” history of this 
The India office began the introduction of Hevea, and subsequently sought 
the assistance of Kew. They appearto have worked together amicably at 
first but to have differed about 1875 * Wickham was Kew’s man; Cross was 
the India office man. And it is interesting to note that Cross was des¬ 
patched for Hevea after Wickham’s arrival. 
The Kew Reports do not deny Cross's assistance, but they 
minimise it as far as possible. Dyer, in 1878, wrote that Cross’s plants 
” contributed but little to gfir resources for distribution”. I find it 
difficult to suppose that Dyer would have given Cross any credit if he could 
have avoided it, for I may tell you, in confidence, that Dyer’s letters to 
Trimen exhibit a most virulent animosity towards Cross. It is ludicrous, 
considering the difference in position of the two men. But any definite 
evidence that the second consignments were Cross’s could only have been 
furnished by Kew. We have no covering letter so far as I have been able to 
ascertain. The fact that they were sent with the Ceara trees, which of 
course were Cross’s, is a piece of circumstantial evidence. 
Yours sincerely, 
(^ 5 1 )) T. FETCH. 
* 
