Sources of Plants For, and Distribution of Plants From, the Royal Dublin Society’S Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, 1795–1879: an Annotated Checklist
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NORTHERN IRELAND HERITAGE GARDENS TRUST OCCASIONAL PAPER, No. 7 (2016) Sources of plants for, and distribution of plants from, the Royal Dublin Society’s Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, 1795–1879: an annotated checklist E. Charles Nelson In The brightest jewel: a history of the National Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, Dublin (Nelson & McCracken 1987), we accounted briefly for the many sources of plants grown in the Gardens throughout its history. Manuscript registers of plants (including seeds and other propagules) donated to [●], and those distributed from [✧], the Gardens survive especially for the decades following the appointment of Ninian Niven as Curator in 1834. Niven seems to have been the first to make a continuous record of donated and distributed plants – for the period before 1834 records are scattered, scanty and almost certainly very incomplete. In this checklist, the records for Niven’s curatorship (1834–1838) have been combined with those sparse records that have been recovered for the previous three decades, as well as those for David Moore’s curatorship (1838–1879). Moore, like Niven, seems to have taken personal responsibility for keeping a register of donations to and from the Gardens. In terms of the names of the plants, the manuscript registers for the pre-1880 years provide disappointingly little detail. The full names of the plants received or shared were rarely recorded – in the following checklist fewer than 130 species' names are included (and some of these have been inferred from the vernacular names employed), a ratio of one plant name for every seven donors/recipients. In short, the register of donations cannot account for the thousands of plants that were certainly cultivated in the Glasnevin Botanic Gardens between its formation in 1795 and the death of David Moore in June 1879. A partial explanation of the dearth of plant names is that some of the plants will not have had a scientific name when they were received, and it is likely also that few of the people who made donations knew the exact identities, and thus the botanical or even the vernacular names, of the plants they had to donate. Another reason for the paucity of names is that gifts were often recorded in terms that indicated an opinion: “valuable plants”, “rare plants”, “choice plants”, or similar phrases were frequently inserted in the manuscript registers. While the post-1879 period is not the subject of this paper, it may be noted that Frederick Moore, who succeeded his father as curator, kept much more complete records and the manuscript registers from 1880 onwards are more comprehensive and (as far as can be judged) much more thorough. Thousands of plant names are included: their transcription would take an inordinate amount of time. The data presented here must be treated with very great circumspection. The records were not consistently inscribed. Seven plants, seven packets of seed, seven packages, seven species do not all 1 indicate that seven different plant species were donated. Seven plants could be all the same species, or more than one, or several cultivars of several taxa. Seven packets could have contained more than, or fewer than, seven different taxa. Seven packages could have contained many hundreds of seeds from many hundreds of species. A single Wardian case could have contained a few, or tens of species – and they could all have been dead on arrival. In the following checklist approximately one thousand individuals and institutions are named. Almost certainly, the record of the names of donors and recipients is also incomplete. Sources: geographical All continents (except Antarctica) and all climatic regions provided plants for the Glasnevin collections prior to 1880. Bearing in mind that the toponyms employed range from vague to precise, from the very generalized (for example “America”) to individual botanical gardens, the largest consignments came from Australia and India (including Nepal and the Himalaya); these two regions’ contributions amounted to not quite 38% of the total (Australia 20%, India 18%). Africa, south of the Zambezi, variously named Cape of Good Hope, Caffraria and Natal, as well as South Africa, accounted for almost 10%. Other relatively large consignments came from Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Jamaica, Brazil and Argentina. 2 However, the most significant individual collections received at Glasnevin before 1880 were those of John Tweedie who collected mainly in Argentina (see, for example, Gorer 1978: 108–109; Nelson 2010), and Edward Madden who collected mainly in north-western India (see Gorer 1978: 119–122; Morley 1971, 1972 ). Distribution of plants Glasnevin Botanic Gardens is recognized as the source of several significant garden plants, including pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana; syn. Gynerium argenteum) (Nelson 1981; Nelson and Walsh 1984) and several different “species” of Verbena which were collected in Argentina by John Tweedie (Nelson 1998). Disappointingly, the records of the distribution of these plants to other gardens is scanty. The same applies for the onward dispersal of introductions by another of the well-known collectors of the mid- nineteenth century, Edward Madden. In both instances, there is more information, albeit inadequate, about the receipt of consignments from them. According to the manuscript register, pampas grass was sent to three nurserymen: Pince & Co., Exeter, Devon (in 1851), Robert Stark, Edinburgh (in 1852: Stark apparently had a specimen two years earlier for he exhibited this at a meeting of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh on 12 December 1850), and Henderson of Pineapple Place, London (in 1853). Only three private gardeners were recipients: James Bateman of Biddulph Grange, Cheshire, the Revd Raunshaw in the Isle of Man (both in 1852), and more than two decades later, to Kylemore Abbey, Connemara (in 1874). However, it must have been more widely distributed and also earlier than these dates suggest because it was reported as having been received at the Royal Horticultural Society's garden in Chiswick before 1 May 1849. The lack of detailed lists of names of plants distributed from Glasnevin undoubtedly explains the gaps in the record. Tweedie’s other introductions which are named in the manuscript registers – Gesneria tubiflora and especially the various Verbena – were distributed much earlier. Ninian Niven had dispersed plants of the various Verbena to around 30 nurserymen, private individuals and botanical gardens while he was curator: V. tweedieana was made available in November 1836, and the following year, mainly in November, Niven sent out V. arraniana. He was so keen to “advertise” these plants that he also made watercolour drawings and sent these to the editors of various botanical periodicals (see Nelson 1998). Gesneria tubiflora was distributed by David Moore early in 1843 to the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, and to Hugh Low (nurserymen, Clapham), the Revd John Clowes (Broughton Hall, Manchester), Dr Patrick Neill (Edinburgh) and Joseph Paxton (Chatsworth, Derbyshire). After February 1843 it is not listed separately in the registers. It is not so easy to trace the dispersal of Edward Madden’s introductions from northern India. Lilium wallichianum was received in April 1850, and in the following October surplus bulbs were sent to two English nurseries: Rollinson in Tooting and Veitch in Exeter. 3 Dahlia cultivars The receipt and distribution of cultivars of Dahlia by the Glasnevin Botanic Gardens have not previously been highlighted but Dahlia accounts for the largest number – 20 donations, 28 distributions – of records in the pre-1880 records. The data are probably skewed because most of these fall within the curatorship of Ninian Niven. To start with, in April 1834 Niven himself donated – or perhaps more accurately, personally brought – to Glasnevin 100 double-flowered Dahlia cultivars; on this same occasion he also donated 200 cultivars of the garden auricula (Primula auricula) and 500 hardy and exotic plants. Unlike Dahlia, auricula does not subsequently figure prominently in either the incoming (donations) or outgoing (distribution) lists. Eighteen thirty-seven was the principal year for the dispersal of Dahlia cultivars: as well as a “cart- load” of “roots” sent in May to the Zoological Gardens in The Phoenix Park, Dublin, Niven distributed no less than 120 Dahlia tubers to nurserymen and individual gardeners. On the other hand, in both 1837 and 1838, Glasnevin received around 120 Dahlia cultivars. Clearly it was a favourite of Niven’s. Alas, no record exists, as far as I know, of the cultivars’ names. David Moore continued, intermittently at least, this particular passion. Thirty Dahlia came into Glasnevin in 1841. In 1843 Moore received 72 Dahlia accessions, 20 in 1844, 36 in 1846, 20 in 1848, 51 in 1857, 48 in 1868, 31 in 1869. Some of these may have been replacements – again, none of the cultivars was named in the registers. The preponderance of Dahlia in the 1830s accessions and donations reflect the fashion of the period. This is to be seen in contemporary publications such as the several editions of Martin Doyle's The flower garden, or monthly calendar of practical directions for the culture of flowers, and in the Irish farmer's and gardener's magazine, conducted by Doyle (pseudonym of the Revd William Hickey) and Edmund Murphy. In 1834 it was reckoned that "not less than twenty thousand seedling dahlias are raised annually" and the dahlia was then "admitted to be the chief ornament of the flower-garden during the autumnal months, and independently of the great variety and splendor of its flowers, it is valuable to the florist as filling up a void at that season of the year in which but few other plants are in blossom." As far as is known, no new Dahlia cultivars were raised, selected or named at Glasnevin. Sources and references Desmond, R. G. C. and Ellwood, C., 1994. Dictionary of British and Irish botanists and horticulturists. Revised edition.