Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:52:07.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colonial pride and metropolitan expectations: the British Museum and Melbourne's meteorites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

A. M. Lucas ,
P. J. Lucas ,
T. A. Darragh  and
S. Maroske
A. M. Lucas
Affiliation:
Centre for Educational Studies, King's College London, Cornwall House Annex, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8TX, UK.
P. J. Lucas
Affiliation:
Centre for Educational Studies, King's College London, Cornwall House Annex, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8TX, UK.
T. A. Darragh
Affiliation:
Department of Invertebrate Palaeontology, Museum of Victoria, Russell Street, Melbourne 3000, Australia.
S. Maroske
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic 3052, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The four-year wrangle over the ownership of what was then thought to have been the largest known meteorite, recognized near Melbourne in 1860, provides a fine-grained example of the interaction between scientific internationalism, metropolitan appetite for specimens, and colonial civic pride.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 65 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The larger project from which this study has emerged, on the collected correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller, has been supported by the William Buckland Foundation, the R. E. Ross Trust, the Sidney Myer Fund, the Victorian Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands (now the Department of Conservation and Environment), the University of Melbourne and the Australian Research Council.

We have benefited from comments made by Professor R. W. Home and Dr A. L. Mansell, an anonymous referee, and the discussion at a meeting of the Society for the History of Natural History, at which an earlier version of the paper was read. We are grateful to the following for permission to quote from material under their control: the Board of Trustees, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew; the Public Record Office, Kew, London for permission to quote from Crown Copyright material; the Museum of Victoria; the British Museum; the Natural History Museum, London.

1 Basalla, George, ‘The spread of western science’, Science (1967), 156, 611–22, on 613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2 Inkster, Ian, ‘Scientific enterprise and the colonial “model”: observations on Australian experience in historical context’, Social Studies of Science (1985), 15, 677–704CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Jack, Sybil, ‘Cultural transmission: science and society to 1850’, in Australian Science in the Making (ed. Home, R. W.), Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 1988, 45–66.Google Scholar

3 MacLeod, Roy, ‘On visiting the “moving metropolis”: reflections on the architecture of imperial science’, Historical Records of Australian Science (1982), 5(3), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Stafford, Robert A., ‘The long arm of London: Sir Roderick Murchison and imperial science in Australia’Google Scholar, in R. W. Home (ed.), op. cit. (2), 69–101; Darragh, Thomas A., ‘The Geological Survey of Victoria under Alfred Selwyn, 1852–1868’, Historical Records of Australian Science (1987), 7(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory, ‘Natural heritage: securing Australian materials in 19th century museums’, Museums Australia (12 1984), 15–22.Google Scholar

6 See also Sheets-Pyenson, Susan, Cathedrals of Science, Kingston and Montreal, 1988.Google Scholar

7 Exhibition Commissioners, Official Catalogue of the Melbourne Exhibition, 1854 in connection with the Paris Exhibition, 1855. Melbourne, 1854.Google Scholar

8 See, for example, Flight, Walter, ‘Report of an examination of the meteorites of Cranbourne, in Australia, of Rowton in Shropshire, and of Middlesborough in Yorkshire’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1882), 173, 885–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walcott, R. H., ‘Descriptions of the Victorian meteorites, with notes on obsidianites’, Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria (1915)Google Scholar, no. 6.

9 Transactions of the Royal Society of Victoria (1860), 5, pp. viii–x.Google Scholar

10 Neumayer, G., Results of the Magnetic Survey of the Colony of Victoria executed during the years 1858–1864, Mannheim, 1869, 24–26.Google Scholar Direct evidence of Bruce's purchase is unavailable.

11 Bruce, James, Letter to the Editor, dated 3 12 1862Google Scholar, Melbourne Argus, 5 12 1862.Google Scholar

12 Natural History Museum, Mineralogy Keeper's Archives, Meteorite letters A-G (Cranbourne) (cited below as NHM: Cranbourne). (The advertisement is in the form of a handwritten note; we have been unable to confirm the hand. Translated from the German by Juraschek, M., 1989.Google Scholar The note is annotated on the back in a different hand ‘Mr A. Abel's note to Prof Abel of Woolwich’. Professor Frederick Augustus Abel, FRS (1827–1902), Lecturer in Chemistry at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, and ordnance chemist at the Woolwich Arsenal, was A. J. Abel's nephew (DNB).

13 Flight, , op. cit. (8).Google Scholar From the context of the article, it is probable that Flight had had communication with Bruce, then living in Chislehurst, near London.

14 Dawson, George to Maskelyne, , 27 07 1864 (NHM: Cranbourne).Google Scholar

15 British Museum Archives, Standing Committee Minutes, vol. XXIX, 18 May 1861 (p. 9963), 25 May 1861 (p. 9970); Deputy Principal Librarian, British Museum, to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 26 January 1863, Public Record Office, London, CO854/7, fol. 201; for circular of 9 February, 1863 see Public Record Office, London, CO854/7 fol. 200.

16 Mueller, to Murchison, , 25 09 1861 (NHM: Cranbourne).Google Scholar

17 Outward letter book 2, no. 61/183, National Museum of Victoria, 16 December 1861. (In this paper, contractions have been spelled out in quotations from letter books.)

18 Outward letter book 2, no. 62/4, National Museum of Victoria, 3 January 1862.

19 Bruce, , op. cit. (11).Google Scholar

20 Mueller, to Maskelyne, , 25 01 1862Google Scholar (NHM: Cranbourne); Maskelyne, to Mueller, , 3 10 1861Google Scholar, which has not been found, was written before he had seen Mueller's letter to Murchison, (op. cit. (16))Google Scholar which had been passed to him by Murchison, on 20 11 1861.Google Scholar

21 Bruce, to McCoy, Frederick, 9 02 1862Google Scholar; Bruce, to Mueller, , 13 02, 1862 (copies in NHM: Cranbourne).Google Scholar

22 McCoy, to Bruce, , 13 02 1862Google Scholar (Outward letterbook 2, no. 62/31, National Museum of Victoria). Neumayer had promised his support in a letter to McCoy of 5 February 1862 (Inward Letters 1854–99, box N-Q, National Museum of Victoria).

23 Neumayer, , op. cit. (10), 52–3.Google Scholar

24 Mueller, to McCoy, , 14 02 1862 (NHM: Cranbourne).Google Scholar

25 McCoy, to Mueller, , 17 02 1862 (NHM: Cranbourne).Google Scholar

26 Mueller, to Maskelyne, , 20 02 1862Google Scholar (NHM: Cranbourne). This evidence makes unlikely the assertion by Walcott, (op. cit., (8))Google Scholar that the suggestion for the exchange was made by Governor Barkly to Mueller, although Mueller does say that Barkly concurred. It is possible, but unlikely, that the suggestion was first made by Barkly to McCoy, for McCoy wrote on 21 February to Richard Owen that ‘The Governor…has just suggested that if you were to buy Abel's meteorite and send it all for the museum here we could send you the much larger one entire which would probably be the most satisfactory solution of the difficulty for all parties’ (Outward letter book 2, no. 62/35, National Museum of Victoria). Barkly reports that ‘The question [of division of the meteorite] having been submitted to my judgement, I suggested that perhaps the better plan would be, to ask the Trustees of the British Museum to send back the smaller mass purchased from Mr Abel, on condition of receiving the “Bruce” meteorite in its original state’ (Presidential Address to the Royal Society of Victoria, 28 April 1862, Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria (1865), 6, 3)Google Scholar, although later he reported having learnt that the idea had been suggested earlier by McCoy (Barkly, to Maskelyne, , 25 05 1863Google Scholar (NHM: Cranbourne)).

27 Barkly, , Presidential Address, op. cit. (26), 3.Google Scholar

28 Foord, to Selwyn, , 27 02, 1862 (NHM: Cranbourne).Google Scholar

29 Neumayer, to Selwyn, , 27 02 1862 (NHM: Cranbourne).Google Scholar

30 Bruce, to Selwyn, , 10 03 1862 (Natural History Museum, Library, Owen Correspondence, vol. 19, fol. 63)Google Scholar, and Mueller, to Maskelyne, , 25 03 1862 (NHM: Cranbourne).Google Scholar

31 McCoy, to Smyth, Robert Brough, 16 05 1862Google Scholar, 30 May 1862 (Outward letterbook 2, nos. 62/80 and 62/98, National Museum of Victoria).

32 The details of this inquiry are difficult to determine, as the file pertaining to it cannot be found in the Public Record Office of Victoria. We know from the Registers that it was sent to Mr Odgers, the Chief Clerk of the Chief Secretary's Department, on 26 March 1867, but we have been unable to determine for what purpose the file was needed. We reconstruct the inquiry as far as possible from letters that mention it, but it is not certain how far the final report departs from the draft preserved in the Museum of Victoria archives. The Board may not have been as biased as it appears on the surface: Smyth and Selwyn did not have a good relationship, and in May 1863 Smyth reports not having spoken to Selwyn except on official business for nearly two years (Darragh, , op. cit. (5), 10).Google Scholar

33 See letters of May 1862 from Maskelyne, Owen and Murchison, forwarded to Barkly and printed in the Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria (1865), 6, pp. xxii–xxv.Google Scholar

34 Abel, J. L. to Maskelyne, , 8 08 1862Google Scholar, 29 September 1862 (NHM: Cranbourne); Maskelyne, to Trustees, 5 11 1862Google Scholar, Owen, to Trustees, 6 11 1862Google Scholar (British Museum Archives, Officers' Reports, vol. 69, Aug-Dec, 1862); British Museum Archives, Standing Committee Minutes, Committee vol. xxix, pp. 10225–6, p. 10332; Panizzi, A. to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 14 11 1862Google Scholar (Public Record Office, London, CO309/62, p. 197).

35 Melbourne Argus, 9 09 1862, 5.Google Scholar

36 Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria (1865), 6, p. xxiv.Google Scholar

37 Argus, 21 10 1862, 5Google Scholar; Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria (1985), 6, p. xxviGoogle Scholar; Argus, 17 11 1862, 4Google Scholar; 18 November 1862, 4; Age, 18 November 1862, 5. We have been unable to find any report to the Council of the Royal Society of Victoria arising from the Committee set up by the motion.

38 Argus, 20 11 1862, 6Google Scholar; Argus, 22 11 1862, 5Google Scholar; Argus, 5 12 1862, 7Google Scholar; Argus, 27 12 1862, 5.Google Scholar

39 Dawson, to Maskelyne, , op. cit (14).Google Scholar

40 Panizzi, A. to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 14 11 1862Google Scholar (Public Record Office, London, CO309/62, p. 197); Duke of Newcastle to Henry Barkly (20 November 1862, Public Record Office, London, CO411/8, pp. 34/5); Barkly, to Maskelyne, , 25 05 1863Google Scholar, referring to a letter Maskelyne, to Barkly, , 28 01 1863Google Scholar (NHM: Cranbourne).

41 Barkly, to McCoy, , 18 04 1863Google Scholar, Mitchell Library, MSA675.

42 McCoy, to Evans, , 21 04 1863Google Scholar (Outward letterbook 2, no. 63/70, National Museum of Victoria); Barkly, to Maskelyne, , 25 05 1863 (NHM: Cranbourne).Google Scholar

43 McCoy, to Barkly, , 25 04 1863Google Scholar (Outward letterbook 2, no. 63/81, National Museum of Victoria).

44 [Draft] ‘Report of the Board Appointed to consider the contemplated removal from the Colony of the Cranbourne Meteorite’ (Cranbourne Meteorite File, National Museum of Victoria Archives).

45 Barkly, to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 15 07 1862Google Scholar (Public Record Office, London, CO309/60, p. 304).

46 Barkly, to Mueller, , 22 05 1863Google Scholar, Barkly, to McCoy, , 28 04 1863Google Scholar (Victorian Public Record Office, Bundle 10, no. 12, unit 11, VPRS special files, VA 466 Governor's Office); Mueller, to Maskelyne, , 25 09 1863Google Scholar (NHM: Cranbourne); Mueller, to Darling, , 28 11 1863Google Scholar (Victorian Public Record Office, Bundle 10, no. 12, unit 11, VPRS special files, VA 466 Governor's Office).

47 Mueller, to McCoy, , 11 09 1863Google Scholar (Mitchell Library, MSA675); Mueller, to Evans, , 11 09 1863Google Scholar (Victorian Public Record Office, Bundle 10, no. 12, unit 11, VPRS special files, VA 466 Governor's Office); Mueller, to Maskelyne, , 25 09 1863Google Scholar (NHM: Cranbourne).

48 British Museum Archives, Standing Committee Minutes, Committee vol. XXIX, p. 10391; Maskelyne, to Panizzi, , 26 07 1863Google Scholar (NHM: Cranbourne); Bruce, to Maskelyne, , 15 07 1863Google Scholar (copy in Public Record Office, London, CO309/60, p. 238); Panizzi to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 31 July 1863 (Public Record Office, London, CO309/60, p. 229–30); Despatch of Secretary of State for the Colonies to Darling, Charles, 20 08 1863Google Scholar (Public Record Office, London, CO411/8, p. 89); Colonial Office to Crown Agents, 20 August 1863 (Public Record Office, London, CO411/07, pp. 126, 7); Crown Agents to Colonial Office, 6 October 1864 (Public Record Office, London, CO309/70, p. 58).

49 Mueller, to Maskelyne, , 25 10 1863 (NHM: Cranbourne).Google Scholar

50 McCoy, to Darling, , 11 11 1863Google Scholar (Outward letterbook 2, no. 63/181, National Museum of Victoria); Mueller, to Darling, , 28 11 1863Google Scholar (Victorian Public Record Office, Bundle 10, no. 12, unit 11, VPRS special files, VA 466 Governor's Office; copy in NHM: Cranbourne). Not all enclosures are associated with either copy available, but some have been identified and have been used as sources in their own right in this account.

51 Maskelyne, to Mueller, , 8 08 1864Google Scholar (National Herbarium of Victoria Library, RB MSS M76); Mueller, to Maskelyne, , 25 03 1864Google Scholar (NHM: Cranbourne).

52 Governor to Chief Secretary, 12 April 1864 (copy enclosed with despatch 73, Public Record Office, London, CO309/67, p. 275).

53 Mueller, to Maskelyne, , 25 04 1864Google Scholar (NHM: Cranbourne); Chief Secretary to Governor, 20 June 1864 (copy enclosed with despatch 73, Public Record Office, London, CO309/67, p. 278); Darling to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 20 July 1864 (Public Record Office, London, CO309/67, p. 272); Colonial Office to Panizzi, 29 September 1864 (Public Record Office, London, CO411/7, p. 218).

54 Governor Darling to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 23 January 1865 (Public Record Office, London, CO309/71, p. 32).

55 Outward letterbook 2, nos. 65/16, 65/15 and 65/17, National Museum of Victoria; Mueller to Maskelyne, 25 January 1865, Syd Smirke, to Maskelyne, , 27 09 1865Google Scholar (NHM: Cranbourne); Maskelyne to Trustees of the British Museum, 8 November 1865 (British Museum Archives, Officers' Reports, vol. 75, 1865); Panizzi, to Mueller, , 21 11 1865Google Scholar (British Museum Archives, Letter Books, vol. 13; pp. 106–7).

56 Flight, , op. cit, (8)Google Scholar; Maskelyne, N. Story, ‘Some lecture notes upon meteorites’, Nature (1875), 12, 485–7, 504–7, 520–3Google Scholar, quotation from 504; [P. E. M.] Berthelot: ‘Sur la matiere charboneusses des meteorites’, Comptes Rendus (1868), 67, 849Google Scholar, ‘Nouvelles contributions à l'historie du carbone’, Comptes Rendus (1871), 73, 494–6Google Scholar, also in Annales de Chimie (1873), 30, 419–31Google Scholar; Berthelot, to Maskelyne, , 16 04 1872Google Scholar (‘Letters, vol. 11, (Bar-Bom), 1800–1900, Mineral Department’, Natural History Museum, Mineralogy archives); Brown, H. (ed.), A Bibliography on Meteorites, Chicago, 1953Google Scholar; Flight, Walter, ‘A chapter in the history of meteorites’, serialized in The Geological MagazineGoogle Scholar, New series, decade n, vol. II, 1875 (the Cranbourne meteorites are discussed on pp. 552–3, where preliminary analyses are presented); Walcott, , op. cit. (8).Google Scholar

57 von Haidinger, W., ‘Zwei Meteoreisenmasse in der Nähe von Melbourne in Australien aufgefunden’, Sitzungsberichte K. K. Akad. Weiss (1861), 43, 583–4Google Scholar; ‘Die Dandenong Meteoreisenmasse in Melbourne’, ibid. (1861), 44, 31; ‘Die Zwei Cranbourne Meteor-Eisenblöcke in Victoria’, ibid. (1861), 44, 378–80; ‘Die ersten Proben des Meteoreisens von Cranbourne in Australien’, ibid. (1861), 44, 465–72; ‘Das Meteoreisen von Cranbourne im K. K. Hof-Mineralcabinet; ein Geschenk von dem Königlich-grossbritannischen Gourverneur von Victoria in Australien, Sir Henry Barkly’, ibid. (1862), 45, 65–74, Haushofer, K., ‘Meteorite von Cranbourne’, Journal für Praktik Chemie (1869), 107, 330Google Scholar (not seen, but a summary is given in Chemical News (1870), 21, 12).Google ScholarWadsworth, M. E., ‘The Cranbourne meteoric iron’, Science (1883), 1(10), 285.Google Scholar

58 Walcott, , op. cit. (8)Google Scholar; George Foord, ‘Notes on the Cranbourne meteorite’, quoted in Smyth, G. Brough, Goldfields and Mineral Districts of Victoria, Melbourne, 1869, 424–6.Google Scholar

59 Berthelot, , op. cit. (56)Google Scholar (The Comptes Rendus article was summarized in translation for the Royal Society of Victoria by Gibbons, Sydney, ‘Note on the Cranbourne meteorite’, Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria (1872), 10, 130–1)Google Scholar; Smith, J. Lawrence, ‘Researches on the solid carbon compounds in meteorites’, The American Journal of Science and Arts, 3rd series (1876), 11, 388–95, 433–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘On the composition of the new meteoric mineral “daubréelite” and its frequent if not universal occurrence in meteoric irons’, American Journal of Science and Arts, 3rd series (1878), 16, 270–2.Google Scholar

60 Other, but later, Australian examples are briefly discussed in Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory, ‘International exchange in the natural history enterprise: museums in Australia and the United States’, in Home, R. W. and Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory (eds.), International Science and National Scientific Identity, Dordrecht, 1991, 121–49, e.g. 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Maskelyne, , op. cit. (33).Google Scholar

62 Fitzgerald, William G., ‘The romance of museums’, Strand Magazine (1896), 11, 70–1.Google Scholar The article contains other inaccuracies besides the belief that Bruce accompanied his meteorite to London.

63 See, for the case of the Scottish fossil, Museums and Galleries Commission, Report, 1989–90. For Australian legislation see Tasmania, , Meteorites Act 1973Google Scholar; Western Australia, Museum Act 1969–1973, especially section 45; South Australia, South Australian Museum Act, 1976–1980; Australia, Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986, and the regulations made under it (e.g., Statutory Rules 1988, No. 194; Statutory Rules 1990, No. 350). For recent reaction to illicit export see Bunk, Steve, ‘Moonraker’, The Australian Magazine, 6 06 1992.Google Scholar

64 For committee membership, see Argus, , 14 01 1865Google Scholar; for FRS, Mueller, to Hooker, Joseph Dalton, 8 06 1879Google Scholar (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Archives, Australia: Mueller, 1871–81, fol. 234); for medal and D.Sc., DNB; for KCMG, McCoy, to Owen, , 16 03 1889Google Scholar (Natural History Museum, Owen Correspondence, vol. 18, fol. 258); Owen, to McCoy, , 30 04 1869Google Scholar (copy: Natural History Museum, Owen Correspondence, vol. 18, fol. 260).

65 Barkly, to Hooker, William Jackson, 20 04 1861Google Scholar (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Archives, Director's Correspondence, vol. LXXV, fol. 11). See also Lucas, A. M., ‘Baron von Mueller: protégé turned patron’Google Scholar, in Home, R. W. (ed.), op. cit. (2), 133–52Google Scholar, on 138–9. Moyal, Ann Mozley, Scientists in Nineteenth Century Australia: A Documentary History, Stanmore, 1976, 172–85Google Scholar presents an account based on the direct exchange of letters between Mueller and the botanists at Kew; she does not mention the role of Governor Barkly.

66 See Stafford, , op. cit. (5).Google Scholar

67 Mueller, to Dyer, William Thistleton, 16 09 1887Google Scholar (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Archives, Australia: Mueller, 1882–90, fol. 228).

68 See, for claim to specimens, Mueller, to Gregory, Augustus, 9 07 1855Google Scholar (Public Record Office, London, CO201/485, fol. 187) and W. J. Hooker to Colonial Office (Public Record Office, London, CO201/488, fol. 357); for unwanted gifts of aboriginal implements, Mueller, to Chantre, , 9 06 1880Google Scholar and Chantre, to Jackson, , 23 09 1880Google Scholar (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Archives, Australia: Mueller 1871–81, fols. 274, 275); for Prince Paul, Mueller, to Barkly, Governor, 21 08 1858Google Scholar, in Barkly to Chief Secretary, 21 August 1858 (Public Record Office of Victoria, VPRS 1189, G58/7190); for an example of other offers, see Mueller, to Owen, Richard, 30 10 1878Google Scholar, suggesting that the British Museum purchase a collection of Longicorn Beetles assembled by Charles French (Natural History Museum, Zoology Keeper's Archives, Letters 1878, vol. 14, fol. 379); for buying honours, see Australasian, 6 01 1872Google Scholar, and other examples in Powell, J. M., ‘A baron under siege: von Mueller and the press in the 1870'’, Victorian Historical Journal (1979), 50(1), 18–35.Google Scholar

69 For return of obligations, Lucas, , op. cit. (65)Google Scholar; for thanks for FRS support, see Mueller, to Owen, , 24 08 1861Google Scholar (Natural History Museum, Owen Correspondence, vol. XIX, fol. 359).

70 For Bentham as ‘Chief Justice’ for Barklya, see Mueller, to Bentham, , 15 06 1858Google Scholar (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Archives, Australia: Mueller 1858–70, fol. 44). Mueller had previously had Sender's supporting judgement, but Bentham was the ‘highest authority’; for purchase and exchange see Short, P. S., ‘Politics and the purchase of private herbaria by the National Herbarium of Victoria’, in Short, P. S. (ed.), History of Systematic Botany in Australasia, Melbourne, 1990, 5–12Google Scholar; for encouragement to amateurs see Lucas, , op. cit. (65)Google Scholar; for resistance to Mueller's rights to plants, see Hill, Walter [Superintendent, Botanic Garden, Brisbane]Google Scholar to Hooker, W. J., 17 02 1862Google Scholar (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Director's Letters, Australian and Pacific Letters 1859–65, vol. LXXV, fol. 78).

71 For nominations to learned societies see Lucas, , op. cit. (65)Google Scholar; for plants being more valuable at Kew, see Mueller, to Hooker, W. J., 6 03 1857Google Scholar (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Director's Letters, vol. LXXIV, letter no. 158); for monotremes see Gruber, Jacob W., ‘Does the platypus lay eggs? The history of an event in science’, Archives of Natural History (1991), 18(1), 51–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Mueller, to Darling, , 28 11 1863Google Scholar (Victorian Public Record Office, Bundle 10, no. 12, unit 11, VPRS special files, VA 466 Governor's Office).

73 For Neumayer see Home, R. W. and Kretzer, Hans-Jochen, ‘The Flagstaff observatory, Melbourne: new documents relating to its foundation’, Historical Records of Australian Science (1991), 8(4), 213–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and sources cited therein, especially in notes 2 and 3.

74 Pyenson, Lewis, Empire of Reason: Exact Sciences in Indonesia 1840–1940, Leiden, 1989.Google Scholar

75 Home and Kohlstedt, , op. cit. (60)Google Scholar, editors' introduction, 3.