Sir, 
In further reply to your letter No* 6, 
3366/21 of the I2th, July 1921 on the subject of the 
centralisation of all systematic botanical work in Kuala 
Lurapor, I have the honour to inform you that I Bhowed my 
reply to your letter No* 4686/19 of the 23rd* August 1919 
to the Director of ******* Museums and Fisheries (Mr* 
Robinson) who, with reference to para: II of my reply 
stated his views as follows?- 
*1 have myself urged that the F*M«S* should have 
their own systematic botanist and herbarium, but I have not 
on that ground advocated the abolition of the Singapore 
office* There ie ample work in the country for two men, but 
even if they'' 1 b not, there is no reason why the Singapore 
appointment should not he allowed to lapse when the present 
incubent reaches pfimiMffl«IMMM pensionable age*. 
I believe Mr. Robinsoniidea ie that, whatever may happen 
to Mr. Bulk ill*» appointment, the Federated Malay States 
systematic botanist will in the course of a fow years be 
able to build ux> a herbarium which will render tne Medera- 
ted Malay States entirely dependent of the collections at 
Singapore a suggestion with which 1 totally disagree. If 1M 
the Singapore appointment lapses Mr. Robinson*s scheme will 
. 
on Mr. Burkill’s retirement, fall into lines with mine, 
but in any case Mr. Robinson’s scheme contemplates a 
totally unnecessary duplication of work* 
n o i 
2 . 
About a year ago Mr. Barnard showed tne 
papers to Mr. Burkill whose chief objection to my proposal 
4 
was that it woirld divorce "work on dry leaves and flowers 
from work on the plant in life"* In other words, he MMffMMMM 
objected to being taken away from his economic gardens* 
He added however / 
"Make me a garden in Kuala Lump or as rich MM in 
poesibilites as the one I have in Singapore, and I can 
weigh in the opposite scales of the balance the advantages 
