"From having no Herbarium." Local Knowledge versus Metropolitan Expertise: Joseph Hooker's Australasian Correspondence with William Colenso and Ronald Gunn1

Jim Endersby2

Abstract: Between 1844 and 1860, Joseph Dalton Hooker published a series of major floras of the southern oceans, including the first floras of Tasmania and New Zealand. These books were essential to establishing his scientific reputa­ tion. However, despite having visited the countries he described, Hooker relied on a large network of unpaid, colonial collectors to supply him with specimens. A study of his relationship with two of these collectors-Ronald Campbell Gunn and William Colenso-reveals warm friendships but also complex nego­ tiations over individual authority, plant naming, and the status of local knowl­ edge. The herbarium played a crucial role in mediating these negotiations. Although Bruno Latour's theory of cycles of accumulation proved useful for analyzing the herbarium's role, in this article some ways in which his ideas might be refined and modified are suggested.

IN 1854, THE BRITISH botanist Joseph knowledge and Colenso's names never ap­ Dalton Hooker (Figure 1) criticized William peared in Hooker's Flora Novae-Zelandiae Colenso (Figure 2), his chief correspondent (1855). in New Zealand, for having attempted to At first glance, this incident encapsulates name some supposedly new species of an essential aspect of the colonial scientific ferns: "From having no Herbarium," wrote relationship: the metropolitan expert using Hooker, "you have described as new, some of his position-both physical and social-to the best known Ferns in the world" (quoted overrule the distant colonial (Brockway 1979, by Colenso to J. D. Hooker, 24 August 1854: MacLeod 1987, MacLeod and Rehbock 1988, KDC 174). Hooker evidently thought that his Miller 1996, McCracken 1997). Although herbarium gave him the prerogative to name Hooker was dependent upon people like Co­ plants that his colonial correspondent lacked. lenso for the specimens he needed to compile Colenso disagreed, arguing that "I am well the books that made his name and reputation, aware that I know very little indeed (save he was not interested in their ideas. At the from books) of the Botany of any Country heart of his ability to keep Colenso in a sub­ except N.z., still, I fancy, I know the specific ordinate role was the herbarium; I want to differences of many N.Z. plants" (Colenso to discuss the herbarium's importance using J. D. Hooker, 24 August 1854: CP4). For the Bruno Latour's concept that exchanges such colonial naturalist, firsthand knowledge ofhis as those between Hooker and Colenso can locality's living plants gave him unique in­ best be understood by looking at the "cycle of sights. However, Hooker ignored this local accumulation" within which they participated (Latour 1987:219-220). Hooker made his herbarium into what Latour called a "center 1 Manuscript accepted 1 February 2001. of calculation"-a place that brought him 2 Department of the History and Philosophy of specimens, publications, and ultimately the Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, directorship of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Cambridge, CB2 3RH, Britain (E-mail: [email protected]). Kew. In this article I shall look at the cycle ofac­ Pacific Science (2001), vol. 55, no. 4:343-358 cumulation from the perspective ofthe periph­ © 2001 by University of Hawai'i Press ery-by comparing and contrasting Colenso's All rights reserved motivations with those of Ronald Campbell

343 344 PACIFIC SCIENCE· October 2001

FIGURE 1. Joseph Dalton Hooker. Copyright Alexander FIGURE 3. Ronald Campbell Gunn. Copyright Royal Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Gunn (Figure 3), another of Hooker's Aus­ tralasian correspondents. Although this approach illustrates the usefulness of Latour's model, it also highlights ways in which it might be modified.

HOW TO BECOME "SUCH A PERSON AS MR. DARWIN" Hooker corresponded with Gunn for 20 years, from 1840 to about 1860, and with Colenso from 1841 until Colenso's death in 1899. Hooker met both men during his voyage to Antarctica as assistant surgeon aboard HMS Erebus (1839-1843), com­ manded by James Clark Ross, which, with its sister ship, the Terror, was mapping ter­ restrial magnetism (Cawood 1979). However, the ships could not withstand the Antarctic winters, so took shelter in various places, in­ cluding New Zealand and Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania), and also visited the nu­

FIGURE 2. The Reverend William Colenso. Copyright merous tiny islands around Antarctica. These Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. sojourns were Hooker's chance to collect Local Knowledge versus Metropolitan Expertise . Endersby 345 plants in relatively unexplored regions; as he complained to Gunn that the publication it­ wrote to his father, "No future Botanist will self earned nothing. Indeed, the lavish illus­ probably ever visit the countries whither I am trated volumes cost Hooker money: "the fact going, and that is a great attraction" (J. D. is I have to purchase all the coloring of the Hooker to W. J. Hooker, 3 February 1840: work: & have to give colored copies to the Huxley 1918: 163). nobs who do not care a straw for me or my Unexplored lands and unknown plants book-Reeves [his publisher] gives me noth­ would, Hooker hoped, make his name. Before ing on the work, nor soon will" (J. D. setting sail, Ross told Hooker that he wanted Hooker to Gunn, October 1844: GC8). De­ "such a person as Mr. Darwin" as the ex­ spite having a subsidy from the Admiralty, it pedition's naturalist, but because Hooker had was clear to Hooker that it was only by not yet proved himself of Darwin's caliber, building his reputation-his "symbolic capi­ Ross appointed him to the inferior position of tal"-that the book might payoff (Bourdieu botanist. On receiving this unwelcome news, 1977,1984, Moore 1997). Hooker wrote a disgruntled letter to his By the time he returned to England, father, William Hooker, complaining "what Hooker was contemplating writing floras not was Mr. D. before he went out? he, I daresay, merely of the Antarctic, but also of much of knew his subject better than I now do, but did the southern oceans, a project that would the world know him? the voyage with Fitz­ allow him to tackle the problem of plant dis­ Roy was the making of him (as I hoped this tribution that fascinated him and many of his exped. would me)" (J. D. Hooker to W. J. contemporaries (Browne 1983, Rehbock Hooker, 27 April 1839: Huxley 1918:41). 1983). As Hooker traveled and collected, he Hooker knew that Darwin had been un­ noted that lands close to each other did not known when the Beagle set sail under Captain always have similar plants: the gum trees FitzRoy and hoped his own career might fol­ (Eucalyptus) and wattles (Acacia) that domi­ low the same pattern-that he, too, could nated the Australian landscape were never establish a scientific reputation by collecting found in New Zealand; and the plants of during the voyage and publishing descrip­ the Kerguelen's Land were clearly related to tions of his collections after he returned. those of distant Tierra del Fuego, not to In a period with few established scientific those of Lord Auckland's islands-despite career paths, traveling was an important way their being much closer (Hooker 1847:209­ for someone like Hooker to become a man of 210, Hooker 1859:lxxxix). Like some of his science. He had to invent a career for himself, contemporaries, Hooker believed that each and long, uncomfortable years on board ship species had been created-by some unknown were the first step in this process. Although means-in one place only, and that plants Hooker's father had excellent contacts in had migrated from their point oforigin to the the natural history world, he did not (unlike various places they currently occupied. How­ Darwin's father) have a fortune to bequeath ever, this theory was hard to reconcile with his son, so when Joseph Hooker returned to members of the same group being found England, he needed a way to earn a living thousands of miles apart-such as on isolated while pursuing his passion for botany. As he islands-with no obvious, natural means by noted in a letter to his father, "I am not which they could have been transported. independent, and must not be too proud; if I Hooker hoped that close study of the south­ cannot be a naturalist with a fortune, I must ern island floras might shed light on these not be too vain to take honourable compen­ puzzles and perhaps on the mechanism by sation for my trouble" (J. D. Hooker to W. J. which new species were created. Hooker, 18 May 1843: Huxley 1918:166). Besides needing prestigious, reputation­ For Hooker, publishing the Botany of the building publications, Hooker had another Antarctic Voyage was a way of earning motive for investigating plant distribution­ "honourable compensation" for his efforts to make botany into a more "philosophical" (Hooker 1847, 1855, 1859). However, he study (Rehbock 1983). In the early decades of 346 PACIFIC SCIENCE· October 2001 the nineteenth century, British botany was was Brown who stimulated Joseph Hooker's largely taxonomic and although the question interest in the topic. Brown was a friend of of precisely which studies qualified as true Joseph's father and an inspiration to Joseph, sciences was still hotly debated, one wide­ whose letters home made his influence clear. spread view was that the true sciences were Thus he wrote to his father while on the concerned with mathematics, experimenta­ Erebus: "If ever on my return I am enabled to tion, accuracy, precision, and-most of all­ follow up botany ashore, I shall live the life of with discovering causal laws. This was the a hermit as far as society is concerned; like view of most leading British men of science, Brown perhaps, without his genius" 0. D. who regarded Newtonian mechanics as the Hooker to W. J. Hooker, 3 February 1840: pinnacle ofscientific achievement. But botany Huxley 1918:162). Later he wrote: "several of lacked anything that looked like Newton's the tabular results I have drawn out show a laws, and Hooker (like several of his con­ delightful accordance, nor do I know of any temporaries) hoped plant distribution studies result of this Expedition which gave me such might offer a chance to discover such laws. pleasure as to find how beautifully the grasses The southern floras, especially those of is­ rose in the scale of importance, beating even lands, seemed particularly good one's to ex­ Brown's published ideas" 0. D. Hooker to amine, judging by the achievements of the W. J. Hooker, 25 November 1842: Huxley British botanist Robert Brown, who had 1918:79-80). Botanical arithmetic was an published the first work on Australian plants essential tool with which Hooker hoped to in 1814. It was apparent to Brown, as to other interpret the southern floras and discover European travelers, that the Tropics were the long-looked-for laws of plant distribution rich in species and that as one sailed away (Browne 1979, 1980). from them, plants became scarcer until one However, Hooker's ambitions outstripped reached either the Arctic or Antarctic, where the collections he made on his voyage. He there were no green plants at all. That much needed more plants. But gathering them was obvious, but Brown had noticed some­ proved nearly impossible. Live plants were thing more interesting: as he traveled, the increasingly being shipped in Wardian cases, mathematical ratios between specific groups miniature greenhouses that improved the of plants seemed to change in a predictable plants' chance of completing their long sea way-the Tropics were not merely rich in voyages in a healthy state. Nevertheless, species, but were characterized by large gen­ unless someone traveled with the plants and era, those containing many species, but to­ looked after them, they often died. In 1869, ward the poles, small genera predominated Hooker told another New Zealand corre­ (Brown 1814:5-6, Browne 1983:62). spondent, James Hector, that "we have hith­ To give precision to his observations, erto been most unfortunate & I now call Brown calculated the ratios between taxo­ Wards cases 'Wards coffins'!" 0. D. Hooker nomic groups, a technique that became to Hector, 8 November 1869: Yaldwyn and known as botanical arithmetic. Brown's work Hobbs 1998:126). And, even if they had been was enthusiastically taken up by the German transportable, many Australasian plants would scientific explorer Alexander von Humboldt, not have grown at Kew except in green­ who observed that Brown's ratios applied houses. Hooker compared over 8000 species not only to changes in latitude, but also to in writing his Flora Tasmaniae; had they all changes in altitude: as he ascended South been living plants, they would have over­ America's mountains, the lush vegetation of whelmed even Kew's enormous grounds the Tropics gave way to a sparse, alpine flora (Hooker 1859:ii-iii). So, rather than collect that looked just like the plants of the icy the actual plants, Hooker needed dried southern tip of the continent (Browne 1983: specimens as a substitute for them; they had, 60-61, Pratt 1992, Dettelbach 1996). in Latour's terms, to be made stable (by dry­ However, although Humboldt's ideas be­ ing them) in order to become mobile so that, came central to plant distribution studies, it once they had reached Kew, they were com- Local Knowledge versus Metropolitan Expertise . Endersby 347 binable-into Hooker's imperial taxonomic package of dried plants: "with a view that scheme (Latour 1987:219-220, 222-225). should you not desire a second correspondent To create the global floras and distribution in this Colony, to recommend my humble studies he required, Hooker needed many services to some Botanist Friend who will more dried specimens, and he turned to his in return forward me a few good works to father's networks of correspondents to supply advance me in the Science, (of which I am them. Joseph Hooker was, in the words ofhis as yet totally ignorant,) and also-seeds of first biographer, "born to the purple, for in any Plants, useful, remarkable, ornamental or the realm of botany his father, Sir William which have not yet been introduced into this Hooker, was one of the chief princes" Colony" (emphasis in original) (Gunn to (Huxley 1918:3). While Joseph was growing W. J. Hooker, 18 August 1832: Burns and up, William was professor of botany at Glas­ Skemp 1961:22). gow University and he later became director Gunn wanted to exchange common Tas­ of Kew. However, although a prince in some manian plants for European plants and books regards, William Hooker was a pauper in to educate himself in botany. In 1833, after others, for the new job reduced his income; beginning his correspondence with William Joseph told Gunn, "I am now working in Hooker, he asked specifically for seeds for his Co[mpany] with my father, keeping a sort of newly created garden "so that I may acquire a common purse which I grieve to say is very knowledge of the different Genera by sight, different from what it was in Glasgow, when as also of the various natural orders" (Gunn the Professorship provided him twice the to W. J. Hooker, 15 November 1833: Burns emolument of this" (J. D. Hooker to Gunn, and Skemp 1961:32). Just as the garden was 13 May 1844: GC8). Nevertheless, William intended mainly to develop his knowledge of Hooker's correspondence networks girdled botany, so were the books. Gunn acknowl­ the earth and Gunn and Colenso were among edged that he was "ignorant of Botany," be­ his most regular and reliable correspon­ cause he had "no Books on the subject-and dents in the Antipodes. Their importance to none can be obtained here" (emphasis in Joseph's work can be gauged from the thanks original) (Gunn to W. J. Hooker, 18 August he offered them in his books and by the fact 1832: Bums and Skemp 1961:22). that his floras were dedicated to his colonial Why was a knowledge of botany so im­ collectors. Yet neither man was employed to portant to Gunn? One might assume that he collect for Kew, and neither sought a paid wanted to sell his collections to supplement career within botany or the other sciences; it his modest income, but in fact he refused is obvious why Joseph Hooker needed their all payment for his efforts. When he sent specimens, but to appreciate how he obtained plants to John Lindley, professor of botany at them, we need to understand what motivated University College London, and got no·re­ Gunn and Colenso to collect. sponse, Gunn complained to Hooker that he had a "slight feeling ofannoyance," especially "when I compare your Conduct to his." GUNN AND HOOKER: "TO RECOMMEND MY Gunn explained that his motive for collecting HUMBLE SERVICES" "was purely taste, and a mind bent upon some Ronald Campbell Gunn (1808-1881) was the pursuit, and not necessity or for a liv.elihood son of a soldier; he decided not to follow & I was afraid Mr. Lindley whom I only knew his father's career and instead ernigrated to from his public name, might forget those Tasmania in 1830, where he soon obtained a points." Gunn did not want to be regarded as minor government post as superintendent of a commercial collector: "Ifmy collections are convicts (Baulch 1961 :xiii-xiv). Two years worth the freight & a few seeds in return, it later, he joined William Hooker's collecting was all I looked for" (Gunn to W. J. Hooker, network, with the encouragement of his 14 September 1834: Burns and Skemp 1961: friend Robert William Lawrence, already a 39-40). Hooker correspondent. Gunn sent Hooker a The significance Gunn attached to being 348 PACIFIC SCIENCE· October 2001 an unpaid collector is apparent from his He was distraught when Lawrence died in grumbles about John Edward Gray, keeper of October 1833, just 26 years old. His wife had zoology at the British Museum, who had not died just weeks before him-less than a year reciprocated his gifts of specimens: "I do not after they had married and soon after giving desire to profit by Natural History, but I birth to their daughter. According to Gunn, cannot afford to follow it extensively at my Lawrence was so distressed by the loss of his own sole expense merely 'for the glory of the wife that he "was carried off in a fit of apo­ thing'-without even books to guide me in plexy" soon afterward-husband and wife my researches-and which a public institu­ were buried within a fortnight of each other. tion like the British Museum could surely This tragedy affected Gunn deeply. He told afford to give. Your Father has as completely William Hooker that he had been to Law­ overpaid me as the others have underpaid. I rence practically: "his only friend on earth, wish I was independent-1 would then work and we were almost brothers to each other,­ away con amore" (emphasis in original) Our pursuits and feelings alike, and it will be (Gunn to ]. D. Hooker, 13 March 1844: long ere I shall be able to fill the blank his KDC 218). death has made. I owe much to his memory as Gunn saw himself as a disinterested en­ he led me to commence the study of Botany, thusiast, an "amateur" in the sense of one in which I have spent many happy hours, and who pursues a subject for love ("con amore"). yet look forward to years of pleasure in the His participation in exchanges was soured same pursuit. His loss to you will also be most when men of the stature of Gray or Lindley severe, as he was years ahead of me in expe­ refused to reciprocate; Gunn observed that rience ... of Botany ... I can only however "My only desire to obtain returns for my promise to do all I can, and trust time will numerous Collections is to enable me in fact improve me" (emphasis in original) (Gunn to to Collect with more effect by getting Books W.]. Hooker, 15 November 1833: Burns and to let me know what I am about" (emphasis Skemp 1961:31-33). in original) (Gunn to]. D. Hooker, 28 May Lawrence's death moved Gunn to con­ 1845: KDC 218). His sense of himself as, in tinue his work and he seems to have thought some respects, the equal of his correspon­ of his botanical collections as, in part, a me­ dents is apparent from a later comment that morial to his comrade. He was also lonely Hooker's "account of the Rewards bestowed without his friend, telling Hooker that Law­ upon Science & learning in England is not rence's death "has thrown me back more encouraging," but that "it hardly required than I could have conceived as I have now your letters to satisfy me that Natural History no one with whom to talk over Botanical must be followed for its own sake alone by matters or to excite me to exertion." Two enthusiasts like ourselves" (Gunn to ]. D. years later, Gunn was still lamenting his lack Hooker, 26 September 1844: KDC 218). of "some botanically inclined person to exchange thoughts with" (Gunn to W. ]. Hooker, 14 September 1834, 30 March 1835: GUNN AND LAWRENCE: "THE BLANK HIS Burns and Skemp 1961:41-43). DEATH HAS MADE" Loneliness was another powerful motiva­ Gunn represented knowledge of botany as an tion for seeking a correspondent with com­ end in itself; however, his motivations were mon interests, but Lawrence's example also more complex. As noted, he joined the Kew suggests a reason for the way Gunn chose to network through Lawrence who had, as collect: Lawrence had been the son of a Gunn told William Hooker, "exited [sic] in wealthy landowner, but Gunn held a poorly me a taste for Botany and Collecting" (Gunn paid government post as superintendent of to W.]. Hooker, 18 August 1832: Burns and convicts, so perhaps Gunn's professed desire Skemp 1961:21-23). Gunn met Lawrence in to follow botany "con amore," as a "pursuit," the early 1830s and they soon became friends. and not out of "necessity or for a livelihood" Local Knowledge versus Metropolitan Expertise . Endersby 349 was motivated by a desire to emulate his late COLENSO AND CUNNINGHAM: friend and act the gentleman. Similar atti­ "ANY LITTLE VEGETABLE NOVELTY" tudes are apparent in William Archer's cor­ respondence with Joseph Hooker. Archer, Hooker's other major Australasian corre­ another of Gunn's friends, was also a land­ spondent, the Reverend William Colenso owner who pursued botany in a disinterested, (1811-1899) (a cousin of the controversial gentlemanly way. He wrote to Hooker that Bishop Colenso of Natal), had been appren­ "there is a source of happiness, inherent ticed as a printer in England before being in the pursuit of botanical science, of which sent to New Zealand in 1834 by the Church external circumstances cannot rob us alto­ Missionary Society to produce Maori trans­ gether" and described botany as his "darling lations of the gospels and similar works pursuit" (Archer to J. D. Hooker, 26 July (Mackay 1990:87-89). Colenso's botanical 1854: KDC 218). motivations had some similarities to Gunn's; Anne Secord commented on the impor­ his interest in plants also had been aroused tance of gift exchanges in overcoming the by a botanical friend, the Australian botanist social distance between correspondents of Allan Cunningham, who visited New Zealand different social classes in British natural his­ in 1838 (McMinn 1970:112). On his return to tory. Artisans could join scientific correspon­ Sydney, Cunningham wrote to Colenso, an­ dence networks by adhering to gentlemanly swering his botanical questions, buying him standards of conduct, such as giving gifts and collecting equipment or having it made to declining payment. She showed that gifts order, offering homely advice on diet and were reciprocated in kind, with cash pay­ health, and sending him gifts (Cunningham ments often being refused by artisans who to Colenso, 24 October 1838 and 4-11 De­ knew that money played no part in exchanges cember 1838: CP4). Cunningham identified between gentlemen. She quoted the zoologist the plants that Colenso had gathered in the Edward Turner Bennett as saying that "a months after they had met, noting one that man of character is respectable whatever may "is perfectly new, and is a very remarkable be his rank in life, and one who collects with a species." Cunningham promised to cite Co­ view to Science and not to Profit I should lenso as its discoverer when he returned to esteem as an Entomologist" (Secord 1994: England and published his collections (Cun­ 384, 393). ningham to Colenso, 9-17 January 1839: Although Gunn's social status was rather CP4). different from that of Secord's artisans (who Colenso was overwhelmed by his new were generally not trying to change their so­ friend's generosity: "really, I have no little cial status), her argument supports the idea weight of obligation on me now! How shall I that Gunn's collecting was, in part, an effort make a shadow of return?" (Colenso to Cun­ to imitate the gentlemanly behavior of his ningham, 1 March 1839: CP4). Cunningham friends Lawrence and Archer, perhaps in the replied: "If, as you enquire, you wish to hope of eventually emulating their social know in what way you can make me (not a status. Whether or not he had planned to do 'shadow') a solid substance of return for the so, Gunn joined the landowning class: by the little civility and attention, I may have shown 1850s, he had acquired a substantial estate you since we last saw each other at Paihia, I'll near Launceston, in northern Tasmania just tell you-by writing to me at your leisure (Baulch 1961 :xv). His growing prosperity as long as I am in this roasted colony; by seems to have coincided with a gradual loss of sending me ... any little vegetable novelty, interest in botany. Perhaps managing his and by bearing in mind this humble request estates became too time-consuming. But of mine, viz. Not to lose sight of the vegeta­ perhaps he felt that, because he had finally tion ofthe Land you live in, and not to scatter become a gentleman, he no longer needed to to the winds, that little you gather'd regard­ engage in aspirational, gentlemanly pursuits. ing the peculiarities ofthose vegetables, when 350 PACIFIC SCIENCE· October 2001

I was with you. Let these investigations be one of the few in the colony with an interest your recreation after the more important in botany. In his later years, he admitted miss[ionar]y. duties of the day are done. Thus to Joseph Hooker that "sometimes-now & in time, you will acquire a mass of most valu­ then-I long for a visit from a friend, or to able information, in regard to the Botany of hear the sound of a human Voice speaking Islands, daily becoming more and more im­ kind words" (Colenso to ]. D. Hooker, 22 portant in the Eyes of Europe, in this Age of January 1883: HLR11). Colonizn. and immigration" (Cunningham to Colenso, 11 April 1839: CP4). Cunningham's COLENSO AND HOOKER: reference to the "Botany ofIslands" probably "PECULIARLY LOCAL" referred to plant distribution studies, in which islands were particularly important; the Yet, although Colenso had much in common phrase suggests an interest in botany's wider with Gunn, he had different ambitions. As an "philosophical" issues-he apparently hoped ordained minister, he already had a vocation that information gathered by himself and and seems to have had no desire for worldly Colenso would prove useful for the kinds of status. Indeed, he was proud of the fact that, studies that Hooker would eventually write. unlike some of his brothers in the Church, Cunningham urged Colenso that "what he had never enriched himself by acquiring you do, do well, with all your heart. Cherish a Maori land (Colenso to]. D. Hooker, 3 June feeling for investigations of these kinds that 1865: KDC 174). It was Cunningham's prom­ will urge you to go about them con amore" ise that his "mass of most valuable informa­ (Cunningham to Colenso, 11 April 1839: tion" would make him "important in the CP4). These words must surely have struck a Eyes of Europe" that seems to have fired chord with the evangelical missionary, not Colenso's imagination. His enthusiasm for least because by the time Colenso's reply the plants of New Zealand also encouraged a arrived in Sydney, Cunningham was dead degree of what might be termed "botanical (Colenso to Cunningham, 27 May 1839: nationalism"-a concern that his adopted CP4). A final letter from Colenso was "re­ land not be seen as florally impoverished. He turned unopened"; in it he had thanked complained to Hooker that, "I do not alto­ Cunningham once again for "your always-to­ gether think, with you, that our 'Flora is a be-borne in mind friendly present of a Bot. scanty one': undoubtedly, it is anything but Glass, doubly enhanced to me in value from gorgeous; and, I believe it will be found to having seen it around yr neck and used by be peculiarly local" (emphasis in original) You" and he had signed himself, "your most (Colenso to]. D. Hooker, 3 February 1852: sincere well-wisher and disciple and friend, Colenso 1841-1852). William Colenso" (Colenso to Cunningham, Although Colenso was generally deferen­ 12 July 1839: CP4). tial to Hooker, he believed that his collecting Cunningham's "humble request" thus be­ experience gave him the right to disagree. came his last testament to his "disciple." Just His confidence that the New Zealand flora as Gunn was partly motivated by Lawrence was "peculiarly local" (i.e., rich in endemic and inspired by his death to carry on his species, those confined to a particular geo­ work, so Colenso's passionate pursuit of bot­ graphical region) was based on his firsthand any-and in particular his pride in the plants knowledge, laboriously acquired: "No white of New Zealand-seems, in part at least, to man has tramped over more of N. Zealand have followed from his determination to carry ground than myself (I mean of the N. Island), out Cunningham's last wishes: to prove him­ and that, too, with open eyes; and I know that self worthy of the botanical friend he had so several plants are only to be found in one or unexpectedly lost. And, like Gunn, Colenso two isolated spots throughout the whole is­ was afflicted by what was perhaps a peculiarly land. Hence I am of the opinion, that when colonial loneliness, being isolated both from the immense & dense forests of N. Zealand the centers of European science, and being shall have been opened, and her morasses & Local Knowledge versus Metropolitan Expertise . Endersby 351 glens explored, her Botany will shew itself (emphasis in original) (Colenso to J. D. to be of a proper magnitude, and bid fair Hooker, 24 August 1854: KDC 174). Co­ to compete with the Botany of Islands of a lenso's reference to the spelling of native similar size and parallel" (Colenso to J. D. names shows the extent of his knowledge of Hooker, 3 February 1852: Colenso 1841­ Maori culture and language; he was commis­ 1852). Once again, the use of the phrase sioned by the New Zealand government to "Botany of Islands" suggests that Colenso, produce a Maori dictionary in 1865, but too, had "philosophical" interests, a suspicion money ran out before it was complete borne out in other letters: "And to the ques­ (Mackay 1990). tion,-U'hat constitutes a really distinct genus, Colenso's local knowledge had at least or species? I cannot give a satisfactory answer. three distinct facets: his familiarity with living I know not of any certain rule; and I find plants allowed him to identify the New Zea­ the first Botanists of the day opposing one land's flora unique species (endemic knowl­ another in their speculations; while not edge); his travels and collecting gave him a few are laboriously undoing what their pre­ detailed knowledge of the country's geogra­ decessors or compeers have toiled to rear" phy and of individual habitats (topographic (emphasis in original; bold italic indicates knowledge); and his contact with the Maori double underlining) (Colenso to J. D. gave him access to indigenous knowledge, un­ Hooker, 24 August 1854: KDC 174). available to those who did not speak the local However, "endemic" is not the only sense languages. However, Colenso was unable to of "local" that is of interest. Colenso also de­ persuade Hooker of the value of any of his fended his decision to name several species of local knowledges. Indeed, Hooker had com­ the flax genus Phormium on the grounds that mented that "I am often perplexed by col­ he had "taken the universal distinctive uses of lectors sending as localities the names of the plants into consideration; and no New insignificant hamlets or streams, which are Zealander would (or could) ever use one sp. not to be found in attainable maps, and con­ for the other" (emphasis in original; bold vey no meaning whatever" (Hooker 1855:5). italic indicates double underlining) (Colenso His reason reveals the distance between the to J. D. Hooker, 3 February 1852: Colenso kind of universal knowledge he sought to 1841-1852). The phrase "New Zealander" construct and the local kind valued by Co­ referred only to the Maori at that time and lenso. For Hooker, only a location on a map in Colenso was one of the few European bota­ London could give the information necessary nists who took any interest in indigenous for a plant distribution study, whereas Co­ knowledge; the uses to which "the locals" put lenso was concerned with letting other New plants was seen as sufficient basis for a species Zealand residents find the plant. Topographic name in his eyes. knowledge, like indigenous knowledge, was A third sense of "local" refers to geo­ irrelevant to Hooker's global project. graphical locality. Colenso thought Hooker Such conflicts over plant names encapsu­ had "certainly erred in not publishing the late processes that Latour described: as the precise habitats of several of my plants," es­ Europeans record and transmit information, pecially because he had "very particularly "the local knowledge of the savages becomes mentioned their present, only known local­ the universal knowledge of the cartogra­ ities; in such a way, too,-by correct spelling phers," or-in this case-botanists (emphasis of the native names,-as would be of great in original) (Latour 1987:216). Latour argued service to any future Collector": "You have, it that as specimens moved-in this case, from is true, excused your not doing so, by plead­ the Maori to Colenso and then to Hooker­ ing, that, my habitats are not to be found in the ideas of one actor (or "actant," as Latour any Map or Gazetteer! It would indeed be a preferred) were translated into those of an­ curious thing if the all but unknown hills, other. However, there is never direct equiva­ streams, and hamlets of this new country lence between the meanings: "translation is were to be found in any Map or Gazetteer" by definition always a misunderstanding, 352 PACIFIC SCIENCE· October 2001

since common interests are in the long term enough to be classified as species, because he necessarily divergent." Translation "defines a gave them names (Hooker 1855:xiii-xiv; Co­ stronghold established in such a way that, lenso to J. D. Hooker, 24 August 1854: KDC whatever people do and wherever they go, 174). they have to pass through the contender's Hooker relied on dried specimens for his position and to help him further his own in­ work, but Colenso argued for the importance terests" (Latour 1988:65-66, 253). Transla­ of recognizing field characters: those that tion was the key to Hooker's ability to create could only be observed in living plants. After and maintain his correspondence networks, one of Hooker's colleagues at Kew, John which was in turn the basis of his ability to Gilbert Baker, rejected Colenso's fern names, make Kew a center and thus to accumulate Colenso protested that: "I know my N.Z. specimens. To achieve this, he needed to ferns (sp. nov. [species novae or "new species"]) persuade Colenso and Gunn that their inter­ to be very distinct from those long known, & ests and his were the same; yet, according to which he supposes them to be. At the same Latour, they can never be (Latour 1988:253, time, had I but dried spns. only, as you have Star and Griesemer 1989:3 89). These con­ had there, I am pretty sure I should have flicts over translation are particularly appar­ made the same, or greater, mistakes" (em­ ent when the value of endemic knowledge is phasis in original) (Colenso to J. D. Hooker, considered. 27 December 1884: KDC 174). Ferdinand von Mueller, director of the Melbourne Botanic Gardens, also argued that HOOKER AND COLENSO: field characters were sometimes the only way "THAT VERY PROTEAN FERN" to distinguish plants-for example, some of Hooker and Colenso's arguments about the eucalypts. However, because such features classifying and naming plants had many di­ were impossible to discern in herbarium mensions, not least of which were their dif­ specimens, they were usually disregarded by fering conceptions of a species. For example, botanists like Hooker and Baker, who ac­ they disagreed over the New Zealand fern cordingly disallowed Colenso's use of them. Lomaria procera, which Hooker classified as a Even Hooker's collaborator, George Ben­ single species while Colenso applied his local tham, who was more sympathetic to their use, knowledge to claim 16 species, giving "W.c." argued that field characters could not be used (i.e., William Colenso) as the namer offour of for an Australia-wide flora such as he was them (Colenso 1834-1841:504-505). writing, but were relevant only to a local None of Colenso's names appeared in flora, such as the one Mueller was producing the .Flora Novae-Zelandiae because, Hooker for Victoria (Stevens 1997:352). argued, a systematist could not "define [Lo­ Hooker's philosophical botanical agenda, maria's] characters with sufficient compre­ particularly his focus on distribution, is ob­ hensiveness from a study of its New Zealand viously closely tied to his view of species. He phases alone." Instead, what was needed was argued that precisely delimited species were the "most laborious comparison" of "many irrelevant, as long as those "treated conjointly hundred specimens of the plant, gathered in really express affinities far closer than those all parts of the south temperate hemisphere," which exist between those treated separately" before Hooker could decide that the appar­ (quoted in Stevens 1997:354). For Hooker, ently distinct New Zealand forms were building up a broad picture of a flora's affin­ merely varieties of a single species. Colenso ities was more important than deciding commented that "I well knew that you would whether Phormium or Lomaria should be div­ have difficulty with that very Protean fern, ided into two or more new species. Indeed, Lomaria procera; it has for years puzzled me. from Hooker's perspective, Colenso's en­ Notwithstanding, I believe, that there are demic knowledge led to hairsplitting that several vars. [varieties] of this sp[ecies].,­ obscured the very picture Hooker was trying good, standard, well-marked & common to make out. Local knowledge could not be vars."-which he evidently thought distinct allowed to jeopardize global knowledge. Local Knowledge versus Metropolitan Expertise . Endersby 353

Peter Stevens argued that Hooker could of accumulation can "leak" at any point; he not have used field characters to make a gave example of cargoes, maps, or ships going global survey (such as that needed to deter­ astray (Latour 1987:222). The point at which mine the limits of Lomaria), and that this plants were named could potentially leak, but policy also privileged those who worked at in an even more serious sense, because tax­ large institutions (Stevens 1997:349). How­ onomy is more than merely "labeling": by ever, Latour might say that the plants refused naming-or not naming-a species, Hooker to be dried without losing some of their was determining the flora of colonies; what characteristics and so prevented the metro­ he named existed, and what he refused to politan gentlemen from achieving one of name did not (Latour 1999). the central goals of the natural system of taxonomy-the use of all a plant's characters THE POWER TO NAME in classification. (The Linnean system of tax­ onomy classified plants by simply counting Hooker wanted Adam's power over plants: their reproductive organs. Antoine-Laurent the power to name them. The possession of de Jussieu founded the natural system to a herbarium conferred such power (just as overcome what he perceived as the Linnean Colenso's lack of a herbarium was sufficient to system's flaws and hoped that by using all the deny it to him). As specimens accumulated at characteristics of a plant the "true" picture the center, so did the power to classify them, of botanical affinities could be discovered and Latour commented that the European [Stevens 1994, Koerner 1996].) From a La­ networks endowed "a few scientists in frock tourian perspective, Hooker's argument­ coats, somewhere in Kew Gardens, with the that resolving the exact limits of species was ability to visually dominate all the plants of unimportant-looks like making a virtue of the earth" (Latour 1987:223-225). The sheer necessity; fixing exact limits may have been quantity of specimens at Kew permitted pre­ impossible without the use offield characters. viously unimaginable comparisons and so The global survey from dried specimens was allowed Hooker to accumulate authority undoubtedly a result of Hooker's philosoph­ simply by possessing a material resource that ical program, but his taxonomic "lumping" colonials like Colenso and Gunn lacked. may have been as much a product of the However, both Gunn and Colenso had plants' recalcitrance as of human preference. their own collecting networks. Colenso regu­ These disputes over names are a useful re­ larly referred to his New Zealand corre­ minder that scientific names are more than spondents in his letters, and Gunn's convenient, unambiguous labels; if that were collectors have been identified (Colenso to the whole story, names could have been given ]. D. Hooker, 15-16 April 1895: HLRll; in New Zealand as easily as at Kew. Yet, Buchanan 1990). Although Hooker claimed Hooker would not allow colonials to confer Colenso had "no herbarium," he had been names, despite the fact that he worked to building one for many years. In 1840, Co­ ensure that his colonial collectors used the lenso sent William Hooker some plants and natural system: insisted that specimen labels acknowledged, "some of them are but infe­ include the plant's natural order; and recom­ rior Specimens, but my Herbaria have been mended the works ofJohn Lindley, Britain's so culled over by one friend and another, most vociferous advocate of the natural sys­ that I had not many Duplicates remaining" tem, to his correspondents (KCC 8 1856; (Colenso to W.]. Hooker, 14 February 1840: Hooker 1855:2-3). Knowing and using the KDC 73 1834-1851). natural system was not enough to allow a Indeed, herbaria were a key aspect of what colonial to name plants, because Hooker's made colonial collectors so useful to Hooker, opposition was largely prompted by his need and he never tried to restrict them to the to concentrate botanical authority in his own metropolis. He told his colonial readers that hands. "I would also recommend that the knowledge Latour argued that in sciences like botany, obtained [by studying botany], be fixed, ac­ which rely on amassing specimens, the cycle cumulated and distributed, by forming and 354 PACIFIC SCIENCE· October 2001 naming collections of dried plants, and de­ settle arguments and impose his view of spe­ positing them in private colonial schools and cies upon New Zealand's recalcitrant plants libraries" (Hooker 1855). Such collections and botanists. However, Hooker's ability to were another way of teaching colonials the "dominate" had its limits, and the plants and natural system of taxonomy, which would botanists resisted in different ways. The co­ improve the quality of the collections Hooker lonial relationship was more often one of ne­ received-by, for example, eliminating dupli­ gotiation than of straightforward domination. cates of familiar species. Educated collectors Although Gunn and Colenso had some­ would also be better equipped to look for the what different agendas, Hooker was obliged particular kinds of plants that Hooker needed to bargain to get what he wanted. Hooker's to complete his surveys. He told Gunn that needs were clear: he told Gunn that "I would "you have collected so ably & well that there have given the world for the specimens from cannot be a large amount of Phaenogamic Auckland Isld. you have" and "if you have [i.e., flowering] plants yet to be discovered, any Magellan plants & would not object to & we have as many duplicates of most as lend them pray send them by the first oppor­ we know what to do with, I would therefore tunity," adding "you have little idea of the beg particularly to call your attention to immense rarity of these things, I would give a the smaller things & lower orders, which can guinea for a single carpel ofthe umbelliferous only be collected well by obtaining a little plant" (]. D. Hooker to Gunn, 13 May 1844: practical knowledge oftheir structures" (J. D. GC8). However, it is likely that both Gunn Hooker to Gunn, October 1844: GC8). and Colenso had a pretty shrewd idea of the Colonial herbaria were tools with which "immense rarity" of their specimens. Hooker persuaded colonial collectors to Colenso wanted Hooker's help in joining adopt his collecting and classifying practices. both the Linnean Society and the Royal So­ They also served as local centers of calcula­ ciety, and his refusal to be fobbed off is evi­ tion: as Kew's herbarium attracted a network dence that he knew what his specimens were of collectors, so colonial herbaria helped worth. Colenso first mentioned his desire to Hooker's correspondents build their own join the Linnean in a letter to Hooker in networks. As local networks and herbaria October 1863. He asked about the Royal grew, local collectors sent Hooker plants Society as soon as the Linnean admitted him from a wider geographical area-a highly in 1865, mentioned the Royal again in 1869, desirable outcome for him. But the undesir­ and finally added the coveted "F.R.S." to his able side effect was that colonial botanists name in 1893 (Colenso to]. D. Hooker, 24 might feel that they, too, ought to be able to October 1863, 3 January 1865, 23 November classify and name, and to challenge Hooker's 1869: KDC 174; Colenso to]. D. Hooker, 21 authority. July 1893: HLRll). And when Hooker criti­ In Colenso's case, an interest in philo­ cized the condition of a consignment of sophical issues added to Hooker's problems. Colenso's plants, the latter responded that Hooker tried to discourage his colonial audi­ "Without doubt, had N.Z. not become ence from "speculation" and hoped he was colonized, and the writer of this been your "inculcating caution on the future botanists only N.Z. collector, his specimens, whether of New Zealand; I have endeavored to make old or young-moldy or imperfect-would it clear to those who may read these remarks, have been more highly valued." He evidently that systematic botany is a far more difficult understood the value of exclusive access to and important object than is generally sup­ specimens and regretted losing it (Colenso to posed" (Hooker 1855:x:xvi). These tensions ]. D. Hooker, 24 August 1854: KDC 174). are a reminder of the limitations of Latour's Because of the need to maintain his col­ model if it is taken to imply a single cycle lecting networks, Hooker was only partly with a single center. successful in restricting Colenso to a sub­ Nevertheless, despite the competition from ordinate role. Colenso wanted to name his colonial herbaria, the sheer size of Hooker's plants himself and to publish such names in a library of plants gave him the authority to British scientific journal; when Hooker dis- Local Knowledge versus Metropolitan Expertise . Endersby 355 couraged him, Colenso published in a "local" reciprocity that he also understood what his journal, the Transactions of the New Zealand specimens were worth; and he made similar Institute. Hooker tried to head off this chal­ complaints about Robert Brown and Richard lenge to his authority through the adoption of Owen-demanding that both Joseph and what became known as the "Kew Rule." In William Hooker should help him obtain cases of synonymy (one species given two or books from the unwilling British naturalists more names), the customary practice was for (Gunn to W. J. Hooker, 14 September 1834: the earliest name to be retained and the later Burns and Skemp 1961 :39-40; Gunn to J. D. one discarded. However, Hooker and Ben­ Hooker, 8 December 1843: KDC 218; Gunn tham decided that if the later name was the to J. D. Hooker, 17 October 1844: KDC one that botanists commonly used, it should 218). Gunn's agenda was somewhat different be retained; because commonly used names from Colenso's: he was more willing to accept were usually those that were published in a subordinate scientific role. 1 have found widely circulated European journals, names only one letter in which Gunn suggested a that had first been published in the colonies name (Gunn to W. J. Hooker, 6 December were invariably eliminated (Stevens 1991; 1843: Burns and Skemp 1961:96), although 1997:355). he did occasionally argue with Hooker about Although Hooker largely thwarted Co­ delimiting species (Gunn to J. D. Hooker, 28 lenso's desire to name plants, he took steps May 1845: KDC 218; Gunn toJ. D. Hooker, to ensure that he did not offend the some­ 20 August 1844: KDC 218). Gunn was also times prickly colonial and so lose access to secretary to a local scientific society and pub­ the specimens he needed. He named plants lished its journal, The Tasmanian Journal of after Colenso-thirty species or genera in all Natural Sciences, but does not seem to have (Hooker 1855:6, 156, 165,288, t. 65 a)-and thought of publishing new names in it also named 42 species after Gunn. Hooker (Baulch 1961 :xv-xviii). Nevertheless, he was also helped Colenso get into both the Lin­ as stubborn as Colenso in insisting that his nean and Royal Societies, despite misgivings, specimens be paid for with the books that as he told James Hector, director of the New would help him improve himself and become Zealand Colonial Museum, "I am bothered a gentleman. with Colenso who ... wants me to get him made F.R.S. which 1 have no power to do. Of course 1 should be most happy to forward his views CONCLUSION in this matter provided that we could make out a case, but 1 do not think that his claims For those with an interest in botany, the iso­ are strong enough" (emphasis in original) lation of the Antipodes was frequently com­ (J. D. Hooker to James Hector, 27 January pounded by a lack of companions who shared 1850: Yaldwyn and Hobbs 1998). Neverthe­ their interests-one of the circumstances that less, Hooker did help Colenso by describing made correspondence so important. The the admission procedures and the need to get need for contact, even at a distance, may have New Zealand-based fellows of the Royal persuaded Colenso and Gunn to tolerate Society to sponsor him (Colenso to J. D. Hooker's occasionally high-handed behavior. Hooker, 11 September 1865, 22 January But it must be remembered that isolation 1883,15 June 1883: KDC 174). And Hooker affected Hooker as well. Although he had also sent Colenso numerous gifts of books, botanical friends and contacts all around him, journals, and personal photographs, all of he was cut off from the plants he wanted to which must have helped maintain good rela­ work on and men like Gunn and Colenso tions (letters in which Hooker is thanked for were the only means by which he could gifts include Colenso to J. D. Hooker, 3 Jan­ obtain adequate substitutes. Hooker needed uary 1865, 11 January 1877, 24 July 1882, 22 to maintain correspondence as much as they January 1883, 7 January 1896: KDC 174). did. The result was not a one-way flow of In Gunn's case, it is obvious from his plants or authority from periphery to center, complaints about Lindley and Gray's lack of but a complex negotiation in which each side 356 PACIFIC SCIENCE· October 2001 bartered its assets according to its interests friendships cannot be reduced to self-inter­ (Endersby 2000:334; also see Chambers 1991, ested attempts to maximize the value of one's Barton 2000). botanical assets. I suggest that an analysis that attends to At the same time, Hooker's negotiations individual actors' motives and intentions is a over plant naming, such as the acceptance or necessary complement to Latour's approach rejection of field characters, serve to remind to cycles of accumulation. Such an analysis us that the history of nineteenth-century reminds us that Colenso, Gunn, and Hooker botany is not reducible to a one-way power had many conflicting motivations. For exam­ relationship in which metropolitan gendemen ple, the surviving letters between Hooker and overrule colonial collectors. And Latour's Colenso (more than 80, spanning nearly 60 conception of science in its colonial context years of correspondence) reveal a genuinely reminds us that the plants are essential (if warm friendship between Hooker and Co­ often overlooked) characters in the colonial lenso that continued long after Hooker had relationship. Uncovering and analyzing co­ stopped working on New Zealand's plants lonial actors' stories can help us see how and Colenso was too old to collect. The same their ambitions, their stubbornness, and their warmth is evident in Gunn's letters, of which loneliness were as important as their taxo­ dozens survive. Even though each man knew nomic and collecting practices in shaping the what he wanted from the relationship, these history of nineteenth-century botany.

Literature Cited Manuscript Sources Colenso, W. (1834-1841) Glossarium Botanicum: Novae Zelandiae (Manuscript [microfilm]: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, Sydney). Colenso, W. (1841-1852) Botany ofNew Zealand manuscripts (MSS: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond). CP4 Colenso Papers (1833-1881): vol. 4 (MSS Letters: Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington). GC8 Gunn Correspondence (1833-1854): vol. 8 (MSS Letters [micro­ film]: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, Sydney). - HLR11 Letters to J. D. Hooker (1844-): vol. 11 (MSS Letters: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond). KCC 8 Kew Collector's Correspondence (1856): vol. 8 (MSS Letters: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond). KDC 73 Kew Director's Correspondence (1834-1851): vol. 73 (MSS Letters: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond). KDC 174 Kew Director's Correspondence (1854-1900): vol. 174 (MSS Letters: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond). KDC 218 Kew Director's Correspondence (1865-1900): vol. 218 (MSS Letters: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond).

Printed Sources Barton, R. 2000. Haast and the moa: Revers­ Land Correspondents: Letters from R. C. ing the tyranny of distance. Pac. Sci. Gunn, R. W. Lawrence, JorgenJorgenson, 54:251-263. Sir John Franklin and others to Sir Wil­ Baulch, W. 1961. Ronald Campbell Gunn. In liam J. Hooker, 1827-1849. Rec. Queen T. Burns and J. Skemp, eds. Van Diemen's Victoria Mus. 14:xiii-xix. Local Knowledge versus Metropolitan Expertise . Endersby 357

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of Endersby, ]. 2000. A garden enclosed: Bo­ practice. Cambridge University Press, tanical barter in Sydney, 1818-1839. Br.]. Cambridge. Rist. Sci. 33 (118): 313-334. ---. 1984. Distinction: A social critique Hooker,]. D. 1847. Flora Antarctica. Vol. 1 of the judgement of taste. Routledge & of Botany of the Antarctic voyage. Reeve Kegan Paul, London. Brothers, London. Brockway, L. 1979. Science and colonial ex­ ---. 1855. Flora Novae-Zelandiae. Vol. 2 pansion: The role of the British Royal of Botany of the Antarctic voyage. Lovell Botanic Gardens. Academic Press, New Reeve, London. York. ---. 1859. Flora Tasmaniae. Vol. 3 of Brown, R 1814. General remarks, geograph­ Botany of the Antarctic voyage. Lovell ical and systematical, on the botany of Reeve, London. Terra Australis. William Bulmer and Co., Huxley, L. 1918. Life and letters of Joseph London. Dalton Hooker. Vol. 1. John Murray, Browne, E.]. 1979. C. R Darwin and]. D. London. Hooker: Episodes in the history of plant Koerner, L. 1996. Carl Linnaeus in his time geography, 1840-1860. Ph.D. thesis, Im­ and place. Pages 145-162 in N. Jardine, perial College, University of London, ]. Secord, and E. Spary, eds. Cultures London, U.K. of natural history. Cambridge University Browne,]. 1980. Darwin's botanical arithme­ Press, Cambridge. tic and the "principle of divergence," Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to 1854-1858. ]. Hist. BioI. 13 (1 [Spring]): follow scientists and engineers through 53-89. society. Harvard University Press, Cam­ ---. 1983. The secular ark: Studies in the bridge, Massachusetts. history of biogeography. Yale University ---. 1988. The Pasteurization of France. Press, New Haven. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Buchanan, A. 1990. Ronald Campbell Gunn Massachusetts. (1808-1881). Pages 179-192 in P. Short, ---. 1999. From fabrication to reality: ed. A history of systematic botany in Aus­ Pasteur and his lactic acid ferment. Pages tralia. Australian Systematic Botany Soci­ 113-144 in B. Latour, Pandora's hope: ety, South Yarra, Victoria. Essays on the reality of science studies. Burns, T., and ]. Skemp, eds. 1961. Van Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Diemen's Land Correspondents: Letters Massachusetts. from R C. Gunn, R W. Lawrence, Jorgen Mackay, D. 1990. William Colenso. Pages Jorgenson, Sir John Franklin and others to 87-89 in The dictionary of New Zealand Sir William]. Hooker, 1827-1849. Rec. biography. Vol. 1. Allen & Unwin, Wel­ Queen Victoria Mus. 14. lington. Cawood, ]. 1979. The magnetic crusade: MacLeod, R 1987. On visiting the Moving Science and politics in early Victorian Metropolis. Pages 1-15 in N. Reingold Britain. Isis 70:492-518. and M. Rothenberg, eds. Scientific colo­ Chambers, D. W. 1991. Does distance tyran­ nialism. Smithsonian Institution Press, nize science? Pages 19-38 in R Home and Washington, D.C. S. Kohlstedt, eds. International science MacLeod, R, and P. F. Rehbock, eds. 1988. and national scientific identity: Australia Nature in its greatest extent: Western between Britain and America. Kluwer science in the Pacific. University of Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. Dettelbach, M. 1996. Humboldtian science. McCracken, D. 1997. Gardens of empire: Pages 287-304 in N. Jardine, ]. Secord, Botanical institutions of the Victorian and E. Spary, eds. Cultures of natural his­ British Empire. Leicester University Press, tory. Cambridge University Press, Cam­ London. bridge. McMinn, W. G. 1970. Allan Cunningham: 358 PACIFIC SCIENCE· October 2001

Botanist and explorer. Melbourne Univer­ boundary objects: Amateurs and profes­ sity Press, Melbourne. sionals in Berkeley's Museum of Verte­ Miller, D. P. 1996. Joseph Banks, empire and brate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. "centers of calculation" in late Hanoverian 19:387-420. London. Pages 21-37 in D. P. Miller Stevens, P. F. 1991. George Bentham and and P. H. Reill, eds. Visions of empire: the Kew Rule. Pages 157-168 in D. L. Voyages, botany, and representations of Hawksworth, ed. Improving the stability nature. Cambridge University Press, of names: Needs and options. Koeltz Cambridge. Scientific Books, K6nigstein. Moore, J. 1997. Green gold: The riches of ---. 1994. The development of biological Baron Ferdinand von Mueller. Rist. Rec. systematics: Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, Aust. Sci. 11 (3): 371-388. nature, and the natural system. Columbia Pratt, M. L. 1992. Imperial eyes: Travel University Press, New York. writing and transculturation. Routledge, ---. 1997. J. D. Hooker, George Ben­ London. tham, Asa Gray and Ferdinand Mueller on Rehbock, P. 1983. The philosophical natu­ species limits in theory and practice: A ralists: Themes in early nineteenth­ mid-nineteenth-century debate and its century British biology. University of repercussions. Rist. Rec. Aust. Sci. 11 (3): Wisconsin Press, Madison. 345-370. Secord, A. 1994. Corresponding interests­ Yaldwyn, J., and J. Hobbs, eds. 1998. My Artisans and gentlemen in 19th-century Dear Hector: Letters from Joseph Dalton natural history. Br. J. Rist. Sci. 27 (95, Hooker to James Hector 1862-1893. pt 4): 383-408. Museum of New Zealand, Wellington Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. (Te Papa Tongarewa). Institutional ecology, "translations" and