Specimens of William Roxburgh in the Central National Herbarium at the A.J.C

GENERAL ARTICLES Specimens of William Roxburgh in the Central National Herbarium at the A.J.C. Bose Indian Botanic Garden, Howrah Henry John Noltie*, Anand Kumar, Kumar Avinash Bharati, Avishek Bhattacharjee and Gopal Krishna Sixty-one herbarium specimens collected by William Roxburgh (1751–1815) from India have recently been discovered in the Central National Herbarium (CAL), Howrah. A catalogue is provided here, including annotations of original names and determinations, currently accepted names and notes on actual or potential type status. The specimens came to CAL from eight different sources, and notes are provided on their possible origins. Keywords: Annotations, catalogue, herbarium specimens, sources and origins, sub-collections. WILLIAM ROXBURGH (1751–1815), the ‘Father of Indian Icones’) is preserved at CAL; the set of contemporary Botany’, held the post as the first paid Superintendent of, facsimiles that he sent to London was lent by the EIC to what was then, the Calcutta Botanic Garden of the British the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (K) in 1858, for the use East India Company (EIC) from 1793 to 1813. His con- of Joseph Hooker, where they have remained ever since. tribution to the study and documentation of the Indian Sanjappa et al.2 catalogued the CAL set of Icones. The flora was immense1, both in Calcutta and in his earlier Kew collection was catalogued by Sealy3, who included days on the Coromandel Coast where he had started to notes on the wide distribution of extant Roxburgh herba- commission artists to draw specimens, each of which was rium material. Stafleu and Cowan4 gave a much fuller accompanied by a written description in English. He also listing of the herbaria in which Roxburgh’s specimens are collected large numbers of herbarium specimens that he now to be found, the major collections being at the Royal sent to correspondents in Europe and India (see below). Botanic Garden Edinburgh (E – a set of about 600 pre- He seems not to have kept a ‘top set’ of herbarium spe- sented to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1789 (ref. 5), cimens himself and for his own reference purposes relied and many hundreds more, at least some of which were on the drawings and descriptions (perhaps believing that probably originally sent to Daniel Rutherford and others dried plants would not survive in India due to the damp to William Wright); the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew climate and depredations of insect larvae). The flowering (K – specimens in the collections of W. J. Hooker (source plant descriptions were eventually published as Flora unknown), George Bentham (from William Forsyth) and Indica in two posthumous editions – in 1820 and 1824 an J. P. Rottler), with 824 in the EIC Herbarium (K–W); the incomplete one in two volumes by Nathaniel Wallich Natural History Museum London (BM – originally sent to (Roxburgh’s indirect successor at the Calcutta Botanic Joseph Banks and some in the collection of R. J. Shuttle- Garden) and William Carey, and a complete version of worth); the National Botanic Garden of Belgium at Meise the phanerogams in three volumes by Carey in 1832. (BR – originally sent to J. E. Smith, purchased at the Three hundred of the drawings were published under the Linnean Society sale in 1863 by Carl Philipp von Mar- auspices of Sir Joseph Banks as the Plants of the Coast of tius – 1525 of these are available on-line), and the Botan- Coromandel (1795–1820), and a further 419 in Madras, ical Conservatory of the City of Geneva (G – originally as uncoloured lithographs, by Robert Wight between sent to A. B. Lambert and later in the collection of Ben- 1838 and 1845, but the majority remained unpublished. jamin Delessert). Stafleu and Cowan4 documented small- Roxburgh’s original set of drawings (the ‘Roxburgh er collections of Roxburghian specimens at Liverpool Museum (LIV – 66, perhaps South African specimens originally sent to J. E. Smith, and 68 in Royle’s herba- Henry John Noltie is in the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Edin- rium originally sent to J. P. Rottler); the Oxford Universi- burgh EH3 5LR, United Kingdom and Anand Kumar, Kumar Avinash Bharati, Avishek Bhattacharjee and Gopal Krishna are in the ty Botany Department (OXF); Harvard University Central National Herbarium, Botanical Survey of India, Howrah herbaria (A – these are mainly fragments from other 711 103, India. collections, including BM, BR and P); Berlin Botanical *For correspondence. (e-mail: [email protected]) Garden (B – perhaps originally sent to Carl Ludwig CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 120, NO. 6, 25 MARCH 2021 997 GENERAL ARTICLES Willdenow); Copenhagen University (C – perhaps origi- Dr Roxburgh’s!’ The accusation of M’Clelland and nally sent to Jens Wilken Hornemann); the National Wight was that Wallich had removed Roxburgh’s speci- Botanic Garden, Glasnevin, Dublin (DBN); the Natural mens from the Calcutta Botanic Garden and distributed History Museum Florence (FI); New York Botanical them. In fact, as will be seen, Roxburgh had not left any Garden (NY); the Natural History Museum, Paris (P); specimens at the Garden. As seen from the list of herbaria Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences (PH); the Mu- given above, he had sent many to Europe – to academic seum of Evolution, Uppsala (UPS – these are labelled botanists (Rutherford in Edinburgh, Thunberg in Uppsala, ‘e Coromandelia’ so must be early collections – 207 are Willdenow in Berlin and Hornemann in Copenhagen), to available on-line), and the Linnean Society of London (78 private collectors (including Banks, Smith, Lambert and of the specimens originally sent to J. E. Smith). Robin- apparently others, possibly also Forsyth) and to institu- son1 also discussed the location of Roxburgh’s herbarium tions (including the EIC and the Royal Society of specimens. Edinburgh); he is also known to have sent specimens to It can be noticed that CAL does not appear among this others within India, including the missionary J. P. Rottler list of institutions, but a small yet interesting collection of at Tranquebar and Nathaniel Kindersley at Madras (some 61 Roxburgh specimens has recently been found there. of Rottler’s survive at LIV and K). A set of about 800 These seem at some point to have been removed from the specimens sent by Roxburgh himself to the EIC in general herbarium and kept separately as a collection of London was kept at India House, but later given to historical interest. The purpose of this article is to docu- Wallich as part of his creation of the EIC Herbarium and ment these specimens and reconstruct their history in so its numerous sets of duplicates. This set appears to have far as is possible. This effort is hampered by a lack of contained only unicates as in a note in the ‘Numerical documentation on the formation and composition of List’, it is described as ‘a small herbarium of the late the Calcutta herbarium, of which the only published Dr Roxburgh: no duplicates’9. This entire set (except per- account so far located is one by Thomas Thomson6 of the haps for one specimen – see below) is therefore still to be collection as it existed in 1856, at which point the herba- found in the ‘Wallich’ Herbarium originally donated by rium contained no Roxburgh specimens, not even a set the EIC to the Linnean Society of London, but transferred of duplicates of the ‘Wallich’ (more properly EIC) Her- to Kew in 1913 (K–W). barium. After 1832, Wallich did start a herbarium in the Cal- As Wallich was accused by some of his contemporaries cutta Botanic Garden, including many plants collected in of removing Roxburgh’s specimens from the Calcutta the Garden itself, many of which still survive (for details Botanic Garden, it is necessary to expand here on the EIC of early collections, see Thomson6). Wallich’s own Herbarium that he created, curated and distributed while account of the fate of Roxburgh’s own herbarium collec- in London between 1828 and 1832 and its relation to tions (and incidentally of the difficulties of preserving CAL (note 1). When he returned to Calcutta in 1832, herbarium specimens) is to be found in a letter of self- Wallich had intended to take one of the numerous sets of justification that he wrote in 1845 to Robert Wight (in duplicates back with him but, for some unknown reason, response to his and M’Clelland’s criticisms), of which he this did not happen. It has been stated7 that Thomson, sent a copy to William Hooker on 8 March 1846. As this when he returned from home leave (during which he pub- is unpublished, it is worth quoting here: lished with Joseph Hooker the first and only volume of their Flora Indica), took a set of EIC specimens, looked Extract of a Letter from Wallich to Wight dated 2 Octo- out by himself and Hooker, to Calcutta in 1855. Although ber 1845: this might have been the intention, this ‘repatriation’ can- not have taken place as no ‘Wallich’ duplicates appear in ‘Your kind letter of the 10th of last month reached me on the 1856 Thomson listing6. In fact, the first set of such the 26th, and the following day I sent its enclosure to its specimens must have reached CAL during Thomas An- destination. I do not take in the Journal of Natl. History; derson’s superintendency, as authority to donate them it has so systematically attacked me. The last number I was made by the Linnean Society on 5 March 1863 (note have not even seen, though I had heard of its containing 2). It appears that some further Wallich duplicates were matter of that sort. That you were in any manner con- sent to CAL from Geneva in 1958/59 (ref.

Load more