J.D. Hooker, George Bentham, Asa gray and ferdinand mueller on species limits in theory and practice: A mid-nineteenth-century debate and its repercussions

Historical Records of Australian Science

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 345-370

  Stevens, P F ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000139630     PISSN: 07273061     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1071/HR9971130345     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. W. T. Thistleton-Dyer, [Presidential Address], Section D, Biology, Proceedings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 1888, (1889), 686-701, p.688.
2. Asa Gray to J. D. Hooker, 21 January 1867, Asa Gray Correspondence, 1839-1888, fol. 430, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Gray is refering to G. Bentham and J. D. Hooker, Genera plantarum . . . (3 vols, London, 1862-1883),
3. and a series of floras of different parts of the British Empire of which the first to be completed was written by Bentham (Flora hongkongensis: A Description of the Flowering Plants and Ferns of the Island of Hongkong [London, 1861]); see also n. 105.
4. See also L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker (2 vols, New York, 1918), esp. vol. I, pp.439-447, 465-477,
5. for letters of Hooker dealing with species, also the several volumes of The Correspondence of Charles Darwin (Cambridge, 1985 onwards).
6. e siècle, in S. Atran et al., Histoire du concept d'espèce dans les sciences de la vie (Paris, 1987), pp. 193-225;
7. P. F. Stevens, Species: Historical Perspectives, in Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, eds. E. F. Keller and E. A. Lloyd (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), pp.307-317, and references. Much of the discussion about species seems to revolve around nomenclatural issues, but La Vergata showed clearly that such issues often bear on far more than nomenclature.
8. For his life, see especially Huxley, n. 3; W. B. Turrill, Joseph Dalton Hooker, Botanist, Explorer and Administrator (The Hague, 1963);
9. M. Allan, The Hookers of Kew, 1785-1911 (London, 1967);
10. R. Desmond, Kew: The History of the Royal Botanic Gardens (London, 1995).
11. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 6 October 1855, Joseph Dalton Hooker Letters, Historic Letters File, Archives, Library of the Gray Herbarium, Harvard University ('Gray Herbarium Archives' below).
12. F. Burkhardt and S. Smith, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. Volume 3, 1844-1846 (Cambridge, 1987), p. 14.
13. I have been somewhat disappointed in my expectations of finding that Sikkim would tend to clear up your doctrines to my mind. I thought that the transition from one form to another would be more apparent in a country where under a perfectly equable climate the floras of the tropical temperate & Artic zones blend in the same Longitude & Latitude. Such has not been the case I think. As a flora it is one of better marked species than most countries possess. Its many willows are all well marked species, which is not the case with their congeners of excessive climates (N. Am. for instance) . . . (Hooker to Darwin, 6 April 1850; F. Burkhardt and S. Smith, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. Volume 4, 1847-1850 [Cambridge, 1988], p.328). Here Hooker refers to comparisons Darwin was making between the relative variability of species in large and small genera.
14. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 21 October 1858, 29 June 1859, Gray Herbarium Archives.
15. I largely follow S. Kohlstedt, The Nineteenth-Century Amateur Tradition: The Case of the Boston Society of Natural History, Science and Its Public, eds. G. Holton and W. A. Blanpied (Dordrecht, 1976), pp. 170-190, esp. 173-175;
16. see also K. R. Benson, From Museum Research to Laboratory Research: The Transformation of Natural History into Academic Biology, in The American Development of Biology, eds. R. Rainger, K. R. Benson and J. Maienschein (Philadelphia, 1988), pp.49-83,
17. esp. 54. Commitment was a major criterion of professionalism by the 1850s, and Hooker himself considered this to be very important (J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 26 July 1858, Gray Herbarium Archives). Specialized training or degrees are less important. They became criteria of professionalism in some disciplines during the course of the century, but the training needed to describe new species is minimal and is often acquired during what amounts to an apprenticeship (P. F. Stevens, Development of Biological Systematics . . . [New York, 1994], p.225).
18. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 1 September [1853], Gray Herbarium Archives.
19. J. D. Hooker, The Botany of the Antarctic Voyage . . . II. Flora novae zelandiae. Part 1. Flowering Plants (London, 1853).
20. J. D. Hooker and T. Thomson, Flora indica, vol. 1 (London, 1855), includes his only comparable discussion.
21. See Hooker and Thomson, op. cit. (n. 11), pp.20-21.
22. See Hooker, op.cit. (n. 11), p.viii.
23. See also J. D. Hooker, Géographie botanique raisonnée . . . par M. Alph. de Candolle . . . , Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany, 8(1856), 54-64, 82-88, 112-121, 151-157, 181-191, 248-256; pp.250-252 is a succint statement of the problem.
24. See Hooker, op. cit. (n. 11), pp.ix-xi.
25. Ibid.Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany pp.x-xii;
26. Hooker and Thomson, op. cit. (n. 11), p.25.
27. See Hooker, op. cit. (n. 11), pp.xx-xxvi.
28. Ibid.Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany p.xiii.
29. See Hooker and Thomson, op. cit. (n. 11), pp.25-26.
30. Ibid.,Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany pp.32, 33, also 35.
31. Ibid.Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany p.23;
32. Hooker, op. cit. (n. 11), pp.x-xii;
33. J. D. Hooker, The Botany of the Antarctic Voyage . . . Part III. Flora tasmaniae. Vol. 1. Dicotyledones (London, 1859), p.xv;
34. G. Bentham, On the Species and Genera of Plants, Considered with Relation to Their Practical Application to Systematic Botany, Natural History Review, N.S., 1(1861), 133-151, pp.140-142.
35. C. W. Nägeli, Die Cirsien der Schweiz, Neue Denkschriften allgemeinen Schweizerische Gesellschaft für die gesammten Naturwissenschaften, 5(1841), viii + 170 + pl. 2-8.
36. Some botanists even doubted the capacity of plants to cross-fertilize extensively (e.g. Bentham, op. cit. [n. 21], pp.135-136).
37. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 26 February 1846, Gray Herbarium Archives.
38. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 28 April 1855, Gray Herbarium Archives; see also 7 December 1853 for similar comments about Berberis. This tentative style is characteristic of discussions about species. The limits of species seemed almost a matter of instinct, certainly they could not be demonstrated analytically.
39. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 16 February 1856, Gray Herbarium Archives.
40. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 10 February 1859, Gray Herbarium Archives.
41. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 13 April 1859, Gray Herbarium Archives.
42. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 22 April 1862, Gray Herbarium Archives.
43. [Anonymous], The British flora . . . W. J. Hooker . . . and G. A. Walker Arnott . . . Manual of British Botany . . . By C. C. Babington .. Handbook of the British Flora . . . By George Bentham, Natural History Review, 3(1863), 34-40.
44. J. D. Hooker to F. Mueller, 20 December 1858; see A. M. Lucas, Letters, Shipwrecks and Taxonomic Confusion: Establishing a Reputation from Australia, Historical Records of Australian Science, 10(1995), 207-221; pp.215-216.
45. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 26 June 1856, Gray Herbarium Archives.
46. [Anonymous], United States Exploring Expedition; Vol. XVI. Botany: Cryptogamia-Filices, including Hydropterides;
47. by William D. Brackenridge. . . . , Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany, 8(1856), 92-95, p.94. Possibly by J. D. Hooker.
48. See Hooker and Thomson, op. cit. (n. 11), pp.20-21.
49. [Anonymous], On Species. By A. de Candolle' [review of Candolle, n. 46], Natural History Review, 3(1863), 189-201, p.194.
50. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 1 September [1853], Gray Herbarium Archives.
51. J. D. Hooker to A. Gray, 26 June 1856, Gray Herbarium Archives.
52. J. D. Hooker to C. Darwin, [mid July] 1845, see Burkhardt and Smith, op. cit. (n. 6), p.223.
53. See Hooker, op. cit. (n. 11), p.viii;
54. op. cit. (n. 14), pp.255-256.
55. See Hooker and Thomson, op. cit. (n. 11), p.21.
56. See Hooker, op.cit. (n. 21), p.iv.
57. G. Bentham, Handbook of the British Flora (London, 1858), p.26;
58. see also Bentham, op. cit. (n. 21), p.133.
59. A. Gray, Introductory Essay, in Dr. Hooker's Flora of New Zealand: Vol. 1, American Journal of Science and Arts, Ser. 2, 17(1854), 241-252, 334-350, p.244.
60. Ibid.American Journal of Science and Arts, Ser. 2 pp.248-249.
61. See Hooker, op. cit. (n. 11), pp.xiii-xiv.
62. A.-L.-P.-P. de Candolle, Etude sur l'espèce à l'occasion d'une révision de la famille des Cupulifères, Biblio. Univ. Arch. Sci. Phy. Nat., 15(1862), 211-237, pp.214, 216;
63. A. Gray, Scientific Intelligence. VI. Botany and Zoology. 2. Species, Considered as to Variation, Geographical Distribution, and Succession . . . , American Journal of Science and Arts, Ser. 2, 35(1863), 431-444, p.432;
64. see Stevens, op. cit. (n. 9), p.206.
65. F. Mueller to W. J. Hooker, 14 January 1857; see F. Mueller, Notes made during the Recent Expedition across the Northern Portion of Australia, under the Command of Mr Surveyor Gregory, Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany, 9(1857), 165-173, pp.165-166;
66. C. Daley, The History of Flora Australiensis, Victorian Naturalist, 44(1927), 63-74, 91-100, 127-138, 153-165, 183-187, 213-221; (1928), 248-256, 271-278, p.71;
67. see Director's Letters, Volume LXXIV, Australia, Letters 1851-1858, no. 149, Archives, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
68. See Lucas, op.cit. (n. 31), p.212.
69. 5 April 1855, Director's Letters, Volume LXXIV, Australia, Letters 1851-1858, no. 149, Archives, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
70. G. Bentham, Flora australiensis . . . (7 vols, London, 1863-1878), vol. 1, pp.129-131.
71. Ibid.Flora Australiensis... p.17*.
72. See Huxley, op.cit. (n. 3), vol. 1, p.469.
73. J. D. Hooker, Himalayan Journals; or, Notes of a Naturalist . . . (2 vols, London, 1854), vol. 2, p. 127, also vol. 1, pp.xvii-xviii, 347-348.
74. J. C. Loudon, Arboretum et fruticetum britannicum . . . (8 vols, London, 1838), vol. 1, p.218. It is not surprising that Loudon, a horticulturalist, found differences between growing plants to be more important than those evident only on dried specimens or in illustrations.
75. See Hooker, op. cit. (n. 11), p.35;
76. op. cit. (n. 53), vol. 1, p.257, fn.;
77. J. D. Hooker, On the Cedars of Lebanon, Taurus and Algeria, Natural History Review, 2(1862), 11-18, pl. 1-3.
78. See Stevens, op. cit. (n. 9), p.207;
79. S. Madriñán, Richard Spruce's Pioneering Work on Tree Architecture, in Richard Spruce (1817-1893), Botanist and Explorer, eds. M. R. D. Seaward and S. M. Fitzgerald (London, 1996), pp.215-226, and references.
80. George Caley, a botanical collector in Australia in the early nineteenth century, seems to have written descriptions for species after he collected them. His understanding of species limits of Eucalyptus (for example) around Sydney was good, and Aborigines were among his informants about the plants (J. Webb, George Caley, Nineteenth Century Naturalist (Chipping Norton, New South Wales, 1995, pp.49, 125);
81. Caley also made valuable observations about the behavior of birds (ibid., pp. 138-139).
82. For Mueller's collecting habits, see Lucas, op. cit. (n. 31), p.212.
83. Bentham consulted the original notes because he knew of their existence (see Bentham, op. cit. [n. 21], p.135), but he was exceptional both in the extent of his general botanical knowledge and in his interest in the notes.
84. Then, as now, botanists and botanical institutions were linked by a complex system in which specimens of interest were exchanged or purchased.
85. See Hooker, op. cit. (n. 53), vol. 1, pp.358, 399.
86. Mueller's practice was generally similar, and the labels attached to his specimens are equally laconic (D. M. Churchill, T. B. Muir, and D. M. Sinkora, The Published Works of Ferdinand J. H. Mueller (1825-1896), Muelleria, 4(1978), 1-120; p.16).
87. He preferred to use names rather than numbers in the field, since he thought that the latter were easily mistaken - F. Mueller, Botany of Victoria (Southern Australia), Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany, 7(1855), 233-242, 357-362; p.240;
88. J. Ross, Some insights into F. J. H. Mueller's modus operandi, Australian Systematic Botanical Society Newsletter, 84(1995), 4-6;
89. Lucas, op. cit. (n. 31), p.212. This practice turned out to have nomenclatural repercussions that rather distressed Mueller (see nn. 102-103).
90. See Hooker, op. cit. (n. 11), p.xiv;
91. Hooker and Thomson, op. cit. (n. 11), p.28, also pp.27-36.
92. See Hooker and Thomson, op. cit. (n. 11), p.35.
93. In the copy of Hooker and Thomson's volume held by the Gray Herbarium, Asa Gray annotated the passage from which this quotation is excerpted, opt[issime]!'. See also Hooker, op. cit. (n. 11), p.15
94. and Huxley, op. cit. (n. 3), vol. 1, pp.371-372.
95. J. D. Hooker specifically commented on the need for information about the variability of species, on instructions he gave on the occasion of the departure of Eugène Bourgeau for North America - J. D. Hooker, British North-American Exploring Expedition, Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany, 9(1857), 213-219, p.216.
96. See Hooker, op. cit. (n. 11), p.xvii;
97. Hooker, op. cit, (n. 53), vol. 1, p.257, fn.
98. See Hooker and Thomson, op. cit. (n. 11), p.21.
99. See Hooker, op. cit. (n. 11), p.xxvi.
100. W. J. Hooker, Article X. Fourth Division, Section 5, Botany, in A Manual of Scientific Enquiry; Prepared for the Use of Officers in Her Majesty's Navy; and Travellers in General, ed. J. P. W. Herschel, 3rd ed. (London, 1859), pp. 413-429, p.413.
101. J. D. Hooker edited the article for the fourth edition (1871) but left it largely unchanged; D. Hanbury and D. Oliver added an appendix, Inquiries relating to Pharmacology and Economic Botany' (pp.385-392).
102. G. Bentham to F. Mueller, 18 October and 19 November 1865, see Daley, op. cit. (n. 47), p. 157.
103. Hooker also commented on the value of 'cortical characters' (J. D. Hooker to F. Mueller, 23 August 1858, ibid.Inquiries Relating to Pharmacology and Economic Botany p.214).
104. G. Bentham to F. Mueller, 22 May 1861, ibid. Inquiries Relating to Pharmacology and Economic Botany, p.94, also pp.95-97.
105. R. Wight, Illustrations of Indian Botany (2 vols, Madras, 1840), vol. 1, p. 120;
106. see Hooker and Thomson, op. cit. (n. 11), p.12;
107. January 1844; Hooker to Mueller, 30 June 1857, RB MSS M3, Library, Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne. The mutually dependent nature of the relationship between colonial and metropolitan botanist is clear in the letters written by R. C. Gunn to W. J. Hooker, although Gunn seems never to have aspired to being a botanist in the way that Mueller did (T. E. Burns and J. R. Skemp, Van Diemen's Land Correspondents [Launceston, 1961]).