On the th September Her Majestys discovery ship Erebus accompanied by its sis - PDF document

On the 30th September 1839, Her MajestyÕs discoveryErebusTerrorsail from England headed for the Antarctic (Figure 1).Among the 64 men on board was Joseph Dalton Hooker,22 years old and newly qualified as the shipÕs assistantsurgeon and the expeditionÕs botanist. It would be 4 yearsCharles Lyell senior (father of the geologist); knowing of Endeavour Vol. 25(1) 2001 Joseph Hooker became one of the most influential botanists of his day. He is best remembered as a friendof Charles Darwin and an early advocate of natural selection. However, after returning to Britain from hisstudies of plant classification and distribution. As he worked to establish himself, he also helped transformthe status of botany as a discipline. In all his efforts, Hooker relied on a network of unpaid, colonial collectors,whose often-forgotten contributions to Victorian natural history are vital to the understanding of the of Science, Cambridge University, where he is in the final year ofhis PhD on Joseph Hooker. He did his first degree at the Universityof New South Wales, Sydney and his Honours thesis was on the earlyWhatÕs afoot at the Museum? 9, 76Ð85; and AGardenEnclosed: botanical barter in Sydney, 1818Ð1839. Figure 1The Terror, John Murray, London. Reproduced by permission of ErebusTerrornot with botany, but with trying to ascertain the preciseposition of the Magnetic South Pole. However, althoughin places such as New Zealand and Tasmania. They alsovisited the numerous tiny islands around Antarctica, whichregions. As he wrote to his father, ÔNo future Botanist willErebusof the southern oceans more generally, by including floras of Tasmania and New Zealand. Apart from theSouthern Oceans. As he sailed and collected, he notedlar plants: for example, the gum trees () that dominated the Australian land-scapewere never found in New Zealand. By contrast, the plants of the tiny island of KerguelenÕs Land wereclearly related to those of distant Tierra del Fuego, andnot to those of Lord AucklandÕs islands Ð despite the latter. Hooker, like many of his contempo-places they came to occupy. However, this theory waswould establish his reputation, Hooker had anotherBritish botany was mainly concerned with taxonomy, to be concerned with laws. The leading British philoso-phers of science Ð men like John Herschel and Williamdistribution studies would offer them the chance to dis-cover such laws. The southern floras seemed particu-larly good ones to study, judging by the achievements the first work on Australian plants in 1814 that. As one sailed south the plants became fewer until one reached Antarctica where there were no greennorth to the Arctic circle). So far, so obvious. But whatplants seemed to change in a predictable way. The trop-ics were not merely rich in species, but their vegetation . (Agenus, the singular of genera, is the next : ÔHomoÕis our genus and ÔsapiensÕourexplorer Alexander von Humboldt. Humboldt travelledextensively in South America, where he observed that Endeavour Vol. 25(1) 2001 Figure 2Ronald Campbell Gunn. Reproduced with BrownÕs ratios applied not only to changes in latitude, mountain chains of South America the lush vegetation An empire of plantsdistribution into a rigorous study, one that wouldplained why particular plants grew where they did. TheseHundreds of plant products were vital to the empireÕswealth: rubber, cotton, timber, grains, sugar, tea, oilseeds,So, HookerÕs plan to publish the botany of his voyagecould earn a living from botany, but also about raising thelishing plan, however, Hooker had both good and badnews. The bad news was that, although he had spentseveral months in Tasmania in 1840 and 1841 (when comprehensive survey he wanted to write. Fortunately,could use: his father, Sir William Jackson Hooker.William was also a botanist and had taught his son muchof what he knew. Even more usefully, he was director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, and possessed oneof the largest private herbariums (collections of driedplants) in the world. Using his fatherÕs influence, Josephwas able to get money from the Admiralty to help pay forhis proposed publication and was able to use WilliamÕscollections at Kew, to supplement the ones he had madeHowever, perhaps the biggest asset William had to offer his son was a global network of collectors who sentof his fatherÕs correspondents while he was on his voy-age: in Tasmania he befriended Ronald Campbell Gunn(Figure 2), the islandÕs superintendent of convicts, whoin New Zealand, Hooker met the Reverend Williamplants ÔhomeÕto Britain, conscious of the economic andscientific importance of their actions. They becameessential to HookerÕs project and he wrote them dozens of letters, praising or criticising their collections, offer-ing hints, issuing instructions and asking them to look for specific plants (Figure 4). Given that he didnÕt payfriendships with both men during the voyageof theErebusby GunnÕs tendency to collect mainly the larger floweringplants, and to neglect their smaller, less conspicuousmicroscopic eye as you have to detect differencesÕlarge amount of Phaenogamic [flowering] plants yet to beTo encourage Gunn, Hooker sent him numerous presentsof the botanical books and magazines that the Tasmanianalways asked for. These gifts were usually accompaniedby long, friendly letters and praise for GunnÕs collec-tions (in one letter, he sent Gunn Ô10000 thanksÕfor his Endeavour Vol. 25(1) 2001 Figure 3Colenso sent this hand-coloured photograph of ÔFrom having no HerbariumÕdifferent problem. The New Zealander was more thanferns in particular. However, Colenso fancied himself happy to leave such matters to Hooker). ColensoÕsown plants because the colonies did not possess largeKnowing the same species by two different names was many countries. In 1854, he criticised ColensoÕs attemptferns: ÔFrom having no HerbariumÕwrote Hooker, Ôyouhave described as new, some of the best known Ferns However, there was more to HookerÕs complaint than19th century. Botany was considered a pleasant recreationercise while improving their minds. For clergymen likeof GodÕs handiwork, a pious recreation that confirmed theexistence of wise and benevolent creator. Given botanyÕswholesome image, it is perhaps not surprising that largeFor Hooker, however, these hordes of willing aficionadoswere something of a mixed blessing: while their collec-of botany, particularly the number of women who enjoyedsome men of science. Trying to restrict the right to nameof HookerÕs strategy for forging a professional identityHooker dealt with ColensoÕs botanical ambitions byZealanderÕs desire to name plants. Hooker helped Colensoto join several of LondonÕs prestigious scientific so-cieties, such as the Royal and Linnean Societies. As inGunnÕs case, HookerÕs numerous, affable letters werephotographs. And, although Hooker would not allow Endeavour Vol. 25(1) 2001 PultenaeaGunnii, one of the numerous Tasmanianplants which Hooker named after Gunn. Colour plate from theFlora Tasmaniae(Ref. 5). Reproduced by permission of theSyndics of Cambridge University Library. Colour plate from Hooker, J.D. (1855) University Library. Flora Tasmaniaewhose names and contributions are largely forgotten.The three volumes of HookerÕs Botany of the AntarcticVoyageÐ the floras of Antarctica, New Zealand andTasmania Ð took him more than 15 years to complete. Heentific books of the 19th century, appeared in regularposition, he broke off publication and went on anotherhis father for 10 years. When Sir William died in 1865,Joseph took over as KewÕs director (Figure 6) and by thetime he retired in 1885, was one of EuropeÕs most influ-amateurs into the Ôbig scienceÕof the 19th century. Thevoyage to the Antarctic had, indeed, been the making ofHooker is best known today as a friend of DarwinÕs andan early supporter of his theory of evolution. As a result,the modern, professional scientist was formed. However,Joseph Hooker, but of the role of the professional scientist.Darwin, F. ed. (1888) (Vol. II), pp. 19Ð20, John MurrayHuxley, L. (1918) (Vol. 1), p. 41, John Murray Huxley, L. (1918) (Vol. 1), p. 166, John Murray Huxley, L. (1918) (Vol. 1), p. 163, John Murray Hooker, J.D. (1859) Flora Tasmaniae (Botany of theAntarctic voyage: volume 3)Hooker, J.D. (1847) Flora Antarctica (Botany of theAntarctic voyage: volume 1)Herschel, J.F.W. (1830) APreliminary Discourse on theStudy of Natural Philosophy,Longman; and Yeo, R. (1993)Defining Science: William Whewell, Natural Knowledge,and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain (Ideas inBrown, R. (1814) Systematical, on the Botany of Terra AustralisThe Secular Ark: Studies in the History of, p. 62, Yale University PressThe Secular Ark: Studies in the History of, pp. 60Ð61 Yale University PressCain, P.J. (1999) Economics and Empire: The MetropolitanOxford History of theBritish Empire) (Vol. III)(Porter, A., ed.), pp. 31Ð52,Oxford University Press; Brockway, L. (1979) Gardens, Academic Press; and McCracken, D.P. (1997)Gardens of Empire: Botanical Institutions of the VictorianBritish EmpireVan DiemenÕs LandCorrespondents: Letters from R.C. Gunn, R.W. Lawrence,Jorgen Jorgenson, Sir John Franklin and others to SirWilliam J. Hooker, 1827Ð1849, Queen Victoria Museum, formore on Gunn; and Mackay, (1990) William Colenso, , pp. 87Ð89, Allen &R.C. Gunn to J.D. Hooker, 17 October 1845 (original inMitchell Library, Sydney)Quoted by W. Colenso in a letter to J.D. Hooker, 24 August1854 (original in Archives of the Royal Botanic Gardens,Further reading¥Allan, M. (1967) The Hookers of Kew, 1785Ð1911¥Desmond, A. and Moore, J. (1991) ¥Desmond, R. (1995) Kew: AHistory of the Royal BotanicGardens, The Harvill Press ¥Desmond, R. (1999) Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker: Traveller, Antique CollectorÕs Club, Woodbridge,Suffolk¥Hooker, J.D. (1855) Antarctic voyage: volume 2)¥Huxley, L. (1918) ¥Turrill, W.B. (1963) Explorer and Administrator Endeavour Vol. 25(1) 2001 Figure 6Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1869, just after he becamedirector of Kew. This carte de visite, signed by Hooker, was aNational Library of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.