0/ S&m \o^s Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Matthew Maty MD, FRS (1718-76) and science at the foundation of the British Museum, 1753-80 A. E. Gunther Historical series Vol 15 No 1 29 October 1987 The Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), instituted in 1949, is issued in four scientific series. Botany, Entomology, Geology (incorporating Mineralogy) and Zoology, and an Historical series. Papers in the Bulletin are primarily the results of research carried out on the unique and ever- growing collections of the Museum, both by the scientific staff of the Museum and by specialists from elsewhere who make use of the Museum's resources. Many of the papers are works of reference that will remain indispensable for years to come. Parts are published at irregular intervals as they become ready, each is complete in itself, available separately, and individually priced. Volumes contain about 300 pages and several volumes may appear within a calendar year. Subscriptions may be placed for one or more of the series on either an Annual or Per Volume basis. Prices vary according to the contents of the individual parts. Orders and enquiries should be sent to: Publication Sales, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, England. World List abbrexiation: Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (hist. Ser.) © British Museum (Natural History), 1987 /• V tSUUED fU / 290CT1987 i - n vv \ 1 I V i^^i^f >/!,(_ Hi-:' ^;:^^ ISBN 565 09005 4 ISSN 0068-2306 British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD Historical series Vol 15 No 1 pp 1-58 Issued 29 October 1987 Matthew Maty MD, FRS (1718-76) and science at the foundation of the British Museum, 1753-80 A. E. Gunther c/o GenerijlT^ibrary, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD J Contents I Introduction Ancestry and education Medicine in London The Medical Club Peter Collinson John Fothergill William Watson Peter Templeman James Parson In receipt of patronage The social circle The Maty family The Journal Britannique, 1750-55 Science: medicine and natural history Medicine ..... Inoculation .... Natural history since David Hume The JournaV% reception The Society of Gentlemen . The Royal Society, 1751 Academy of Sciences of Berlin, 1755 William Duncombe, 1754 Dr Samuel Johnson, 1755 Edward Gibbon, 1761 Medical and other matters in the 1760s Portrait and character II III The British Museum at Montagu House, 1753 Appointments of Librarians Collections and catalogues . Natural Productions and Modern Curiosities The problem of visitors Extra-mural activities Department of Natural Productions Daniel Solander and the catalogues The death of Thomas Birch, 1766 Maty as Keeper of Natural History, 1765-72 Benefactors and benefactions Principal Librarian, 1772 The return of Daniel Solander Club of Honest Whigs Death and post-mortem, 1776 11 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 26 31 31 34 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 45 47 49 50 51 Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (hist. Ser.) 15 (1) Issued 29 October 1987 A. E. GUNTHER Acknowledgements .......... Appendices ........... \. Journal Br itannique, 1750-55 ....... la. Contributors who signed ....... lb. Anonymous contributors ....... 2. The Society of Gentlemen: Birch's Thursday's Tea .... 3. Royal College of Physicians ........ 3a. Licentiate Committee, 1765 ....... 3b. Signed letter of protest, 30 September 1767 .... 4. Dr Knight's plan for Montagu House, 14 January 1757 5. Maty's plan for catalogues, February 1770 . . . . . 6. His Majesty's Sign Manual for appointment of the Principal Librarian, 21 July 1772 References ........... 52 53 53 53 53 53 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 MATTHEW MATY 3 Parti Introduction Among those who were concerned in its early years with the foundation of the British Museum in Montagu House, Matthew Maty probably had a wider circle of acquaintances than almost any of the other officers. As a physician he was a member of a medical club with wide contacts in the scientific world. As the editor and largely the author of the Journal Britannique^ he was the centre of a large intellectual circle in England, Holland and France. He also belonged to a club which included the leading literary figures of the day. Through his father he became known to the ministers of the Huguenot Church and having been both Foreign Secretary and Secretary of the Royal Society he was informed of the current opinions of the scientific world. Maty's life was chosen for study because of the ubiquity of his contacts and because it illustrates the social background against which the British Museum came into being. The valuable study of the Journal Britannique made by a Dutch scholar, Dr U. Janssens-Knorsch (1975), complements this work. Dr Janssens-Knorsch's approach is from a literary viewpoint and throws light on Maty's influence through the Journal; the present study focuses on Maty's work at the British Museum against the background of its eighteenth century science. The period 1720-80 which spanned almost exactly the life of Matthew Maty was exceptional in English history. It derived from a unique set of historical conditions unlike any that could have existed before, or that could exist again. It lay between the religious turmoils of the seventeenth century and the troubles attendant upon industrial growth extending into the nineteenth. By the start of the eighteenth century the constitutional disorders of the period of the Stuarts had run their course, to be followed by 20 years of adjustment under the leadership of Robert Walpole, the so-called Walpole's peace of 1721-42. There was also a time lag of about half a century from the acceptance of scientific thought, seen in the foundation of the Royal Society in 1662, and in the philosophy of Newton and Locke, before the reasoning of the natural philosophers seeped into the minds of thinking men, politicians, writers and men of wealth. The implications of the new science certainly altered the way men thought about the world, but it did not immediately affect their everyday lives. Mid-eighteenth century society saw itself as a classical age which had 'arrived', as it envisaged the Greek and Roman worlds it admired as having 'arrived'. It was seen as an age of permanence, the outcome of reason and experience, not merely as a passing phase in the course of history. Progress, of course, there was, but it related to the details of everyday life, to the improvement of the existing system and to the completion of knowledge. In a sense, men were unaware of the significance of the advances they were themselves making; they did not conceive themselves as the agents of the social and political upheavals of the last quarter of the century: in America in 1776 (the year of Maty's death), in France in 1789 and in the throes of the industrial revolution that emerged out of the Napoleonic wars. It was Maty's achievement, in the six years of the authorship of his remarkable Journal Britannique to give us an insight, during the mid-century period from 1750 to 1755, of what people thought and of the period's changes and advances. By means of a review of the country's publications and literature hardly a facet escaped him of its activities, in religion as much as in science and society. Religion, for instance, had ceased to inflame men's passions, but the controversies between the deists and those who held to a natural religion continued to simmer among a handful of theologians. The writings of David Hume showed men the way they reasoned and led to their questioning and modifying their religious beliefs, in medicine, experience and medieval tradition. In natural philosophy the Linnaean system was bringing the appearance of order into nature. The view of the world, enlarged by conquest, was being made known by voyages of discovery which stimulated the whole field of science. It was against this background that a group of eminent gentlemen, charged as Trustees under the will of the wealthy physician. Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753), were inspired to support 'Abbreviated to J.B. in text references. 4 A. E. GUNTHER the founding of a British Museum as a repository for the national collections of books and manuscripts and for the preservation of objects and specimens with which to provide a basis for knowledge. That it was their privilege to create an institution destined to give an active lead in the advancement of science would scarcely have entered their minds. The first two decades of the Museum's life, to the end of the 1770s, when it came of age, may be termed its formative period. It was a period of trial and error, and, all things considered, very little error. Such of the original Trustees, still living at that time, could reflect on having participated in an outstanding national achievement. However, it was an achievement shared by a group of very able men, the Museum's officers, of whom Matthew Maty (1718-76) was one. As a medical and literary man, he had prepared himself for the role as author and editor of an outstanding monthly journal, the Journal Britannique (1750-55), and, as a member of the Museum's staff, became Keeper of two departments and, in his last years. Principal Librarian. Ancestry and education Matthew Maty (christened Matthieu) was born at Montfoort, a little town near Utrecht, on 17 May 1718. He was descended both on his father's and on his mother's sides from distinguished French Huguenot stock which counted many protestant ministers (Menchee, 1915). In 1685, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which opened the flood gates of persecution for the French Protestant minorities, Matthew's grandparents had fled from France to Holland, settling in the Province of Utrecht. There, their son Paul (1681-1773) proceeded to a doctorate at the University of Utrecht, later adding the study of medicine and mathematics at Leyden. In 1709 Paul Maty succeeded his uncle as minister of the Walloon Church at Montfoort and subsequently became catechist at the Hague. There the unsettling influence on an independent mind in a centre of government with an international, especially English, atmosphere, persuaded him to emigrate to England to join the Anglican church. Being unable to secure a footing in London, he returned to the Hague, where in 1729, he wrote a letter, in effect a tract of a hundred pages, which was to set the seal of his future: Lettre d'un theologien a un autre theologien sur la mystere de la Trinite (Maty, P. 1729) - maintaining that the 'Son and the Holy Spirit were two finite beings, created by God, who at a certain time became united to God'. This was at a time before the Dutch Reformed Church had moved from the rigidity of Cartesian philosophy and when it was held that every departure from orthodoxy was sinful and deserved the severest penalty (Mosheim, 1765). For this letter, therefore, Paul was dismissed his benefices and excommunicated by the synod of Campen and the Hague. When his appeals against the decisions failed, and he found no refuge in England, he moved in 1730 to Leyden where his brother Charles lived, a compiler of a greatly esteemed Dictionnaire geographique universel, Amsterdam, 1701 and 1723. Joining the Remonstrant Church, Paul Maty remained in Leyden, it is assumed, for the eight years of his son's eduction. Matthew Maty entered the University of Leyden on 31 March 1732 at the age of 14, receiving an MD degree on 11 February 1740 and simultaneously a PhD for a philosophical thesis, Dissertatio de consuetudinis efficacia in corpus humanum (Maty, 1740). This was a dissertation on custom in society, later published as Essai sur I'usage (Maty, 1741). The intellectual environment of his family circle during the impressionable years of adolescence and his ability to master whatever was put before him, would acount as much for Matthew's philosophical attitudes as for the uncommon range of his interests. It was certainly no purely theological or medical environment in which he was brought up. In the 1730s, a foreigner looking across from Holland at the English scene found much to wonder at. After 20 years of Walpole's peace (1721-42) and freedom from external war, the condition of the country was as favourable to attracting a dissenting minister and a young doctor as any country in Europe. While catholics, non-conformists, Jews and Quakers were denied certain elementary rights, religious freedom had become an unquestioned English principle. Even writers and pamphleteers could say what they liked without fear of persecution, and both father and son were by inclination writers. MATTHEW MATY 5 After his visits to London, Matthew's father was determined, following his excommunica- tion, to shake the dust of Holland from his feet at the first opportunity. So with the completion of his son's education he made a permanent home in England. Matthew Maty arrived in London with his parents towards the end of 1740, and they settled in their first residence in Holler Street, Soho. Medicine in London A young physician hke Matthew Maty, with an education acknowledged superior to any he could have got at the time in England, would have been aware of the move in medicine away from the scholastic traditionalism of previous centuries into the application of ideas derived from practice which was being widely supported by large scale philanthropy. By 1741, four of London's hospitals had already been built (Westminster 1719, Guys 1724, St George's 1733 and the London Hospital in 1740), and another three were planned (Foundling Hospital 1743, Middlesex 1745 and the Small-pox Hospital in 1747). The first lying-in hospital opened in 1739, and by 1741 William Smellie (1720-95) had started teaching midwifery (George, 1925: 60). In the reign of George L the medical profession, from the influence of Thomas Sydenham (1624- 89), Sloane's mentor, had acquired a greater esteem and enjoyed a greater affluence than it had ever done, benefits it was not to lose that century. Leading physicians could earn the not uncommon remuneration of £10000 a year, an immense sum in those days; Sir Hans Sloane was the first physician to receive a knighthood. That Maty held a medical degree from the University of Leyden was something to be proud of as well as of some consequence for his future. At that time the conditions of medical teaching in England, Scotland and Ireland was such that many students went to study at Continental universities. Some went there because, not being of the Church of England - Non- Conformists, Catholics, Jews - they were excluded from Oxford or Cambridge; others because of the reputations of Paris, Leyden, Rheims, Montpellier, or Padua; and others still for financial reasons. From about 1700, however, British students gave preference to Leyden on account of the teaching there of Professor Herman Boerhaave (1668-1738), and in the next 38 years, until Boerhaave's death, no less than 746 English speaking students, mainly 'Angli, Scoti and Hiberni', but also students from the British colonies. New England and the West Indies, either matriculated, studied, took their degrees, or pursued post-graduate study at Leyden (Underwood, 1977). The influence of Boerhaave's pupils, for instance, was such that the Edinburgh School was founded by them; and Boerhaave's reputation today is that he was the greatest teacher of medicine the world has known. Therefore, a Dutch physician, newly qualified, who had studied under Boerhaave, could not only claim the value of the master's personal inspiration, but would have found in England many doctors, also his pupils, who were amicably disposed towards a young Leyden graduate. Given the necessary introductions, an attractive and intelligent young man from Leyden would have had little difficulty in building up a private practice. Of this, however, we know very little and virtually nothing until the 1760s. As a foreigner with a diploma from the University of Leyden, Maty could work under a 'bishop's license', given by a bishop on the recommendation of four physicians and without resort to the licentiate of the College of Physicians (not yet the Royal College). Nominally that excluded him from an area with a radius of seven miles from London (Clark, 1964). But the shortage of qualified doctors then was such that the College could not have improved the situation by seeking powers to make graduates qualify for its licentiate, even if they breached the seven-mile rule as Maty did. The position at that time was that only the well-to-do could afford a doctor at all. Most people called in an apothecary as a first step, and a doctor only as a second. The average apothecary had no other training than in the composition of drugs, so quacks abounded and made a good living. To judge by his later practice, the impression is that Maty worked among the well-to-do. There was, of course, a sizeable French speaking colony in London, including Huguenots who were settled in Soho, then a fashionable parish. There was probably work at 6 A. E. GUNTHER the French Hospital to which, at the end of his Hfe in 1774, Maty was elected an honorary physician. For the rest we must depend on what we can gather from his practice in the 176()s which will be mentioned later. The Medical Club It must be assumed that Maty came to London with the express purpose of earning his living as a physician, and therefore it is unfortunate that his first ten years as a doctor should have been so completely overshadowed by the literary period that followed. However, a young doctor in new surroundings would naturally be drawn to any circle that shared something of his experience. On his arrival in London Maty was introduced to what came to be called the 'Medical Club', but we do not know by whom. In it he found a group of doctors not much older than himself who were to become eminent in various ways and even internationally distinguished. The Club met on every other Thursday at the Queen's Arms of St Paul's Church Yard (Nichols, 1812-15, 3: 258) and there drank coffee and exchanged medical and other gossip. Since several of its members did much to help establish the British Museum in Montagu House, a brief introduction to each is required. It seems likely that the Club's existence was due to Dr John Fothergill (1712-80), an Edinburgh graduate who had just arrived in London and who was to succeed Hans Sloane and Richard Mead as one of the great figures in British medicine. However, when it comes to natural history in the British Museum or elsewhere, with Fothergill one must always associate Peter Collinson (1694-1768) (Hunt, 1887), an older man who, although not a physician and not at that time a member of the Club, was a great influence in natural history circles, and a pillar of support in Museum affairs. Both Collinson and Fothergill were of Quaker stock and both maintained the Quaker habit in their lives. Both had ancestral roots in the English hill country; Collinson in the Fells of Cumberland; Fothergill in the farm lands of Wensleydale, Yorkshire. Although Collinson was a trader, having inherited a wholesale business in men's mercery, botany was his passion. Trade with New England and Carolina brought wealth and enabled him to receive collections of plants by the American naturaHst, John Bartram (1699-1777), who also enjoyed Fothergill's patronage. By this means many new kinds of trees and shrubs were brought over to grace the estates of the English landed gentry. As a young man Collinson's knowledge of botany enabled him to help Sloane arrange his collections and in later years he was one of the few who could call on Sir Hans familiarly at any time. As one of the trustees of Sloane's will he would have welcomed an appointment as curator of the botanical collections at Montagu House, and although disappointed in this, he never ceased to support the Museum through interest and with many gifts over the years. John Fothergill (Hird, 1781; Lettson, 1786) founded his first club among the medical students at Edinburgh, and, graduating in 1736, assisted Professor Alexander Munro edit a work on osteology (Munro, 1746). Being too late to join Boerhaave at Leyden, Fothergill worked under Sir E. Wilmot (1693-1786), Mead's son-in-law at St Thomas's Hospital. Before engaging in practice in the city, he spent two years in clinical practice among the poor, for it was the poor, he said, who taught him medicine. He was one of the pioneers who helped free English medicine from the hold of the scholastic tradition by encouraging nature herself to effect the cure (Payne, 1889), and made an international reputation through the treatment of angina maligna of which an epidemic swept the country in 1747. A friendly and generous man, Fothergill attracted others to himself. Apart from his students' club and the Medical Club of 1741, he started a Medical Society (of Physicians) in London in the 1750s, and helped found the Society of (Licentiate) Physicians in 1767. Wealth brought him into collecting, his cabinet of shells being outstanding; he supported his naturalist friends in assuring the publication of their work. With Collinson's help he established a garden of 30 acres at Upton, Stratford, to the east of London, which Joseph Banks rated as the best in the country after Kew, and without an equal in Europe (Fox, 1919: 184n). To the Museum he MATTHEW MATY 7 was liberal in his gifts; and when Dr Gowin Knight, the Principal Librarian, suffered from an unwise investment Fothergill relieved his anxieties to the tune of £1000, a debt never repaid. Although Fothergill did not himself lend a hand at Montagu House he was a power in the medical and naturalist worlds. William Watson (1715-87) (Hartog, 1899) was one of the brilliant scientific men of that century. Son of a tradesman of Smithfield, East London, he went to Merchant Taylors' School and was then apprenticed to an apothecary. He won a prize awarded by the Apothecaries Company and may first have met Sloane there. Elected to the Royal Society at the age of 26 he had charge of the Society's classical experiments into the nature and conductivity of 'electric fluid'. Later, in 1751, he introduced the results of Franklin's electrical experiments to the Society. In the field of natural history he showed that coral was of animal and not of vegetable origin and his review of Linnaeus's Species plantarum, Holmiae, 1753 in the Gentleman's Magazine of 1754 did much to make the Linnaean system acceptable in England (Watson, 1754). In the meantime Watson advanced his qualifications as physician and surgeon. He became a public authority on poisoning by non-edible plants. In 1757 he was awarded a doctorate in physic at the universities of Halle and Wittenberg. The licentiate of the College of Physicians followed in 1759, when he moved from Aldersgate to practise from Lincoln's Inn Fields. In 1762 he was appointed physician at the Foundling Hospital. In 1768, in a paper read before the Royal Society, he advocated the method of inoculation against small-pox he had applied for 20 years. Numbered among Sloane's executors, Watson's election as one of the first Trustees of the British Museum was an enormous benefit to the new institution. With the exception, perhaps, of Thomas Birch, few others gave as much time as he did, and he furnished the Montagu House garden with many plants. Knighted only a year before he died, he is held in respect by the surgeon's title of 'Mr'. Peter Templeman (1711-69) (Thompson, 1898) came from a well-to-do family and so received, as did few others in this story, a formal education at Charterhouse, Cambridge and finally Leyden under Boerhaave, for an MD. At Leyden Templeman struck up a friendship with Maty whom he may have brought into the Medical Club. As a gentleman of means, Templeman decided on life of literary leisure on the fringe of medicine (Templeman, 1753). It may have been Maty's influence that led to Templeman's appointment, in 1758, as the first Keeper of the Reading Room at Montagu House, but neither his inclinations or his health survived the conditions of employment for more than a year. From 1760, as Secretary of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (later the Royal Society of Arts), having close ties with the Museum's staff, he found scope for his talents. The respect with which he was held is confirmed by the portrait in the Society's house. Another of the physicians in the Medical Club was James Parsons (1705-70), an obstetrician of abihty and versatility, who moved among the intellectual elite of his day, numbering bishops among his friends. A strong mystical element in his nature, derived, perhaps from years of adolescence in Ireland, led to unusual philosophical conclusions on such subjects as hermaphrodites, the differences between plants and animals, and the origin of languages. Less would be known about him were it not for an eloge Maty wrote for Nichols's Literary anecdotes on his death (Maty, 1812). Maty succeeded Parsons as foreign secretary of the Royal Society. However, there is no record of Parsons's interest in the Museum's foundation or that he was in any sense a benefactor. In receipt of patronage In the eighteenth century any young man without social connections who aspired to a position in society depended on patronage, and Maty was no exception. The opinion has always been that Maty was the recipient of favours from Lord Chesterfield (1694-1773), politician, diplomat and the author of the famous Letters to his son but what it was that inspired the patronage or what form it took has never been revealed. If, however, the evidence put forward 8 A. E. GUNTHER here remains circumstantial, it fits both Chesterfield's temperament and not only Maty's desire for reticence, but also his wish indirectly to acknowledge Chesterfield's friendship. In 1728 Lord Chesterfield was appointed ambassador to the Hague, then incidentally, the most important post on the Continent, and he remained there until 1731. While there, it is likely that he would have heard of the prevailing ecclesiastical cause celebre involving Paul Maty's excommunication by the Synod. With Maty going to and fro between the Hague and London, it is probable that the two met, and a meeting may have included Matthew Maty, then a boy of 12. There could hardly have been another circumstance to account for the warmth of Chesterfield's welcome to Matthew and his parents when the family arrived in London in 1740: . . . il recut un accueil distingue de celebre Chesterfield qui ne neglige rien pour lui ■ rendre agreable sejour de Londres. (Michaud, Biographic universellc, 1810-28 The impact on his lordship of an intelligent and agile minded young doctor with all the social graces could very well have prompted Chesterfield to intimate to his principal physician, Richard Mead, that here was a friend for whom something should be done. This would give meaning both to Maty's phrase in his essay on Boerhaave (Maty, 1747: 39) and to the compliment he paid to Richard Mead in Authentic memoirs (Maty, 1755(a): i-ii) . . . the friendly protection of some eminent brother of the faculty assisted him to force his way through the crowd. (Eloge Critique de H Boerhaave, p. 39) . . . ingenious men 'were sure to find' the best help in all their undertakings. {Authentic memoirs of Richard Mead, p. i-ii) The first of Maty's bows to Lord Chesterfield is taken to be the dedication of his Ode sur la Rebellion de MDCCXLV en Ecosse (Maty, 1746) to M.L.C.D.C. (Monsieur le Comte de Chesterfield). This is a long, rather heavy poem which tells us something of the author's political and religious position at the time of the Rebellion of 1745 which Maty might have thought it good for his patron to know. In the later stages of Maty's career it was less Lord Chesterfield who provided the cloak of patronage to Maty's ambitions, than Lord Hardwicke, the Lord Chancellor, doubtless prompted by Thomas Birch. But Maty was never neglectful of what Chesterfield had done at the start of his life in England or failed to take the occasion to make some indirect reference to it. The climax of Maty's acknowledgement of Chesterfield's patronage was, of course, his memoirs of Chesterfield and editing of his Miscellaneous works through which he has come to be principally known (Maty, 1777). The social circle At the time that Maty was first established in London the city contained a distinguished coterie of scholars and scientists. Of those in the Medical Club, Parsons and Watson had been newly elected to the Royal Society. One of the first calls any foreigner made on arriving in London was on Richard Mead, as celebrated as a collector of antiquities and for the patronage of scholars, as a physician. Sir Hans Sloane had just moved with his collections to Chelsea, another common port of call. Among the naturalists were several Maty was to work with while at the British Museum: George Edwards (1694—1773), ornithologist and Sloane's confident in his last years John Hill (1716-75), apothecary and writer, Henry Baker (1698-1774), microscopist, Dru Drury (1725-1803), entomologist, John Ellis (1710-76), a close friend of Peter Collinson's, who did much for the British Museum in its early years, and the impecunious Emanuel Mendes da Costa (1717-91), another recipient among many of Fothergill's charity (Whitehead, 1977: 9). A mathematician to come into Maty's circle through his father, was the Huguenot, MATTHEW MATY 9 Abraham de Moivre (1667-1754) (Gierke, 1894), one time tutor to several distinguished men of the day. Lord Chesterfield, Lord Macclesfield and others who were concerned with the Calendar Act of 1750 (de Morgan, 1857). In 1712 it had been de Moivre's privilege, as a friend of Newton's, to be appointed by the Royal Society to arbitrate between Newton and Leibnitz on the claim to the priority of the invention of the infinite calculus. It was Maty's privilege to write de Moivre's Memoire (Maty, 1755(c)). Another of Maty's early friends, neither physician nor scientist, but like himself with Huguenot roots, was John Jortin (1698-1770) who became eminent as an ecclesiastical historian. We do not hear about him until later, but it is likely that they met when Jortin, after Cambridge and with Anglican Orders (although a dissenter by temperament), was occupied as Reader and Preacher at the Chapel-of-Ease at St Giles-in-the-Fields, a stone's throw from the Maty home. There he wrote Miscellaneous observations upon authors ancient and modern, 1731. In 1747, having been appointed to another Chapel-of-Ease, at Oxendon Street, he came under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Thomas Herring, whose friend he had been at Cambridge and while there he was, incidentally, offered a living in the City by Lord Hardwicke. But he remained at St Giles to issue the first three of five volumes of Remarks on ecclesiastical history, 1751-54, which, given five review articles by Maty in the Journal Britannique, (J.B. 8, 9, 14) also brought him a Lambeth degree, an honour given generally for services to the Church at Lambeth Palace. His Life of Erasmus, 1758-60, established his European reputation, but most of his later writing was on classical subjects, and he contributed several articles to Maty's Journal Britannique . He also wrote on music and played the harpsichord. Twenty years older than Maty he was Maty's most intimate, and certainly most interesting friend and probably the centre of Maty's circle. His son Rogers, married Maty's eldest daughter, Louise. By joining Jortin's ecclesiastical circles Maty met a bishop or two, such as William Warburton (1698-1779), Bishop of Gloucester, who, a ready debater, might have expressed views about pastors who quarrelled with their Synod. There were bishop-antiquarians like Charles Lyttleton (1714-68), Bishop of Exeter and Carlisle and President of the Society of Antiquaries, and the William Stukeley (1687-1765), knowledgeable on Druidism and with a reputation for archaeological misinterpretation, all of whose works Maty was later to review in the Journal Britannique. There was also Martin Folkes (1690-1754), the numismatist who had succeeded Sloane as President of the Royal Society and who was to support Matys election ten years later. The Maty family Coming with his family to London, Matthew Maty was fortunate in being able to enjoy the benefits of family life surrounded in Soho by many Huguenot friends (Janssens-Knorsch, 1975). Within that social circle he met Elizabeth de Boisragon who became his wife on 13 December 1743, at the Spring Garden Chapel in Soho. A year later, their son, Paul Henry (1744-87) was born; there were two daughters of the marriage. In 1767, the second, Anne Gilette (b. 1748) married John Obadiah Justmond, FRS (1723-86) who held an appointment in the British Museum. The elder daughter, Louise (1746-1809) married Rogers Jortin (1732- 95) the son of Maty's friend, in March 1776, four months before her father's death. In 1750, Elizabeth Maty died, but in 1752 Maty married the English gentlewoman of Huguenot descent, mentioned by John Jortin in his letter of 1756 to Lord Hardwicke, quoted later, namely Mary Dolon Deners by whom he had a daughter, Marthe, born in 1758. In 1752 the Matys moved from Holler Street to Frith Street, also in Soho, and into Montagu House in the summer of 1756. It is assumed that the Maty family worshipped in one of the small chapels in Soho belonging to the Huguenot church of the Savoy, or in the chapel in Oxendon Street, near Leicester Square, where the memorial service for Matthew Maty was held on 11 August 1776. It is assumed that the Paul Maty, Matthew's father, lived with his son up to the date of his death on 21 March 1773. MATTHEW MATY 11 Part II The Journal Britannique, 1750-55 After the best part of a decade as a practising physician in London, occupying his spare time in journahsm. Maty evidently decided that Hterary hfe offered at least as much satisfaction as routine medicine. He may also have realized that it was not as a doctor that he would secure the niche in society his particular talents justified. It must also have been evident to him since his student years, especially since the completion of his doctoral thesis, that routine work was not really in his line even if it had the advantage of giving leisure for the scientific interests that occupied his medical friends. As far as his education was concerned his range of knowledge covered at least as wide a field as that enjoyed by any of his English contemporaries. The anonymous sketch of Maty's life in Nichol's Literary anecdotes made it clear that his incursion into a highly specialized form of literary journalism was aimed at securing him the place in society to which he feh himself entitled (Nichols, 1812-15: 3, 258). The means to this end was through the publication of 'dfeuille volante called the Journal Britannique . A study of the 18 volumes of this Journal issued in the six years between 1750 and 1755 - before he joined the British Museum in 1756 - is essential for understanding the man's ability and what he sought to make of his career. Janssens-Knorsch's work on the Journal Britannique (Janssens-Knorsch, 1975) although its approach differs from that of the author's, has been available and of very considerable assistance. The emergence of London as one of the centres of European culture, as well as of the constitutional, economic and literary developments in England, led to the posting there of hterary journalists who reported back to their capitals, and particularly to Paris. Maty had not been long in London before he made contact with a group of French journalists who were engaged to supply news of a literary nature to French periodicals, published on occasion in Holland. He was invited to join them at their gatherings of what had grown into a sort of literary agency at the Rainbow in Marylebone, an eighteenth century coffee-house. It was not long before he was contributing pieces both to the Bibliotheque Britannique (1733-47) and to the Bibliotheque raisonee des ouvrages des savants de V Europe (1728-53) and especially to its Nouvelles de Londres. In 1747, after 14 years, the Bibliotheque Britannique ceased publication, not from lack of demand but from lack of a competent editor. By that time Maty had become sufficiently involved in its affairs to realize that there was a future for a journal of that type. He must have wondered whether the editing it needed could be done in his spare time from medicine. It could be that pressure came from the Hague. An anglophile publisher there, Henri Scheurleer, whose father may have been an old friend of the Matys and who was eager to improve his trade in English books, may have made the first approach. The suggestion, by analogy with the arrangements of other journals, was that a successor to the Bibliotheque Britannique should be financed, printed and distributed by a publisher, and that Maty should provide the text as the London editor. It was an ideal arrangement for Maty, giving him an independent entree into journalism and a fee of £12 a month. In the year or so before the issue of the first number of his Journal Britannique in January 1750, Maty evidently gave much thought to its content and format. Its aim was defined in a Project in the first number, and later outlined elsewhere: The design of the Journal hath been, to do justice to English writers, who make a considerable figure in the Republic of letters; to assist in spreading their reputation abroad; and to give a fair account of their work without censorousness or adulation . . . (Maty, 1755(a): i-ii) Since its predecessor had failed because it was a group effort. Maty decided his must be an individual one if only 'pour penser avec liberie il faut penser seuF (J.B. 1: iv). To control content, policy and style he would himself be the principal contributor, compiler, editor and 12 A. E. GUNTHER JOURNAL BllITANNIQUE, PAR M. MATT, Dodeur enPhilofophie & en Md- decine, Vowr k mois de Juillet 1750. A L A H A r B, Cher H. SCHEURLEER, Junior. Marchand Libraire dans le Hout-Stiaat. M I> C Ci. Plate 1 Journal Britannique, Title pages, 1750. translator, but not an anonymous one. Outside contributors were welcome, but whether they wrote in English or French he would himself translate and edit their texts to his pattern. He would avoid the tediousness of the current reviews, which generally comprised long transcripts of the authors' text, by giving his own opinion. For his precedents, he would go back to the original thinkers of the previous generation, Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) and Jean de Clerc (1657-1736) who had inspired the encyclopaedists. The format the Journal Britannique took was pocket size (12 mo, 13 x 7-5 cm), of between 120 and 140 pages, printed in largish type (180 words to a page) (Plate 1). At first it appeared monthly, but after two years (April 1752), every other month, which, although doubled in volume, it gave the author more time for reflection. The early numbers were divided into four to six sections (the later into a dozen or so), being articles or reviews of 20 to 30 pages each. In each number a final section, Nouvelles Litteraires, contained advance notices of books to be reviewed and notes from the universities: of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dublin; also more general news from London, or any other stray bits and pieces, grave or gay, that took the editor's fancy. In the six years of the JournaVs life 18 volumes of about 8000 pages were produced. MATTHEW MATY 13 The volumes contain a total of about 320 articles. Although Maty was in principle both author and editor of the Journal, he sought collaborators, usually identified by initials. These appear to have contributed about 100 articles, leaving the balance of some 220 to Maty himself. As an index of Maty's social circle in these years it is interesting to see who his collaborators were (Appendix la and b). There were first his medical colleagues and others, some of whom were Fellows of the Royal Society. Those closest to Maty in these years were members of two groups, so-called Clubs, each of a handful of members. The more important was a Society of Gentlemen, admirers of Thomas Birch (1705-66) who joined in a fortnightly Thursday tea- party, which Birch called his 'Bibebum Theum'. Among them was John Jortin whose articles on classical literature found a regular place in the Journal. The other group was formed of a dozen or so Huguenot ministers (including Maty's father) attached to the French Church of Savoy which also met on Thursdays every other week. For theological articles it was natural that Maty should turn to his friends in this private Soho 'Synod'. For mathematics he leaned on his father, who could hold his own with any of the leading English mathematicians. The 65 contributions of this group, were signed by initials only, as were those of two others (J.J. and E.M.) not certainly identified. To analyse the reviews and articles which comprise a large part of these 18 volumes, Janssens-Knorsch has found it necessary to make a modern re-classification of the eighteenth century subject matter, since in 200 years subjects change their status; earthquakes or the age of the earth, for instance, no longer belong to theology. An analysis of the 320 articles also showing Maty's personal contribution to the Journal, would read: Subject Number of reviews/articles Maty's contribution Literature 77 64 Theology 59 20 Natural history and science 57 57 Medicine 33 24 History 23 c. 12 Philosophy 19 7 Antiquities 16 10 Law, institutions and commerce 11 c. 6 Geography and travel 10 9 The arts 5 4 Miscellaneous 13 13 323 226 The 50 Nouvelles litteraires, with notices of 600 titles, are not included in these figures. A further general analysis of the whole range of Maty's involvement with the Journal would duplicate that of Janssens-Knorsch. Instead, those aspects of science and medicine with which he was personally concerned are discussed in the following sections. Science: medicine and natural history The Journal Britannique did not seek to impose science on its readers beyond what the majority could understand, that is to say except for the complexities of mathematics, which drew protesters from correspondents. Could not the learned editor please consider their limitations? The Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions provided the basis for most of what was included since there was little that was new in medicine, natural history or antiquarianism (even on occasions travel) that, at that time, was not first presented to the Society. In the first number of the Journal published in January 1750 the Philosophical Transactions, 1747-48, were given a full review, and in the second number a leading article appeared on the relation between the foul air from ships and scurvy in which Maty took the 14 A. E. GUNTHER opportunity of quoting medical opinion from Boerhaave, Mead, Watson and others. The names of his friends feature prominently in his texts. Thereafter there was scarcely a number that did not include something originating from the Philosophical Transactions, if only a snippet in the Nouvelles litteraires. The Journal included 15 full length review articles of the Transactions published between 1747 and 1754. What strikes the reader of eighteenth century science today is the chasm separating it from what we take for granted in our every day lives. In mathematics Newton had done something to bridge the gap. In medicine and the natural sciences the middle of the eighteenth century stood as a watershed between the acceptance of classical and medieval lore and the advance to scientific method. The men whose work we read of in the Journal Britannique were feeling their way, often with an extraordinarily sure instinct, towards discoveries that came only in the next century. Maty's treatment of science against the background of the period must have done much therefore, to hold the interest of his readers at a time when revolutionary changes were taking place. Medicine In medicine the name to appear most commonly in the Journal is that of the physician Richard Mead (1673-1754). Maty's personal interest lay in Mead's friendship with Hermann Boerhaave (1668-1738) at Leyden when Boerhaave was still a student of theology; also in Mead's early acceptance of the value of inoculation against smallpox tested in 1721 on condemned prisoners in the Tower of London before being applied the next year to the daughters of the Prince of Wales, Amelia and Caroline. In 1751 Mead, as President of the Royal Society, supported Maty's election. Volume one of the Journal was just in time to review Mead's Demoniacs in his Medica sacra, 1749 and his Monita et praecepta medica, 1751, the last of his writings (J.B. 5). The Medica sacra drew a riposte from Thomas Church (1707-56), vicar of Battersea and Prebendary of St Paul's, in a paper adorned with a title typical of the period and making further study superfluous: A vindication of the miraculous powers which subsisted in the three first centuries of the Christian Church . . . With a preface containing some observations on Dr Mead's Account of the Demoniacs in his new piece intitled Medica sacra. (J.B. 1) After Mead's death in 1754, Maty wrote an obituary, Eloge du Richard Mead based on material supplied by Thomas Birch, (Herring, 1777: 159-61) of which, much to the author's satisfaction, an English translation was called for. This was concluded with the long Latin inscription on Mead's tomb in Westminster Abbey (Maty, 1755(a)). The last number of the Journal was concerned with the sale of Mead's Musaeum Meadianum, a discourse on the Cabinet of Richard Mead, described in a catalogue of 262 pages (J.B. 17). In medicine the Journal was largely concerned with the problems of the army and navy of a country intermittently at war, and losing more men from disease in peace-time than ever died fighting. The investigations of two Scotsmen, John Pringle (1707-82) and James Lind (1716- 94) showed where the deficiencies lay. From 1742 to 1748 Pringle was attached to the army in Germany and Flanders (he was at Culloden in 1746), and his Observations on the diseases of the army in camp and garnison (sic), 1752, (J.B. 8) proved the benefit of antisepsis, sanitation and ventilation in saving life whether in hospitals or in camp. He was a remarkable man who could maintain contact with the commanders on both sides of the battle lines and persuade them that hospitals should be regarded as outside the area of conflict, as they have since remained. Pringle became President of the Royal Society, supported Maty's election, and in 1752 received the Copley Medal awarded by Sir Hans Sloane. These and other medical topics summarized in the Journal from published works, generally without comment, can now be seen as revolutionary steps in military medicine. Lind's Treatise of the scurvy, 1753, (J.B. 13) a disease then associated with Samuel Sutton's Extracting foul air MATTHEW MATY 15 from ships, 1749, (J.B. 1) was the outcome of service with the fleet under the worst possible conditions in the Channel, Mediterranean and the West Indies. He showed that scurvy could be prevented by taking orange and lemon juice, but it was 45 years, in 1795, before the Admiralty insisted on the addition of lemon juice to the rations. That lack of ventilation was also the cause of several of the fevers of the time, including 'jayl' fever, was shown by a most original investigator, Stephen Hales (1677-1761), in a study of Ventilation at Newgate Prison, 1752, (J.B. 10) later taken up by the Admiralty in the design of ships. The Journal also reviewed William Smellie's (d. 1795) fundamental Treatise on the theory and practice of midwifery, 1752, (J.B. 7). That by the mid-century the study of physiology within medicine was gaining ground in the universities is evident from the writings of two Scottish physicians, both pupils of Boerhaave. One was Thomas Simpson (1696-1764) the first Chandos Professor of Medicine at St Andrews; the other Professor Whytt, FRS (1714-66) at Edinburgh, both of whom investigated the involuntary response of animals independent of the brain (J.B. 10, 11, 18). Although the Journal was not usually concerned with current events it noted, in November 1752, that owing to illness Sir Hans Sloane had been unable personally to present John Pringle with his medal, and Lord Willoughby (d. 1755), the Vice-President stood in for him (J.B. 9). The January 1753 number records Sloane's death and mentions his 'Cabinet d'histoire naturelle et d'antiquites', but not yet its destination (J.B. 10). Inoculation In medicine Maty's record scarcely survives beyond his interest in the then not fully accepted practice of inoculation against smallpox. It was the one cause that brought all his talents together: a physician with literary gifts, a command of languages and socially conscious. These he applied in the Journal Britannique as a means of lifting a campaign for inoculation to an international level, a need greater in France than in England or Holland. Maty seems to have contracted smallpox in 1740 shortly before he left Holland, and, treating it the 'natural way', survived - not the way, incidentally, Boerhaave advocated. Arriving in England he found that the leading physicians - Mead, Jurin, Sloane and others - accepted the practice even before 1721 when Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1689-1762) had her children inoculated after their return from Constantinople. However, the public credit for having given currency in the west to the Middle Eastern practice of inoculation should rightly have gone to John Woodward, FRS (1665-1728) (Woodward, 1900), Gresham Professor of Physic, who advocated the practice in a paper read before the Royal Society in 1714 (Woodward, 1714). Before 1752 the practice of inoculation was mentioned in the Journal Britannique only as items in the Nouvelles litteraires (J.B. 7) but from then onwards reports about it came to exert a considerable influence, particularly in France, where the authorities had been unable to counteract public resistance. The pace was being set in England. On 5 March 1752, the Hospital for Smallpox was reopened on a new site at Cold Bathfields, and a sermon was preached by the Revd Isaac Maddox (1697-1759), Bishop of Worcester, at the Parish Church of St Andrew, Holborn before the President, his Grace, Charles Duke of Marlborough, the President of the hospital, the Vice-President and Governors. The acknowledgement of the work of the hospital by nobility attending the ceremony, the account of its work and the ample statistics provided impressed foreign observers (J.B. 8). The next items in the Journal which exerted an even greater impact, were two full length articles reviewing James Kirkpatrick's (1696-1770) The analysis of inoculation, its history, theory and practice, 1754. This recounted the author's experience when he was concerned with epidemics in South Carolina in 1738, and later in Ireland and Scotland in which of 4257 cases only 10 died (J.B. 13, 14). This book roused the ire of the Rector of St Mildred and all the 'saints' in the City of Canterbury who, preaching on 'inoculation an indefensible practice' echoed the views of some medical men especially in France (J.B. 14). 16 A. E. GUNTHER At this time there was still some question as to whether, if smallpox were contracted a second time, either naturally or through inoculation, it could be fatal. To resolve this, for there were few cases authenticated. Maty decided, without the knowledge of his family, to experiment on himself. Being called to treat a girl of five years he re-inoculated himself with her matter, and although he contracted the disease in its mild form it ran its usual course of ten days and left no after effects (J.B. 15, 16). By the Journal Britannique, Maty came into the forefront of the European campaign for the introduction of inoculation, through a lecture delivered on 24 April 1754 before the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris entitled Memoire sur ['inoculation de la petite vevol by Charles de La Condamine (1701-74), the celebrated mathematician, geographer and surveyor. He traced the origins and development of the practice of inoculation amongst the Georgians and in the Middle East, a memoir which Maty translated and published adding preface and postscript (Maty, 1755(b)). Then, to resolve various questions. Maty wrote to James Porter, (1710-86), Ambassador at Constantinople, for information of current practice amongst the Greeks and others which he recounted in a paper to the Royal Society on 10 April 1755 (J.B. 17) (Maty & Porter, 1756). La Condamine's paper was strongly attacked by Andrew Cantwell (d. 1764), an Irishman, with a degree from Montpellier who was practising in Paris. Although he claimed to have practised inoculation, he had turned against it, and in a Dissertation sur l' inoculation , 1755, opposed the measure with such vehemence and untruth as to rouse people to anger (J.B. 18). There were reactions to CantwelFs attack in Holland, Switzerland and later even in France. In Holland Charles Chais, pastor of the French Protestant church, St Evangile, at the Hague, contributed an outstanding paper to the Science Society at Haarlem (Chais, 1754) which dealt with the medical and theological aspects of the problem. In Switzerland a paper by Simon- Andre Tissot (1728-97) on Inoculation justifiee, 1755, appeared in Lausanne. In England the effect of Cantwell's attack was to stir the College of Physicians to action. This was reported in a letter to Maty, as editor of the Journal Britannique , from the President of the College, William Heberden (1710-1801) and Edward Archer (1718-89), physician at the Smallpox Hospital. It informed him that on 22 December 1755 the College had, in a resolution passed unanimously, given unqualified support to the practice of inoculation, Archer's individual contribution being the hospital's most recent statistics. This resolution, published as an appendix to the Harveian Oration for that year filled three of the last pages of the final issue of the Journal (J.B. 18), a fitting climax to Maty's efforts. In France where in 1752, the publication of the Traite de la petite verole, by the Geneva physician Jean-Antoine Butini, had been totally ignored, by 1755 the authorities caused an approach to be made to the College of Physicians in London. Ambrose Hosty, an Irish docteur-regent of the Paris Faculty made contact with Kirkpatrick and Maty for evidence which could be used to refute Cantwell's statements (Maty, 1756). In 1756 Hosty spent three months in London in discussions with Kirkpatrick, Maty and Bishop Maddox and witnessed over 200 inoculations at the Smallpox and Foundling Hospitals and in private. In spite of the uncertainties of the Seven Years War (1756-63) La Condamine visited London in 1763 and Maty returned the visit in the following year (Miller, 1957). On 26 October 1764 Maty was in Calais, and from there he addressed a Lettre de M. Maty . . . aux auteurs de la Gazette Litteraire in which, to correct some impressions his correspondents held, he gave a historical review of the progress of inoculation in England since 1721 (Maty, 1764). Although the close of the Journal Britannique deprived Maty of a medium of propaganda he continued to collect evidence in support of inoculation. As a result of enquiries by Charles Chais at the Hague, Maty gave a paper at the Royal Society on the ancient practice among the Arabs on the Coast of Barbary, in Bengal and in the East Indies (Maty, 1767). He also persuaded Angelo Gatti, Professor of Medicine in the University of Pisa, to publish in 1767 an essay. New observations on inoculation, including an account of the situation in France, which he translated and published in Dublin. MATTHEW MATY 17 Natural history since David Hume The writings of David Hume (1711-76), almost an exact contemporary of Maty's, had a far greater impact on human thought and on the intellectual approach of his generation than any philosophical system credited to him. For him the problem of knowledge lay in the human way of knowing and feeling. His first mature work, An inquiry concerning human understanding, 1748, ante-dated the Journal Britannique, and the Natural history of religion, 1757, appeared too late for review, but in 1751 Maty drew attention to the Political discourses (J.B. 5) and to the Enquiry concerning the principles of morals the following year (J.B. 11). The writings of a philosopher of even Hume's clarity and incisiveness could hardly be expected to turn the theologians immediately from their disputations - Hume had already disposed of miracles - but a man of Maty's worldliness and journalist's sense could see what lay ahead, and although religion continued to find a place in the Journal it figured less prominently than it had before. Hume's empiricism had probably as great an influence on naturalists as on theologians, the former probing one aspect of nature, the latter another such as the age of the earth; and both find a place. The theologians were questioning Archbishop James Ussher's (1581-1656) biblical chronology between the Creation and Christ, of 4004 years, which had been inserted by an unknown authority in some editors of the Authorized Version 100 years previous, in 1654. The first of Maty's reviews examined the findings of the Revd John Kennedy (1693- 1782), Rector of All Saints, Bradley, in New method of scripture chronology on Mosaic astronomical principles, 1751 (J.B. 8) to be followed by the Revd. John Jackson's (1686-1763) two volumes of Chronological Antiquities of the most ancient kingdoms, from the Creation of the World for the space of 5000 years, 1752 - with tables, receiving three full length articles (J.B. 9, 10, 17). Readers who enjoyed disputation by reverend gentlemen were not disappointed. Kennedy, in a letter pointing out the Jackson's errors (J.B. 10) was joined by Baumgarten (1706-55), the German theologian (J.B. 14). Finally a lay approach was made by Blair in Chronology and the history of the World from the Creation to the year of Christ 1753, 1754 (J.B. 14). That Maty accepted a broad 6000 years since the Creation is suggested by a reflection in a review of the Natural history of Barbados, 1750, by G. Hughes: II ya six-mille ans que la terre est habitee et la Terre n'est point encore connue. Seroit elle trop vaste? Ceux qui I'occupent manquent-ils curiosite, d'industrie or de patience? Humiliant probleme! Que notre Siecle renouvelle des decouvertes, que les ages precedents auroient du lui enlever. (J.B. 3) The Journal never failed to record eclipses and earthquakes, and if by then the astronomers had taken over eclipses from the church, earthquakes remained the church's charge for quite some time. When discussed by the antiquarian William Stukeley, Rector of St George's, Queen Square, his Philosophy of earthquakes natural and religious, 1750, showed them to be subject to cause and purpose (J.B. 2). Can we deny then that [Hippocrates] here means a conscious and intelligent Nature, that presides over, and directs all things; moved the ethereal Spirit, or Fire, that moves all things; a divine Necessity, but a voluntary Agent, who gives the commanding Nod to what we commonly call Nature . . . {Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 46: 749, 1750) Until Maty took over the department of Natural and Artificial Productions in the British Museum in 1765, his concern with the subject appeared cultural rather than scientific. There is no evidence that he had practised the study of nature or had joined his naturalist friends in it. Natural history he described as \ . . la premiere et la plus universelle des Philosophes' (J.B. 9) giving a longer definition in James Parsons' obituary: 18 A. E. GUNTHER This amiable and interesting study, so congenial with human curiosity, so proportioned to human abihties, so necessary to human wants, is besides so intimately connected with physic, that it is almost impossible to cultivate the latter with any success, without at least having some tincture of the former (Maty, 1812). However, Maty did not neglect the English works on natural history that did appear. The first to receive two full length reviews was George Edwards' Natural history of British birds, 1750 (J.B. 2, 5) the author then being librarian of the College of Physicians. Less worthy than this was the Natural history of fossils, 1751, by Mendes da Costa (1717-91), which, treating a science scarcely in advance of geology, appeared the next year (J.B. 7). There was also an extension of a popular series in John Hill's (1716-75) Natural history of animals. Vol. 3, published in 1752 (J.B. 9) the previous volumes on fossils and plants having appeared since 1748. Well in advance of these was the work of John Ellis who was to help in the British Museum later and also become a benefactor. His Essay towards a natural history of the corallines, 1755, which showed zoophytes to be animals and not plants, was accorded two full length reviews (J.B. 16, 17). The use of the microscope by naturalists was coming into fashion and was urged both by John Hill (J.B. 9) and especially by Henry Baker (1698-1774) in his Employment for the microscope, 1753, a work of over 400 pages with plates (J.B. 10). The title of natural history was also given to the productions of amateur naturalists equally concerned with history, geography and sociology, such as Richard Barton's A natural history of Loch Neagh, 1751, (J.B. 5, 6), and the Natural history of Barbados, 1750, by Griffith Hughes, the island being important at the time as the political centre of the West Indies (J.B. 3). The Journal deals with more subjects than can possibly justify mention here: botany and the relations between plants and animals; the early discoveries of 'electric fire' (electricity); antiquarianism, mainly archaeology; geography and cartography; astronomy and navigation; and early economics through trade and commerce. The Journal's reception After five years as editor and major author of the Journal Britannique the name of Maty had become a household word in intellectual circles. It is not always, however, that a journalist is accepted in society, and it is therefore of interest to know who his contacts, at various levels, were, whether literary, political, among the gentry and so on. That his work, as the means which secured him a position at the British Museum, was at least evidence of his acceptance on personal grounds by those whose opinion mattered. The first considerable reward the Journal brought its editor was the friendship of Thomas Birch, DD, FRS (1705-66), the literary historian of the period (Courtney, 1886). Maty would have heard of Birch from the day of his arrival in London. But how long it took Birch to hear of Matthew Maty is uncertain. In 1749, the Dutch publisher of the Journal Britannique sent a brochure about it, which came to Birch. Writing to Philip Yorke, he referred to the Project d'un nouveau Journal, qui paraitra tous les Mois sous le Titre de Journal Britannique par M. Maty, Docteur Philosphie et de Medicine. Maty's initial approach to Birch seems to have been an invitation to the first of his Thursday teas: June 29 1751 Slaughter's Dear Sir, Having Mr Jortin's promise to come and drink tea at my house next Thursday, I make bold to beg of you the same favour. Your generous and unmerited kindness to me has been so great that it must create in me the strongest desire of a particular acquaintance with you. I am with no less gratitude than esteem Dear Sir, Your most obdt. Humble Servar ' M Maty. (B.L. Add. MSS. 4313 f. 294) MATTHEW MATY 19 This tea party was the first of a regular series every Thursday onwards until Birch's death in 1766 (Nichols, 1812-15 3: 537). By this time it must have been clear to Maty how much the continued support of Birch and his friends, would mean to furthering the Journal, and indeed so significant was Birch's role to become in Maty's life that something must be said of Birch's career and of the society of which he formed the centre. Thomas Birch became known as one of the leading literary historians of the mid-eighteenth century. He was the son of a Clerkenwell coffee-mill maker, a Quaker, whose urge for knowledge urged him to forsake his father's business for study. Endowed with a great power of work, he supported himself as an usher at the schools he had attended. At the age of about 25, as a tutor to the family of Lord Hardwicke, then Attorney General, he decided to enter the church. Then, in 1732, under his lordship's patronage, he was granted a benefice, sine cura, at the Vicarage of Ulting in Essex. That same year his learning secured him a position as one of the three editors of a new edition, with biographies of Englishmen, of Pierre Bayle's great General dictionary, historical and critical. By the time of its completion in 1740, he had become virtually its director. In the meantime, he was responsible for the start of a series of biographies, supported by the works of English worthies, which he continued throughout his life: Milton, Boyle, Tillotson, Queen Elizabeth and many others. To this application for scholarship, he was blessed with a genius for companionship. His friends included a large circle of men of influence in the church, his profession, but equally in science, literature and the arts. As a consequence, from 1752 onwards honours came freely; an MA from the University of Aberdeen, a DD from Lambeth, an appointment as Chaplain to Princess Amelia, George II's daughter, and so on. In 1752, his accomplishments brought his election as Secretary to the Royal Society, and in 1753 as an Elected Trustee of the group of distinguished men selected to found the British Museum. His main contribution before the Museum opened in 1759, was the establishment of its joint library in Montagu House. Whatever Maty gained from associating with a scholar of Birch's standing, he was also fortunate in himself possessing gifts that brought him into Birch's social circle. The Society of Gentlemen Societies of Gentlemen were common enough in England at that time, usually named after the locality where they met. Such societies did not usually include members of any one profession since there were not the numbers to form single subject societies, but they provided the nucleus for the later literary and philosophical societies and so of the learned societies of the next century. The Society of Gentlemen at Edinburgh, for instance, may have been scientifically inclined, since it early made benefactions of natural history specimens to the British Museum. Although the members of the Thursday's tea club would appear to have given it an ecclesiastical flavour, its predominating interest was literary. The 'regulars' were Birch, Maty and John Jortin, the ecclesiastical historian, as great an attraction as was Birch himself. Others were Cesar de Missy (1703-75) Huguenot minister; Caspar Wetstein FRS (d. 1760), Chaplain to HRH the Dowager Princess of Wales; John Brown (1715-66) preacher and essayist; Robert Young, surgeon; David Ravaud FRS; Ralph Heathcote, DD (1721-95), who edited Jortin's work, and wrote an account of his life. He joined later, as did Samuel Clarke, son of the metaphysician, Dr Samuel Clarke DD (1675-1729). To tap this fountain-head of literary, historical and ecclesiastical knowledge, others came from time to time, William Markham (1719-1807), Archbishop of York; William Warburton (1689-1779), Bishop of Gloucester; Thomas Hayter (1702-62), Bishop of Norwich and preceptor to George III when Prince of Wales; William Herberden (1710-1801), eminent physician and historical writer; Daniel Wray (1701-83), antiquary and later Trustee of the British Museum; Edward Mason, secretary both to the Duke of Cumberland and Walter Jeffreys. The records of the meetings of the Thursday's tea club are preserved in Birch's Diary (B.L. 20 A. E. GUNTHER Add. MSS. 4478), a document of 425 folios covering the 40 years between c. 1716 and 1764. Its value lies in the record, less of what he did than of those he met. Between 1750 and 1760, for example, in 10-20 entries a month, in seldom more than a line or two, written in an abbreviated Latin scrawl (almost a short-hand) and later in English we learn of his official or social contacts: which bishop came to see him; that there was a meeting of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; that he dined at the Chaplain's table at St James's with the Archbishop, or attended a meeting of the Trustees of the British Museum. There is occasionally a note of some work completed or started. But most of the entries are lists of names in Latin, of those engaged in the social round, an almost unending kaleidoscope of the meetings of a relatively small circle of friends week after week. There is Thursday's regular Bibebum Theum, for tea, with Maty and others, or the Prandebum, those with whom he dined. The latter include Birch's circle of intimate friends: Richard Mead, John Ward, Lord Willoughby, William Herberden, Robert Taylor, William Watson and, of course, the Hardwicke family including Philip Yorke (Lord Royston) son of Lord Hardwicke; but not at dinner, significantly, Matthew Maty. With this exception it may be said that the circle of Birch's acquaintances includes the names of most of those of any distinction that appear in the Journal Britannique or who were influential at this time. Birch's closest friends would appear to have been Richard Mead and John Ward whose obituaries he wrote. Mead has been discussed already. John Ward started as a clerk in the Navy Office, and finding that '. . . to converse with boys upon the subject of literature was better than to transact the ordinary affairs of life among men . . .' (Birch, 1766) he opened, in 1710, a school in Moorfields, being appointed Professor of Rhetoric at Gresham College in 1720. From there, in demand as a literary critic, he achieved renown for his treatise upon rhetoric; for his dissertations on classical writers; his contributions to the Royal Society, and for his work for the Society of Antiquaries to which the President, Lord Willoughby, appointed him Vice-President. Long a friend of Sir Hans Sloane, in 1753, he became an elected Trustee of the British Museum where his antiquarian collections are preserved. He was not, however, a frequenter of Thursday's tea club, nor do his relations with Maty appear to have been at a familiar level. The Royal Society, 1751 In 1751, encouraged by the reception given the Journal Britannique and by Thomas Birch, who was then about to become Secretary of the Royal Society, Maty applied for its Fellowship, being elected in December. Birch's signature was followed by those of two of the most eminent medical men of the day, Richard Mead and John Pringle, the latter already the authority in military medicine and later to become President of the Society. Both were admirers, and Pringle an ex-pupil, of Herman Boerhaave. Maty's other supporters were Martin Folkes (1690-1754), venerable antiquarian. President of the Royal Society and of the Society of Antiquaries, and John van Rixtel (Royal Society Certificates 1751-66 f. 443). It is worth noting that the certificate, although it mentions mathematics, emphasizes the Journal Britannique as designed 'to do justice to the writers of our Country, and containing several original pieces of his own. . . .' Indeed, for Maty, taking his bow in the Journal, it is clear he saw it as the reason for his election rather than for any other contribution he may have made. Advertisement Au President et Aux Membres de la Societe Royale de Londres - Messieurs. J'ai tache de me rendre utile; vous daignez m'en recompenser. Honore d'un nouveau tire, je consacre a mes Juges Ouvrage qu'ils ont couronne. Si jusqu'ici le desir de meriter I'approbation des Sages me soutient, des efforts plus vigoureux MATTHEW MATY 21 seront les fruits de la reconnaissance et de I'emulation. J'ai I'honneur d'etre. Messieurs, Votre tres humble et tres obeissant Serviteur, M Maty. Londres le 4 Janvier 1752. (J.B.I) This was recognition indeed! Academy of Sciences of Berlin, 1755 On 16 January 1755 there followed Maty's election as a foreign member of the Academic Royale des Sciences et des Belles Lettres de Berlin through the agency of its president, Pierre L. M. de Maupertuis (1698-1759), the French mathematician and astronomer, and its secretary J. H. S. Formey (1711-97), the Prussian philosopher and theologian with both of whom he was in correspondence. Maupertuis had been invited to Berlin by the King of Prussia in 1740, and returning in 1744 was elected President of the Academy in 1746. He had become a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1728 and may have struck up a friendship with Maty during visits to London. Maupertuis's Essai de philosophie morale, 1750 had been reviewed in the second volume of the Journal Britannique , and Maty's letter of acknowledgement of the Berlin honour is printed in the 1755 volume (J.B. 16). In 1759, Maty was made a foreign associate of the Royal Society of Haarlem, and in 1765, when his reputation came to be linked with his work for inoculation, he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden. William Duncombe, 1754 The respect Maty was accorded in his social life was welcome as the formal acknowledgements of learned societies which, however humbly accepted in the style of the period, a man of Maty's temperament would have considered his due. That his reputation reached the highest in the land is clear from a letter written by William Duncombe (1690-1769) (Wall, 1888) who lived, Uke Maty, in Frith Street, (Wheatley, 1891), and who for 25 years enjoyed the confidence of Thomas Herring (1693-1757), Archbishop of Canterbury (Hooper, 1891). This is revealed in a volume of the Archbishop's letters edited by Duncombe's son, John (1729-86), some 20 years after his father's death. The following letter is, however, from Duncombe to the Archbishop, dated 16 November 1754: I have lately commenced an acquaintance with a fellow of the Royal Society, Dr Maty, a man of learning and genius. He publishes every two months, at the Hague, unefeuille volant (as the French phrase it) entitled. Journal Britannique. He has continued it five years. In his last number there is an ingenious elogium on Dr Mead. The Memoirs were communicated to him by Dr Birch. In his 12th and 13th tomes he has given an account of Mr Lowth's (1710-87) (Hunt, 1893) lectures, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum and of Mr Browne's Latin poem. At the conclusion of his Journal for September and October, 1753, p. 239, where he gives a short account of the three volumes of Mr Jortin's Ecclesiastical History, I find the following words: II suffira de copier ce que I'auteur en dit lui-meme dans Tepitre dedictoire pleine de force et de sentiment, qu'il addresse a ce prelat, aussi savant qu'aimable, qui, eleve a la premiere place et de I'eglise et de I'etat, sont montre ami de tous deux qui sone de la paix, de lettre et de vertu. 22 A. E. GUNTHER One would imagine the doctor had been personally acquainted with this archbishop by his drawing so true a picture of him. After quoting the passage (which is indeed an excellent one) he concludes thus: Le siecle oii un ecclesiastique tient ce language et oii un archeveque Tautorise a le tenir, ne seroit il pas celui ou la lumiere doit se repandre, et la chartie unir de nouveau tous les hommes? The doctor is in easy circumstances, and know nothing of my mentioning his name here. He is born in the province of Utrecht. I am etc. W Duncombe. Whether Maty remained sufficiently close to William Duncombe in 1756 when the Archbishop, as one of the Principal Trustees of the Museum, was involved in the appointment of the staff, is a matter of conjecture, but Maty had no hesitation about writing personally to Herring to support Henry Rimius's application as his assistant in the Department of Printed Books. Dr Samuel Johnson, 1755 James Jortin wrote to Lord Hardwicke when Maty applied for a position in the British Museum describing how Maty had managed in the Journal Britannique to avoid most of the shoals of controversy (B.L. Add. MSS. 36269, f. 104-6). If Maty, in Gibbon's words, had handled the rod of criticism with the tenderness and reluctance of a parent, (Gibbon, 1827, 1: 105), Johnson (1709-82) of Dictionary fame did not think so. The first of Johnson's works to receive Maty's attention was the monthly periodical The Rambler the aim of which was the instruction of the reader in wisdom and piety, and at the same time the refinement of the English language (Harvey, 1942). To this Maty devoted two articles in the Journal to which, although The Rambler had been coldly received by the public, Johnson took no exception (J.B. 4, 8) but it may not have been lost on the learned doctor that whereas his majestic and sonorous Rambler survived public opinion only two years (1749-51), Maty's Journal was still going strong at five. In his review oiA dictionary of the English language in the final volume of the Journal Maty offended Johnson in no uncertain manner. At the start of his work Johnson had sent Lord Chesterfield a prospectus in the hope, even in the expectancy of patronage. But the meagre £10 Chesterfield sent in reply was not followed up until near the day of publication, seven years later, when anonymous articles, known to be by Chesterfield, appeared in the World (a successor to The Rambler) eulogizing Johnson and his work. So the Dictionary appeared without the expected dedication to Lord Chesterfield, and Johnson's resentment, after so long a struggle, was not to be appeased. The letter of 7 February 1755 his Lordship received contained so noble and dignified a rebuke that it has passed into a classic of English literature (Boswell, 1950). In his review of the achievement of the Dictionary, as fair and perceptive as the verdict of posterity. Maty commented on its author's failure to make clear his position in politics and religion '. . . foiblesse de faire connaitre ses principes de politique et religion' (J.B. 17). But Maty's greater sin, as unnecessary as inexplicable, was the defence of his patron in an affected innocence, wilfully suppressing Johnson's reasons for his letter (de Morgan, 1857). According to Boswell, in his Life, Johnson's anger came to a head when he was looking round for an assistant for a projected magazine (Boswell, 1950). A friend of Johnson's, WilUam Adams (1706-89) (Stephen, 1885), Master of Pembroke College, Oxford, had put Maty's name forward as being recently free of the demands of the Journal Britannique. 'He', said Johnson, 'the little black dog! I'd throw him into the Thames'. MATTHEW MATY 23 Edward Gibbon, 1761 An interesting glimpse of another of those with whom Maty came into touch through the Journal Britannique followed in 1758, three years after it had ceased publication. Its quality had left such a mark on the mind of an impressionable young man that when he wanted advice about his own writing he came to Maty as one of the few people in London who could give him what he felt he needed. This was Edward Gibbon (1737-94), then 21, who had just returned from Lausanne with the draft of a partly completed Essai sur I'etude de la literature. His father was encouraging him to complete and publish it; but Gibbon had been told by a learned Jesuit friend. Father Sirmond, that a young writer should reach the mature age of 50 before he gave himself or his writings to the public (Gibbon, 1827, 1: 105-7). Instead, Gibbon sought that maturity from the experienced editor of the Journal Britannique and enjoyed what he described as several free and familiar conversations. That was written after Gibbon had achieved fame, and mellowed, but in fact the confrontation strained relations, and the Essai lay dormant for two years while Gibbon was active with the militia or abroad. In April 1761, his father, becoming concerned for his son's employment, asked Maty to see the Essai through the press. To it Maty, unknown to Gibbon, added a Preface which did not please, and which Gibbon described later as: ... an elegant and flattering epistle to the author, which is composed however with so much art, that, in case of defeat, his favourable report might have been ascribed to the indulgence of a friend for the rash attempt of a young English gentleman. (Gibbon, 1827, 1: 107). Copies of the Essai, with Maty's signed preface, went principally to the friends of Gibbon sen. in the hope that it might inspire them to consider his son for preferment, including the Lords Bute, Chesterfield, Egremont, Bath, Lichfield, Hardwicke and his son Philip, Daniel Wray, a Trustee of the Museum and others. This was not, however, the end of Maty's association with Gibbon who took advantage of his friend's wide circle of French acquaintances to get introductions. One of these was to the Due de Nivernais, statesman and author (1716-98), who, in 1763, was in London as an emissary of peace. To deprive the present reader of at least one bon mot from the hostess of a Parisian salon would be a pity when Madame Goeffrin's tongue described the Duke as acknowledged to have parts and wrote at the top of the mediocre, but . . . il est manque partout; guerrir manque, ambassadeur manque, homme d' affairs manque et auteur manque - non iln'estpas homme de naissance manque. (Lewis, 1926 1: 175) Maty's association with Gibbon before he achieved fame may have given Gibbon more than it gave Maty, but at least it assured Maty a place in Gibbon's Pantheon, the Autobiography: By descent and education Dr Maty, though born in Holland, might be considered as a Frenchman; but he was fixed in London by the practice of physic, and an office in the British Museum. His reputation 'Journal Britannique', which he had supported, almost alone, with perseverance and success. This humble though useful labour, which had once been dignified by the genius of Bayle and the learning of Le Clerc, was not disgraced by the taste, the knowledge, and the judgement, of Maty: he exhibits a candid and pleasing view of the state of literature in England during a period of six years (January 1750-December 1755;) and, far different from his angry son, he handles the rod of criticism with the tenderness and reluctance of a parent. The author of the 'Journal Britannique' sometimes aspires to the character of a poet and philosopher: his style is pure and elegant; and in his virtues, or even in his defects, he may be ranked as one of the last disciples of the school of Fontenelle. (Gibbon, 18271: 105) 24 A. E. GUNTHER Medical and other matters in the 1760s Of Maty's practice as a physician so little is known that there is not even a record of his involvement with his friends of the Medical Club of the 1740s and in the years which followed. Such evidence as emerges later, generally associates his name with the upper crust of society. In 1762-3, for instance, he appears to have attended the Due de Nivernais who was in England to negotiate the First Treaty of Paris, ending the Seven Years War (Janssens-Knorsch, 1975: 27). Between 1763 and 1768 three of Lord Chesterfield's letters refer to Maty's successful treatment of his son. In December 1763 Chesterfield, at Bath, was writing to his son in London who had a cold: . . . should it be anything more, pray consult Dr Maty, who did you so much good in your last illness, when the great medicinal Matadores did you so much harm. In 1764, 10 November, Chesterfield was at Bath, and his son at Dresden: . . . tell him too [physician at Dresden] that, in your last illness in England the physician mistook your case and treated it as gout, till Maty came, who treated it as rheumatism, and cured you. In 1768, 12 March, Chesterfield was in London and his son at Montpellier: ... I am convinced that the Montpellier physicians have mistaken a material part of your case; as indeed all physicians here did, except Dr Maty. (Dobree, 1932 6: 2572, 2631,2840) That Maty was successful in practice was implied by William Duncombe in the letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury already quoted. Maty had continued practising by leave of a bishop's licence, allowing him only to practice outside a radius of seven miles from the centre of London. In 1765 the College of Physicians sought to restrain him. In April he received a summons from the College to appear before the Comitiis Censoris Extraordinarius, to be examined in Physiology; followed on 3 May and 7 June for examinations in Pathology and Part Theraputica. On 25 June he appeared with others before the Comitiis Ordinarus Majoribus, and . . . being Ballotted for were elected and having given their faith to the College were admitted and subscribed the faith to be given to each Licentiate according to Statute. (College of Physicians, Register Book 1765-1771) In the course of 70 years (until 1835) many protests, legal and otherwise were made by hcentiates of the College of Physicians (those without Oxford and Cambridge degrees), that, as members of the College they should be allowed to take part in the business of the College and in the election, for instance, of its officers. In one of these protests, by letter dated 30 September 1767 to the President of the College, Maty joined with 19 others (Plate 2). Most of these had taken their degrees at Scottish universities, or, like Maty, at Leyden or Rheims. Seven were Fellows of the Royal Society, and four appear in the Dictionary of national biography. One signature on this letter of protest is that of William Hunter (1718-83), teacher of his worthy brother, John (Fox, 1919: 146). In the 1760s, Maty was still participating in a Medical Society (of Physicians) in London which Fothergill had founded in 1750 or 1752 and which met at the Mitre Tavern in Fleet Street on alternate Monday evenings. A quarter of the Society's Medical observations and enquiries (Fothergill, 1757-82) were contributed by Fothergill himself, who also financed the whole. Maty contributed two papers only, both in 1769 (Maty, 1769). The Society seems to have lapsed after the deaths of Fothergill in 1780, Daniel Solander in 1782 and William Hunter in 1783. MATTHEW MATY 25 f-^ v*'^*'*'^^ 5c <^.^ C o =a CO _: c 4J ^ E ^ 03 Jj C 03 ^ =a a •« CO o .2 s •^ .2 .s .s -^ o E to c « 03 > , yi c ^ CO o E 2 03 -G 3= is is "O CJ C IJ > < ^ u •^ ^ 3 o 3 C/3 "5! x: 13 CJ CO ^ o o CO 1> ^-> Q • — E E M cu ^ O Q :?: 2 CO i T^ Ki K> . •v 5 •2 IJ >^ •a o o Q^ ^ .E .E .S .E CO CO CO CO 0303 0303 03 CQ03030Q *- w -o ro r<^ 00 00 00 00 00 ot ^ .2 o Si £ o .2 I .y 73 "« = y S j_ .^ Ui CO S 03 OS — 3-C C O ^ ^ -3 o < 03 < iy5 rA FIFTY YEARS OF OCEANOGRAPHY 85 ^ '^ ^ P c P 2 S O ^ c 3 o ,2 o 'C _u CO > u ^ (U < ^ •< .ii2 a rt E c <^ i: Si g.E'S;?.£ •- > ^ u E 111 'Goo 00 QD l- C C O V U =y ^ ^ « B u ^.1 S ^ c 00 ™ tx; cc .S C S S 5 >- « O 5 § > ■> OJ O O 3 =a g S c P .y 1=; ■= ^ c 5b^ t/5 OJ o a. o (U X CO OI 00 OOQhS re = 2 17 3 ^ S 3 1 >= .ii ■■= 'i^ CQ ^ --5 < 1 .2 t3 ^ ffl ■O lU ^^ ^ -3 il flj 1 1 re O USA-lstByr Antarctic Exp Great Britain, &NewZealan British-Austrc Zealand Anta Research Expi (BANZARE) Great Britain - Graham Land Expedition Great Britain- ^ < C/5 D ^ " 3 S 2 "S ■■5 3 re re :^ oa •:= 3 "2 CQ O^QO is 00 S .2 •C y -ere oa 5S S.^.^ o 3 ? U C/5 tJ re _ j= '■S -^ re u 2 O S.2rei:2uBBW ^•i:;33reuo2>< 4 i CT\ ON ^^ in ON On 4 .A ^ 4 86 D. R. C. KEMPE AND H. A. BUCKLEY 1^ CO c « o 2 N o o (0 0) c::^ 3 a» CO U o o 0) o o o o OH in E O-" i ■o c eg (0 o 0) — c 15 o o (0 ^U3snegs6u!||9g 3 o en •- • FIFTY YEARS OF OCEANOGRAPHY 87 South Pole and made the first landing on South Georgia; he also discovered the southern South Sandwich Islands. In 1819 Captain William Smith, on a commercial cargo voyage in the Williams, was blown off course and discovered the South Shetland Islands. Admiralty Sailing Master Edward Bransfield followed, in the same ship, and in 1820 went from the South Shetlands to Trinity Land and on to Elephant and Clarence Islands. Many British, American and other ships now visited the area, amongst them Captain George Powell in the Dove, who on his 1820-22 sealing cruise claimed the South Orkney Islands for Great Britain. Seal hunting took Captains James Weddell and Matthew Brisbane, in the Jane and Beaufoy, to the Antarctic in 1822-24, whilst scientific investigation led Captain Henry Foster, RN, in the Chanticleer to follow in 1828-31. Rocks collected by Foster's expedition from Deception Island, and briefly described by Surgeon W. H. B. Webster, RN, are in the Museum's collections (Campbell Smith & Game, 1954: 167-8). Seahng and exploration were the motives for Captain John Biscoe in the Tula and Lively, and Captain Peter Kemp, in the Magnet; Biscoe annexed Graham Land - now the Antarctic Peninsula - in the name of the British Crown. Captain John Balleny, again sealing and exploring, charted the islands named after him - the Balleny Islands - in the Eliza Scott and Sabrina from 1838 to 1839. True scientific exploration, sponsored by the Admiralty and the Royal Society, may be said to have begun on a large scale in the Antarctic with the voyage between 1839 and 1843 of the Erebus and Terror, led by Captain James Clark Ross, RN. Mainly aimed at co-ordinating magnetic observations, and reaching the South Magnetic Pole, the expedition achieved the most southerly penetration to date. It failed to reach the Pole but made countless magnetic and tidal observations and depth soundings. It also made extensive collections of lichens, mosses and marine life, as well as of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks from Graham Land, Kerguelen, the Auckland Islands, Campbell Island and islands off South Victoria Land. The collection included pebbles from the stomachs of seals and penguins and, although much of it was destroyed, part was successfully bequeathed to the Museum in 1890 by Deputy Inspector-General Robert M'Cormick, RN, who described the geology of the regions visited. Many of the rocks were subsequently described by G. T. Prior (Campbell Smith & Game, 1954; Bishop et ai, 1984). The Antarctic represented only one of the regions visited during the 111110 km circumglobal voyage of HMS Challenger, from 1872 to 1876. Again sponsored by the Admiralty, jointly with the Royal Society, this voyage, led by Captain George S. Nares, RN, (latterly Captain F. T. Thomson, RN), and Professor C. Wyville Thomson, aided by John Murray, in effect launched the new science of oceanography as a major discipline. The bulk of the world-wide zoological, botanical and geological collections are in the Museum's scientific departments. The rocks and sediments were mainly dredged from the beds of the oceans, but were occasionally collected from islands. A 20 kg boulder of biotite gneiss was dredged from Challenger station 157, at a latitude of nearly 54°S. This, and pebbles of schist and gneiss taken from the stomachs of seals and penguins by Robert M'Cormick during the 1842 voyage of the Erebus and Terror, might have confirmed the suggestion that an ancient land mass existed at and around the South Pole. However, it was not until almost the turn of the century that examination by G. T. Prior resulted in the realization of their true significance. An early whaling voyage from Scotland, led in 1892-93 by Captain Alexander Fairweather and others in the Balcena, Active, Diana and Polar Star, made limited observations on animal life. The turn of the century was marked by C. E. Borchgrevink in the Southern Cross, conducting magnetic and meteorological studies along the coast of Victoria Land from 1898 to 1900. Rocks collected from Possession Island, Coulman Island, Franklin Island and the mainland are in the Museum's collections, presented by Sir George Newnes in 1900 and described by G. T. Prior (Campbell Smith & Game, 1954; Bishop et ai, 1984). Captain Robert F. Scott, RN, led the National Antarctic Expedition of 1901-4, in an attempt to reach the South Pole after determining the extent of the land around it. The rocks collected by his party in their ship RRS Discovery, and relief ship Morning, sponsored by Government, Royal Geographical Society, Royal Society and others, include material dredged from off the Balleny Islands. Details of the rocks, described by G. T. Prior with an 00 D. R. C. KEMPE AND H. A. BUCKLEY account of the field geology by H. T. Ferrar, are given by Campbell Smith & Game (1954) and Bishop et al. (1984). At much the same time, 1902^, the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition, led by Dr William S. Bruce in the Scotia, was in the Weddell Sea on a scientific voyage. In 1907-9, led by Lieut. Ernest Shackleton, RNR, the British Antarctic Expedition in the Nimrod followed the Scott expedition in an attempt to reach the magnetic and true South Poles and conduct scientific investigations. Various igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks were collected from different areas of South Victoria Land and the Ross Archipelago (Campbell Smith & Game, 1954; Bishop et ai, 1984). Captain Scott's second expedition, in the Terra Nova, 1910-13, reached the South Pole only to find that the Norwegian Roald Amundsen, in the Fram, had beaten him. Scott's party completed extensive scientific work in the Ross Sea area, supported again by the Royal Society, and collected sediments and extensively from the rocks of South Victoria Land, especially the Ross Island-McMurdo Sound-Cape Adare areas; many of these rocks were described by W. Campbell Smith (Campbell Smith & Game, 1954; Bishop et al., 1984). Now in the Museum's collection, they are amongst its most historically famous specimens; frequently exhibited, they support the scientifically valuable geological observations made in South Victoria Land (Moore, 1982). Australia and Great Britain combined from 1911 to 1914 in the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, led by Sir Douglas Mawson, in the Aurora. The expedition was mounted for scientific and geographical research along the coast of Wilkes Land; igneous and metamorphic rocks collected from the Cape Denison area are in the Museum (Bishop et al. , 1984). In 1913- 14, a whaling prospecting expedition set out from Scotland in the Hanka. During their operations in the South Shetlands, Palmer Archipelago and Graham Land, David Ferguson collected many rock specimens, subsequently described by G. W. Tyrell; some of these are now in the Museum (Campbell Smith & Game, 1954; Bishop et al., 1984). Together with the Endurance, the Aurora featured again in the British Imperial Trans- Antarctic Expedition, led by Sir Ernest Shackleton. This was a government and Royal Geographical Society backed transcontinental exploration expedition. Little scientific work was carried out but some specimens were collected. Whaling ships under J. L. Cope formed the first British expedition of the 1920s. Their objective was to map the Weddell Sea coastline; in this they were not successful but some scientific work was undertaken. In 1921-22, Sir Ernest Shackleton, sponsored by John Q. Rowett, returned to the Antarctic in the tiny Quest. Their purpose was to explore and map; unfortunately the ship was not up to it and Shackleton died from heart disease in January 1922, his place being taken by Frank Wild. Rocks collected on this voyage by Dr G. Vibert Douglas from South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the South Shetlands Islands, and dredged from the Weddell Sea, are in the Museum's collections. Some specimens were briefly described (Campbell Smith & Game, 1954; Bishop etai, 1984; Moore, 1982). The period between 1925 and 1939 saw the initiation and operation of the Discovery Investigations. In 1923 the Discovery Committee had been established, set up by the British Colonial Office to promote oceanographic research in the region of the Falkland Islands. Initiated in 1904, the Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey was renamed in 1918 the 'Interdepartmental Committee for the Dependencies of the Falkland Islands'; it later became the British Antarctic Survey. A group of scientists, led by Drs N. A. Mackintosh, Stanley Kemp, D. Dilwyn John, G. E. R. Deacon, H. F. P. Herdman and G. W. Rayner, made repeated voyages to the Antarctic in the RRS Discovery, Discovery II and William Scoresby (Plates 17-20). Their purpose: oceanographical research, following the Challenger voyage of some 60 years before, with the results to be published from Cambridge in the Discovery Reports (Deacon, 1984). The focal point of the research was to be the biological and physical conditions affecting the distribution of whales, the primary interest of the leader of the first expedition, N. A. Mackintosh. Work was extended to include the study of krill, naturally; also of elephant seals; bird life; and, ashore, lichens, mosses and algae. Many geological specimens were collected including dredged rocks, which were studied by C. E. Tilley and G. W. Tyrell, and subsequently by Kempe (1973). Together with the acquisition of the Challenger collection. FIFTY YEARS OF OCEANOGRAPHY 89 Plate 17a RRS Discovery. the establishment of part of the Discovery Investigations - The Whale Research Unit - in the 'Discovery Hut' in the grounds of the British Museum (Natural History) was the second major event leading to the initiation of oceanographical research in the Museum. The Whale Research Unit in 1950 became part of the newly founded National Institute of Oceanography, later to become the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, but was subsequently transferred, in 1977, to the Sea Mammals Research Unit, British Antarctic Survey, in Cambridge. 90 D. R. C. KEMPE AND H. A. BUCKLEY Plate lib RRS Discovery in 1985, being restored and open to the public in St Katharine's Dock, City of London; she is now in Dundee, where she was originally built. From 1928 to 1930, Britain joined forces with the United States of America in an expedition planned to pioneer transatlantic flight and aerial reconnaissance. The leader was Sir Hubert Wilkins and the William Scoresby was used to transport the expedition southwards. At the same time, the US 1st Byrd Antarctic Expedition, under Rear-Admiral R. E. Byrd, USN (Retired), was under way and the Museum acquired some rocks collected by L. M. Gould from the Queen Maud Mountains (Campbell Smith & Game, 1954; Bishop et al. , 1984). BANZARE: the British-AustraHan-New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition, led by Sir Douglas Mawson, used the RRS Discovery from 1929 to 1931 on a scientific and geographic expedition to Crozet, Kerguelen and Heard Islands; the coast of Enderby and MacRobertson Land; and the Balleny Islands. Rocks from some of these localities are in the Museum's collections (Bishop et al. , 1984). The last of the pre-war British expeditions took place in 1934- 37: the British Graham Land Expedition, led by John R. Rymill in the Penola. A small scientific and surveying expedition, it collected rocks from the Graham Land coast and nearby islands, which are now in the Museum (Campbell Smith & Game, 1954; Bishop et al. , 1984). After the Second World War, British bases were set up at, among other localities. Deception Island in the South Shetlands and Signy Island in the South Orkneys. A scientific and surveying programme was carried out between 1943 and 1955, led by Lieut. Com. J. W. S. Marr and others, in the ships William Scoresby, Fitzroy, Eagle, Trepassey and John Biscoe, under the title Operation Tabarin and Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey; in 1962 it became the British Antarctic Survey. Within this period, a whaling expedition, prompted by the worldwide shortage of fats, was carried out in the Balcena, with two Walrus seaplanes, from 1946 to 1947, under Captain Reider Pedersen and John Grierson. Britain participated from 1949 to 1952 in a scientific survey by the Norwegian-British- Swedish Antarctic Expedition in the Norsel, led by Captain John Giaever. Another scientific FIFTY YEARS OF OCEANOGRAPHY 91 Plate 18 RRS William Scoresby. and geographical exploration expedition was the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition, led by Phillip G. Law, from 1954 to 1955. The voyage, in the Kista Dan, followed up the establishment in 1947-48 of bases on Heard and Macquarie Islands by a group in the Wyatt Earp; this ship, however, was prevented by pack-ice from reaching the George V coast. The Kista Dan, an ice breaker, succeeded in reaching the MacRobertson Land coast and set up the station at Mawson. This survey of British and Commonwealth Antarctic expeditions can be closed appropriately with the Commonwealth Transantarctic Expedition which crossed from Shackleton to Scott Base, via the South Pole, between January and March 1958, under the leadership of Sir Vivian Fuchs. Rocks collected on this crossing were presented to the Museum in 1977 by the British Antarctic Survey, while research activities by the British, Americans and Australians, to name but a few, had become routine and widespread. Other Oceanic, Biological Expeditions In addition to the expeditions to Antarctica leading, generally, to acquisitions of geological material by the Museum, there are, of course, a number of well-known biological expeditions which made collections of zoological and botanical specimens. Many of these also have been donated to the Museum. 92 D. R. C. KEMPE AND H. A. BUCKLEY Plate 19 RRS Discovery II. Notes The letters and official documents quoted or cited in the text are all held in the British Museum (Natural History). Their locations are identified by the following: MA/ Museum Archives. MA(M)/ Museum Archives, Department of Mineralogy records. MA(Z)/ Museum Archives, Department of Zoology records. ML/ Murray Library, Palaeontology and Mineralogy Library. 1. Notes on the Hfe of Sir John Murray compiled by J. D. H. Wiseman, 16 June 1972, for the BM(NH) Challenger Centenary Exhibition. ML/ 2. Letter, 8 April 1914, J. Chumley to E. Heron-Allen; MA(Z)/OD 1914 f. 87B. 3. Letter, 9 April 1914, E. Heron-Allen to L. Pullar; MA(Z)/OD 1914 f. 87B. 4. Letter, 10 April 1914, L. Pullar to E. Heron-Allen; MA(Z)/OD 1914 f. 87B. 5. Report on the Oceanographical Collections formed by Sir John Murray at the Villa Medusa, Edinburgh, by E. Heron-Allen and A. Earland; ML/187 f. 1-28. 6. Letter, 12 June 1919, Lady Murray to Sir F. Harmer, Director; ML/198 f. 2. 7. Letter, 7 June 1919, Director to Lady Murray; MA(Z)/OL 1919 f. 152. 8. Letter, 15 June 1919, J. C. Murray to Director; ML/198 f. 3. 9. Letter, 20 June 1919, Director to J. C. Murray; MA(Z)/OL 1919 f. 173. 10. Letter, 10 July 1919, J. C. Murray to Director; ML/198 f. 5. 11. Letter, 26 November 1919, J. C. Murray to Director; ML/198 f. 9. 12. Report to Trustees, 14 November 1919, by Director; ML/199 f. 1. 13. Letter, 22 November 1919, Director to J. C. Murray; MA(Z)/OL 1919 f. 279. 14. Letter, 4 December 1919, Director to J. C. Murray; MA(Z)/OL 1919 f. 289. FIFTY YEARS OF OCEANOGRAPHY 93 Plate 20 RRS Discovery II at Sandefiord Bay, Coronation Island, South Orkney Islands, 1937. 15. Report to Trustees, 19 January 1920, by Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 88-95. 16. Internal memorandum, 23 December 1919, C. Tate Regan to Director; MA(Z)/IL 1920 f. Murray 1. 17. Letter, 4 January 1920, Lady Murray to Director; ML/198 f. 10. 18. Internal memorandum, lOJanuary 1920, Director to A. Smith Woodward; MA(Z)/IL 19201. Murray 2. 19. Reply on same memorandum, A. Smith Woodward to Director; MA(Z)/IL 1920 f. Murray 2. 20. Letter, 12 January 1920, J. H. Ashworth to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 96-8. 21. Report of Standing Committee, 24 January 1920; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 35-9. 22. Letter, 20 January 1920, J. C. Murray to C. E. Fagan; ML/198 f. 11. 23. Letter, 30 January 1920, Director to Lady Murray; MA/DF 1001/56 f. 620-1. 24. Letter, 31 January 1920, Lady Murray to Director; ML/198 f. 12. 25. Letter, 2 February 1920, J. C. Murray to Director; ML/198 f. 13. 26. Letter, 4 February 1920, J. C. Murray to Director; ML/198 f. 14. 27. Letter, 18 March 1920, J. C. and T. H. Murray to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 33. 28. Report to Trustees, 24 March 1920; MA/DF 906/SC f. 3702. 29. Letter, 29 April 1920, C. E. Fagan to J. C. Murray; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 31. 30. Letter, 12 March 1920, Harvard University to J. C. Murray; MA(Z)/IL 1920-25 f. Murray la. 31. Letter, 14 October 1921, Director to J. C. Murray; MA/DF 967/File 1 f. 147. 32. Report to Trustees, 16 October 1926; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 41-2. 33. Memorandum, 12 August 1920, Office of Works to C. E. Fagan; MA(Z)/OD 1920 f. 134. 34. Memorandum, 9 September 1920, Office of Works to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 75. 35. Report to Trustees, 20 October 1920; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 72-4. 36. Memorandum, 1 December 1920, Office of Works to Director; MA(Z)/OD 1920 f. 189. 37. Memorandum, 22 December 1920, Office of Works to Director; MA(Z)/OD 1920 f. 206. 38. Memorandum, 31 January 1921, Office of Works to Director; MA(Z)/OD 1921 f. 23. 94 D. R. C. KEMPE AND H. A. BUCKLEY 39. Letter, 31 January 1921, Director to J. C. Murray; MA(Z)/OD 1921 f. 24. 40. Letter, 7 March 1921, J. C. Murray to Director; MA(Z)/OD 1921 f. 52. 41. Letter, 16 March 1921, Director to Graham Kerr; MA(Z)/OD 1921 f. 55. 42. Letter, 9 April 1921, Graham Kerr to Director; MA(Z)/OD 1921 f. 63. 43. Letter, 18 April 1921, Director to Graham Kerr; MA(Z)/OD 1921 f. 64. 44. Letter, 20 April 1921, J. Chumley to Director; MA(Z)/OD 1921 f. 67a. 45. Internal memorandum, 21 April 1921, Director to C. Tate Regan; MA(Z)/OD 1921 f. 67. 46. Internal memorandum, 25 April 1921, C. Tate Regan to Director; MA(Z)/OD 1921 f. 67. 47. Letter, 28 April 1921, Director to J. C. Murray; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 29. 48. Internal memorandum, 18 July 1921, C. Tate Regan to Trustees; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 63. 49. Letter, 26 July 1921, C. Tate Regan to J. C. Murray; ML/201 f. 1. 50. Letter, 29 July 1921, J. C. Murray to W. T. Caiman; ML/201 f. 2. 51. Internal memorandum, 13 October 1921, C. Tate Regan to Trustees; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 58. 52. Letter, 14 October 1921, Director to J. C. Murray; MA/DF 967/File 1 f. 147. 53. Internal memorandum, 18 October 1921, C. Tate Regan to W. T. Caiman; ML/201 f. 10. 54. Letter, 15 November 1921, Director to J. C. Murray; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 49. 55. Letter, 17 November 1921, H. G. Lyons, Director, Science Museum, to Director; ML/202 f. 1. 56. Letter, 22 November 1921, H. G. Lyons to Director; ML/202 f. 2. 57. Letter, 23 November 1921, H. G. Lyons to Director; ML/202 f. 3. 58. Internal memorandum, 19 December 1921, G. T. Prior to W. T. Caiman; ML/202 f. 4. 59. Internal memorandum, 23 December 1921, G. T. Prior to W. T. Caiman; ML/202 f. 5. 60. Memorandum, 28 June 1922, P. R. Lowe to C. Tate Regan; ML/202 f. 6. 61. Letter, 27 June 1922, Director to Messrs Davidson and Syme; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 46. 62. Letter, 17 October 1921, Director to J. Stanley Gardiner; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 53. 63. Letter, 22 October 1921, J. Stanley Gardiner to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 52. 64. Internal memorandum, 25 October 1921, Director to F. A. Bather; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 51. 65. Reply (no date) on same memorandum, F. A. Bather to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 51. 66. Letter, 26 October 1921, Director to R. Dykes; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 50. 67. Letter, 19 May 1932, J. Stanley Gardiner to Trustees; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 36-8. 68. Letter, 3 June 1932, C. Tate Regan, Director, to J. Stanley Gardiner; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 35. 69. Letter, 20 June 1933, J. C. Murray to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 34. 70. Letter, 29 June 1933, Director to J. C. Murray; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 33. 71. Letter, 22 October 1934, J. C. Murray to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 30-1. 72. Letter, 13 November 1934, Director to J. C. Murray; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 27. 73. Letter, 21 June 1939, Director to Sir S. Gaselee; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 10. 74. Letter, 13 July 1939, Sir S. Gaselee to Museum Secretary; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 9. 75. Letter, 18 September 1939, Sir S. Gaselee to Museum Secretary; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 8. 76. Internal memorandum, 14 December 1949, Keeper of Zoology to Secretary; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 6. 77. Letter, 27 July 1934, J. C. Murray to J. Stanley Gardiner; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 26. 78. Letter, 30 July 1934, J. Stanley Gardiner to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 27. 79. Letter, 13 August 1934, Director (for Trustees) to Treasury; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 24-5. 80. Letter, 18 September 1934, Treasury to Trustees; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 23. 81. Letter, 11 March 1935, J. Stanley Gardiner to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 22. 82. Report, 18 November 1935, G. F. Herbert Smith to Trustees; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 15-16. 83. Letter, 28 November 1935, Director to Bernard Smith; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 14. 84. Internal memorandum, 23 June 1936, Director's Office to G. F. Herbert Smith; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 9-10. 85. Report, 25 July 1936, G. F. Herbert Smith to Trustees; MA/DF 906/SC f. 50, 62. 86. Internal memorandum, 10 April 1937, G. F. Herbert Smith to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 13. 87. Report, 17 April 1937, G. F. Herbert Smith to Trustees; MA/DF 1004/CP 367 f. 12. 88. Internal memorandum, 22 November 1937, W. Campbell Smith to Director; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 8. 89. Internal memorandum, 23 November 1937, Director to W. Campbell Smith; MA/DF 1004/CP 227 f. 7. 90. Letter, 16 February 1944, Sir J. A. Edgell, Hydrographer of the Navy, to J. D. H. Wiseman; MA(M)/DF 28 f. 92. 91. Letter, 3 March 1944, Hydrographer to J. D. H. Wiseman; MA(M)/DF 28 f. 91. 92. Proposal for National Oceanographic Institute, summary by G. E. R. Deacon ;MA(M)/DF 28 f. 93-5. FIFTY YEARS OF OCEANOGRAPHY 95 93. Letter, 21 June 1944, J. D. H. Wiseman to J. N. Carruthers; MA(M)/DF 28 f. 78-9. 94. Proposals on the work of the new National Oceanographic Institute; MA(M)/DF 28 f. 76-7. 95. Memorandum, 20 March 1944, J. R. Lumby to Hydrographer; MA(M)/DF 28 f. 85. 96. Memorandum, 5 July 1944, to Hydrographic Department, Bath; MA(M)/DF 28 f. 63. 97. Letter, 5 August 1944, J. D. H. Wiseman to Hydrographer; MA(M)/DF 28 f. 55-7. 98. Letter, 24 November 1947, D. C. Martin to J. D. H. Wiseman; MA(M)/DF 28 f. 36. 99. Royal Society Communication NGG/7(47), 10 December 1947; MA(M)/DF 28 f. 32. References Bannister, F. A. & Hey, M. H. 1936. Report on some crystalline components of the Weddell Sea deposits. Discovery Reports, Cambridge 13: 60-9. Bishop, A. C, Jones, V., Moore, D. T. & Woolley, A. R. 1984. Catalogue of the rock collections in the British Museum (Natural History). 2nd edition. London (British Museum (Natural History)): 49-53. Buckley, H. A. 1976. The Discovery Tablemount Chain. Deep-Sea Research 23: 937-48. Buckley, H. A., Bevan, J. C, Brown, K. M., Johnson, L. R. & Farmer, V. C. 1978. Glauconite and celadonite: two separate mineral species. Mineralogical Magazine 42: 373-82. Buckley, H. A., Easton, A. J. & Johnson, L, R. 1974. Iron and manganese encrustations in recent sediments. Nature, London 249: 436-7. , & 1984. Compositional variation in glauconite. Mineralogical Magazine 48: 119-26. Buckley, H. A., Elliott, C. J., Graham, N. M., Johnson, L. R., Kempe, D. R. C, Morgan, D. L. & Williams, D. B. 1979 & 1984. Catalogue of the ocean bottom deposits collection in the British Museum (Natural History). Parts 1 & 2. London (British Museum (Natural History)). Buckley, H. A., Johnson, L. R., Shackleton, N. J. & Blow, R. A. 1982. Late glacial to recent cores from the eastern Mediterranean. Deep-Sea Research 29: 739-66. Burstyn, H. L. 1975. Science pays off: Sir John Murray and the Christmas Island phosphate industry, 1886-1914. Social Studies in Science 5: 5-34. Cann, J. R. 1968. Geological processes at mid-ocean ridge crests. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 15: 331-41. Dater, H. M. [Compiler] 1975. History of Antarctic exploration and scientific investigation. Antarctic Map Folio Series 19, New York (American Geographical Society). Deacon, G. E. R. 1984. The Antarctic circumpolar ocean. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press) 180 pp. Easton, A. J., Hamilton, D., Kempe, D. R. C. & Sheppard, S. M. F. 1977. Low-temperature metasomatic garnets in marine sediments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (A) 286: 253-71. Fleet, A. J. & Kempe, D. R. C. 1974. Preliminary geochemical studies of the sediments from DSDP Leg 26, southern Indian Ocean. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project 26: 541-51. Fleet, A. J. & McKelvey, B. C. 1978. Eocene explosive submarine volcanism, Ninetyeast Ridge, Indian Ocean. Marine Geology 26:73-97. Fleet, A. J., Buckley, H. A. & Johnson, L. R. 1980. The rare earth element geochemistry of glauconites and celadonites. Journal of the Geological Society of London 137: 675-80. Fleet, A. J., Henderson, P. & Kempe, D. R. C. 1976. Rare earth element and related chemistry of some drilled southern Indian Ocean basalts and volcanogenic sediments. Journal of Geophysical Research 81: 4257-68. Hall, M. 1876. Note upon a portion of basalt from mid-Atlantic. Mineralogical Magazine 1: 1-3. Herdman, H. F. P., Wiseman, J. D. H. & Ovey, C. D. 1956. Proposed names of features on the deep-sea floor. 3. Southern or Antarctic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research 3: 253-61. Herdman, W. A. 1923. Founders of oceanography and their work. London (Edward Arnold) xii -I- 340 pp. Johnson, L. R. 1979. Mineralogical dispersal patterns of North Atlantic deep-sea sediments with particular reference to eolian dusts. Marine Geology 29: 335-45. Kempe, D. R. C. 1973. Rocks from Antarctica: the Discovery collection in the British Museum (Natural History). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History). Mineralogy 2: 335-76. 1975. Normative mineralogy and differentiation patterns of some drilled and dredged oceanic basalts. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 50: 305-20. Kempe, D. R. C. & Easton, A. J. 1974. Metasomatic garnets in calcite (micarb) chalk at site 251, southwest Indian Ocean. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project 26: 593-601. 96 D. R. C. KEMPE AND H. A. BUCKLEY Kempe, D. R. C. & Schilling, J.-G. 1974. Discovery Tablemount basalt. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 44: 101-15. Lingwood, P. F. 1981. The dispersal of the collections of H.M.S. Challenger: an example of the importance of historical research in tracing a systematically important collection. In Wheeler, A. & Price, J. H. [Editors] History in the service of systematics. Special Publication of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 1: 71-7. Linklater, E. 1972. The voyage of the Challenger. London (John Murray) 288 pp. Moore, D. T. 1982. An account of those described rock collections in the British Museum (Natural History) made before 1918; with a provisional catalogue arranged by continent. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History). Historical Series 10: 141-77. Murray, J. & Renard, A. F. 1891. Deep-sea deposits. Report on the scientific results of the voyage of H.M.S. Challenger. London (Stationery Office) 525 pp. Rice, A. L. [Editor] 1986. The John Murray I Mabahiss Expedition 1933-34: a 50th anniversary volume. Paris (UNESCO) 185 pp. Rodgers, K. A., Easton, A. J. & Downes, C. J. 1982. The chemistry of carbonate rocks of Nine Island, south Pacific. Journal of Geology 90: 645-62. Shackleton, N. J., Wiseman, J. D. H. & Buckley, H. A. 1973. Non-equihbrium isotopic fractionation between sea water and planktonic foraminiferal tests. Nature, London 242: 177-9. Smith, W. Campbell & Game, P. M. 1954. Catalogue of the rock collections. Part III. Antarctica and Australasia. London (British Museum (Natural History)): 165-85. Wiseman, J. D. H. 1936. The petrography and significance of a rock dredged from a depth of 744 fathoms, near to Providence Reef, Indian Ocean. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London. 2nd Series Zoology 19: 437^3. 1937. Basalts from the Carlsberg Ridge, Indian Ocean. Scientific Reports of the John Murray Expedition, British Museum (Natural History) 3(1): 1-30. 1946. Marine sediments and related oceanographical subjects - an investigation into German developments. British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee Final Report No. 1368. London (H.M. Stationery Office) 34 pp. — 1953. International collaboration in deep-sea research. Deep-Sea Research 1: 3-10. — 1954. The determination and significance of past temperature changes in the upper layer of the equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Proceedings of the Royal Society (A) 222: 296-323. 1959. The relation between paleotemperature and carbonate in an equatorial Atlantic pilot core. Journal of Geology 67: 685-90. — 1964. Rates of sedimentation of nickel, cobalt, copper and iron on the equatorial Mid-Atlantic floor, and its bearing on the nature of cosmic dust. Nature, London 202: 1286-8. 1965a. The changing rate of calcium carbonate sedimentation on the equatorial Atlantic floor and its relation to continental late Quaternary stratigraphy. Report of the Swedish Deep-Sea Expedition 7: 287-354. — 1965/). Calcium and magnesium carbonate in some Indian Ocean sediments. Progress in Oceanography 3: 373-83. 1965c. Deep-sea cores as an aid to absolute dating in the Quaternary period. Report of the Vlth International Congress on the Quaternary. Vol. I. Commission on the absolute age of Quaternary deposits: 743-65. — 1966fl. Evidence for recent climatic changes in cores from the ocean bed. In World climate from 8000 to B.C. London (Royal Meteorological Society): 84^98. 1966/j. St. Paul Rocks and the problem of the upper mantle. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 11: 519-25. Wiseman, J. D. H. & Bennett, H. 1940. The distribution of organic carbon and nitrogen in sediments from the Arabian Sea. Scientific Reports of the John Murray Expedition, British Museum (Natural History) 3(4): 194-221. Wiseman, J. D. H. & Hall, G. P. D. 1956. Two recently discovered features on the floor of the Indian Ocean: Andrew Tablemount and David Seaknoll. Deep-Sea Research 3: 262-5. Wiseman, J. D. H. & Hendey, N. I. 1953. The significance and diatom content of a deep-sea floor sample from the neighbourhood of the greatest oceanic depth. Deep-Sea Research 1: 47-59. Wiseman, J. D. H. & Ovey, C. D. 1950. Recent investigations on the deep-sea floor. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 61: 28-84. & 1953. Definitions of features on the deep-sea floor. Deep-Sea Research 1: 11-16. & 1954. Proposed names of features on the deep-sea floor. 1. The Pacific Ocean. Deep-Sea Research 2: 93-106. FIFTY YEARS OF OCEANOGRAPHY 97 — & 1955«. Proposed names of features on the deep-sea floor. 2. General principles governing the allocation of names. Deep-Sea Research 2: 261-3. & 1955/?. The general bathymetric chart of the oceans. Deep-Sea Research 2: 269-73. Wiseman, J. D. H. & Sewell, R. B. Seymour 1937. The floor of the Arabian Sea. Geological Magazine 74: 219-30. Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836-1844 Transcribed & Edited by Paul H. Barrett Peter J. Gautrey Sandra Herbert David Kohn Sydney Smith Michigan State University Cambridge University Library University of Maryland, Baltimore County Drew University St Catharine's College Cambridge Darwin's notebooks provide an invaluable record of his scientific thinking and, most importantly, the development of his theory of natural selection. This edition of the notebooks, prepared to the highest modern standards of textual editing, thus affords a unified view of Darwin's professional interests. The Red Notebook, used on the voyage of H. M.S. Beagle and afterwards in England, contains Darwin's first evolutionary statements. In July of 1837, Darwin began his 'Transmutation Notebooks' (B-E) devoted to the solution of the species problem, and in the third notebook of this series he first formulated the theory of natural selection. To this can now be added another species notebook reconstructed from loose sheets; this 'Torn-Apart Notebook' represents the fifth Transmutation Notebook. This volume also contains Notebook A on geology, Notebooks M and N on man and behaviour, and other notebook and manuscript materials from the period 1836-1844. Contents Historical Preface Introduction Red Notebook Geology Notebook A Glen Roy Notebook Transmutation of Species Notebook B Notebook C Notebook D Notebook E Torn Apart Notebook Summer 1842 Zoology Notes, Edinburgh Notebook Questions & Experiments Metaphysical Enquiries Notebook M Notebook N Old & Useless Notes Abstract of Macculloch Table of Location of Excised Pages Bibliography Biographical Index Subject Index October 1987, 768 pp (approx) Published in association with Cambridge University Press (ISBN 052 1 35 0557) £65.00 Cornell University Press (ISBN 8014-1660-4) $75.00 Titles to be published in Volume 15 Matthew Maty MD, FRS (1718-76) and science at the foundation of the British Museum, 1753-80. By A. E. Gunther. Fifty years of oceanography in the Department of Mineralogy. By D. R. C. Kempe & H. A. Buckley. Typeset by Waveney Typesetters, Norwich and Printed by Henry Ling Ltd., Dorchester Bulletin of the I British Museum (Natural History) C. F. Freyer's Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde W. G. Tremewan Ellis & Solander's 'Zoophytes', 1786 Paul F. S. Cornelius John W. Wells Historical series Vol 16 No 1 28 July 1988 The Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), instituted in 1949, is issued in four scientific series, Botany, Entomology, Geology (incorporating Mineralogy) and Zoology, and an Historical series. Papers in the Bulletin are primarily the results of research carried out on the unique and ever- growing collections of the Museum, both by the scientific staff of the Museum and by specialists from elsewhere who make use of the Museum's resources. Many of the papers are works of reference that will remain indispensable for years to come. Parts are published at irregular intervals as they become ready, each is complete in itself, available separately, and individually priced. Volumes contain about 300 pages and several volumes may appear within a calendar year. Subscriptions may be placed for one or more of the series on either an Annual or Per Volume basis. Prices vary according to the contents of the individual parts. Orders and enquiries should be sent to: Publication Sales, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, England. World List abbreviation: Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (hist. Ser.) © British Museum (Natural History), 1988 ISSUED 2AUGI988 ,K' J ISSN 0068-2306 ISBN 0565 09008 9 British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD Historical series Vol 16 No 1 pp 1-87 Issued 28 July 1988 C. F. Freyer's Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde mit Abbildungen nach der Natur W. G. Tremewan Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Roa, SW7 5BD Contents Synopsis ....... Introduction ....... The undated Hefte recorded in contemporary literature Hefte reviewed or recorded in Isis von Oken Hefte recorded in Archivfiir Naturgeschichte . Miscellaneous references to Hefte Collation and dates of volumes 1-7 Biographical notes on C. F. Freyer Acknowledgements References .... Annex ..... Check-list of Zygaena Fabricius described, illustrated or mentioned by Freyer BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HiSTORYl -2AU6J988 PRESENTED GENERAL LIBRARY Synopsis C. F. Freyer's Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde mit Abbildungen nach der Natur was published in seven volumes, comprising 120 Hefte or parts, over a period of 28 years. Original wrappers of the Hefte are preserved in one of the copies examined; those of the first third lack publication dates, but these have been established with reasonable accuracy from evidence obtained from literature contemporary with Freyer's work. A collation of the seven volumes is provided and includes the publication date of each Heft. Biographical notes briefly describe Freyer's life and background. The annex consists of a check-list of species of the genus Zygaena Fabricius which were described, illustrated or mentioned by Freyer, and includes 10 nominal taxa attributable to him. Introduction C. F. Freyer's seven-volume work entitled Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde mit Abbildungen nach der Natur comprises 120 Hefte which were published in Augsburg from 1831-1858. Each volume contains descriptions of the adults, early Stages and foodplants of Palaearctic butterflies and moths which are illustrated in 700 beautiful hand-coloured plates. These plates, which are remarkably consistent in quality between the different copies examined, were executed by Freyer himself who paid great attention to detail and accuracy and commented that the figures of the larvae and foodplants were based on living material collected in the wild. A portrait of Freyer (Fig. 1) is reproduced from an original by Hanfstaengl and forms the frontispiece to volume 1. Five complete copies of this rare work have been examined: three in the Entomology Library, British Museum (Natural History), one ex Hbris H. T. Stainton and now in the library of the Royal Entomological Society, London, and one ex libris L. G. Higgins, now in the Hope Library, University Museum, Oxford. Of the three copies in the British Museum Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (hist. Ser.) 16 (1): 1-16 Issued 28 July 1988 2 W. G. TREMEWAN (Natural History), one is ex libris Lord Walsingham, another ex libris Lord Rothschild, the last is the 'original' British Museum (Natural History) copy from an unknown source. The last-mentioned copy is the most interesting because an almost complete set of original wrappers from each Heft are bound together and included at the end of volume 7; only the wrappers of Hefte 1 and 3 are missing. The Heft and plate numbers have been added, in contemporary handwriting (Fig. 5), to the wrappers of Hefte 2, 4-58, 66, 71, 74 and 80; however, on each wrapper of Hefte 59-65, 67-70, 72, 73, 75-79 and 81-120 the number of the Heft, the numbers of the plates contained in that Heft, and its date of publication, are part of the original printing (Fig. 6). One discrepancy must be noted: the wrapper of Heft 24 is an original of Heft 117 and bears the printed date '1857', but the Heft number has been crossed out and bears the handwritten number '24', while the plate numbers have been altered to '139- 144'. Copies of Freyer's Neuere Beitrdge in which the original wrappers are preserved must be very rare indeed. For example, Hagen (1862: 251) merely cites the title-page date for each volume. Sherborn (1922: Ivi) rather surprisingly lists only volumes 1-6, which he dates 1831- 1852, and states that the 'Dates can be made out from Isis and Arch. f. Nat.', thus implying that he had not seen volume 7 and the included original wrappers of the copy described above, especially as some of his manuscript dates are pencilled on slips of paper and attached to the title-pages of volumes 1-6. Some of these dates and those cited in Index Animalium are at variance with those printed on the wrappers, moreover, it is significant that no handwritten notes concerning the Heft numbers and their dates of publication were attached by Sherborn to the title-page of volume 7. Junk (1926: 130) dates the whole of Freyer's work 1833-1858; although he gives (1831-) 1833 for volume 1, he cites only the title-page dates for the remaining volumes. Junk also states that copies of Freyer's Neuere Beitrdge are very rare. Horn & Schenkling (1928: 382-383) cites the title-page date for each volume, while Nissen (1969: 150) dates the whole work (1831-) 1833-1858, and refers to Horn & Schenkling and Jujik. As far as I know, Heppner (1982: 94) is the only person who has attempted to clarify and establish the publication dates of the 120 Hefte which make up the seven volumes of Freyer's Neuere Beitrdge. Unfortunately, Heppner's collation is not only confusing but, together with some of the dates that he provides, is sometimes incorrect. For example, he cites groups of page numbers for volumes 2-6 without relating them to the Hefte and, in so doing, splits most of the Hefte of these volumes. In some cases two different dates are thus provided for parts of one and the same Heft. Moreover, he states that no wrapper dates are available for the Hefte of volume 7, thereby implying that he had seen wrappers for volumes 1-6. However, he neither describes the copy or copies that he has examined, nor does he provide any information on their depository. Heppner's statement that the plates are undated is also confusing - while it is true that they are not individually dated, they are, like the text, clearly associated with their respective wrappers. Apart from the fact that the plate numbers are recorded on the wrappers, each plate is also referred to in the text, and the relevant Heft number appears in the top left-hand corner on each plate (Fig. 4). The undated Hefte recorded in contemporary literature As noted by Sherborn (1922: Ivi), the dates of the Hefte can be ascertained from contemporary literature. For the purposes of this paper, a search has been made only for the period 1832-1844 in order to establish the dates of those Hefte which have undated wrappers; the printed dates on the wrappers of Hefte 59-65, 67-70, 72, 73, 75-79 and 81-120 are accepted as being correct. Hefte reviewed or recorded in Isis von Oken Hefte 1-4, dated 1831: Anonymous, 1832, Isis, Leipzig 1832 (7): 753-755. Hefte 5, 6, dated 1831: Anonymous, 1833, Isis, Leipzig 1833 (9): 906. FREYER S NEUERE BEITRACE ZUR SCHMETTERLINGSKUNDE Hefte 10-15, dated 1832, Heft 16, dated 1833: Anonymous, 1834, Isis, Leipzig 1834 (3): 316-317. Heft 17, not dated: Boie, 1834, Isis, Leipzig 1834 (4): 384-385. Hefte 17-20, dated 1833, Hefte 21-24, dated 1834: Anonymous, 1835, Isis, Leipzig 1835 (2): 115-116. Hefte 25-30, dated 1835: Anonymous, 1835, Isis, Leipzig 1835 (11): 996. Hefte 31-36, dated 1856 [sic - recte 1836]: Anonymous, 1837, Isis, Leipzig 1837 (2): 116. Hefte 37-40, not dated: Anonymous, 1837, Isis, Leipzig 1837 (11): 837-838. Hefte 41-44, dated 1837: Anonymous, 1838, Isis, Leipzig 1838 (5): 374. Hefte 45-48, dated 1838-1839: Anonymous, 1839, Isis, Leipzig 1839 (3): 227. Hefte 49-52, dated 1839: Anonymous, 1840, Isis, Leipzig 1840 (4): 302-303. Hefte 53, 54, dated 1840: Anonymous, 1840, Isis, Leipzig 1840 (4): unpaginated contents list, etc. Hefte 57-60, dated 1840: Anonymous, 1841, Isis, Leipzig 1841 (4): unpaginated contents list, etc. Hefte 57-60, dated 1841: Anonymous, 1841, Isis, Leipzig 1841 (10): 815-816. Hefte 65, 66, dated 1842: Anonymous, 1843, Isis, Leipzig 1843 (2): 154. Hefte 71-74, dated 1843 and 1844: Anonymous, 1844, Isis, Leipzig 1844 (12): 941-942. Hefte recorded in Archiv fur Naturgeschichte The dates cited by Burmeister and Erichson in Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte are often later than those recorded anonymously in Isis von Oken; most are probably incorrect or unreliable. Hefte 1-16, 17-22 (Hefte 21, 22 dated 1834 by inference): Burmeister, 1835, Arch. Naturgesch. 1 (2): 53. Hefte 23-27, dated 1835: Burmeister, 1836, Arch. Naturgesch. 2 (2): 316. Hefte 28-34, dated 1836: Erichson, 1837, Arch. Naturgesch. 3 (2): 324. Hefte 35-37, dated 1837: Erichson, 1838, Arch. Naturgesch. 4 (2): 248. Hefte 38-44, dated 1838: Erichson, 1839, Arch. Naturgesch. 5 (2): 361. Hefte 45-50, dated 1839: Erichson, 1840, Arch. Naturgesch. 6 (2): 295. Hefte 51-56, dated 1840: Erichson, 1841, Arch. Naturgesch. 7 (2): 221. Heft 57, dated 1841: Erichson, 1842, Arch. Naturgesch. 8 (2): 285, 288, 289. Hefte 58-68, dated 1842: Erichson, 1843, Arch. Naturgesch. 9 (2): 246. Miscellaneous references to Hefte Sodoffsky (1837, Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 1837 (7): 112) recorded that 38 Hefte, i.e. volumes 1, 2 and part of 3, had appeared and dated the whole work 1831! Freyer (1841, Stettin, ent. Ztg 2: 48) advertised Hefte 1-60 which he dated 1833-1841. Subsequently, Freyer (1876, Dt. ent. Z. 20 (3): 15) stated that his Neuere Beitrage was still available and dated it 1833- 1868 [5/cl. Collation and dates of volumes 1-7 The dates of publication of Hefte 1-58, 66, 71, 74 and 80 have been established primarily on evidence culled from contemporary literature; for the remaining Hefte the dates printed on the wrappers are accepted as being correct. Each volume contains an undated, unpaginated index which, in most of the copies examined, is bound in after the title-page. It is assumed that an index and title-page were always issued together with the last Heft of each volume, therefore the date of publication of each index has been established from the title-page date. In the following collation, a date is enclosed in parentheses 'if it is not specified, but demonstrated by evidence derived from the work itself;', or in square brackets 'if it is demonstrated only by external evidence.' {International Code of Zoological Nomenclature , 3rd edn (1985), Recommendation 22A (4), (5)). w. G. TREMEWAN ime 1: title-page and verso, pp. [i]-[ii] (index), i-iv, 5-182, pis 1-96 ([1831]-1833). Heft pages plates date 1 i-iv, 5-12 1-6 [1831] 2 13-24 7-12 [1831] 3 25-34 13-18 [1831] 4 35-46 19-24 [1831] 5 47-56 25-30 [1831] 6 57-68 31-36 [1831] 7 69-80 37-42 [1831] 8 81-96 43-48 [1832] 9 97-108 49-54 [1832] 10 109-116 55-60 [1832] 11 117-124 61-66 [1832] 12 125-136 67-72 [1832] 13 137-146 73-78 [1832] 14 147-154 79-84 [1832] 15 155-162 85-90 [1832] 16 163-182 91-96 [1833] Frontispiece 1833 Title-page 1833 Index [il-[iil (1833) 1) The dates cited above for Hefte 7-9 are arbitrary as I have been unable to establish them from evidence in contemporary literature. On p. 79 (Heft 7), Freyer published a note written by Biiringer in November 1831, and Sherborn has dated Heft 7 '1831' in his manuscript notes attached to the title-page of volume 1. The nominal taxon Plusia ancora Freyer, described on p. 89 (Heft 8), is dated '1832' by Sherborn (1923: 302). Of interest is a reference by Freyer on p. 102 (Heft 9) to 'May h. J. (1831)', i.e. May of this year, but this does not necessarily mean that Heft 9 was published in 1831; Sherborn has dated Hefte 8 and 9 '1832' in the afore- mentioned manuscript notes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the publication dates of Hefte 7-9 are therefore based on those of Sherborn. Volume 2: title-page and verso, pp. [i]-[ii] (index), i-ii, 3-162, pis 97-192 ([1833]-1836). Heft 17 pages i-ii, 3-12 18 13-22 19 23-32 20 33-42 21 43-54 22 55-62 23 63-74 24 75-84 25 85-96 26 97-104 27 105-112 28 113-120 29 121-128 30 129-138 31 139-148 32 149-162 Title-page Index [i1-[iil plates date 97-102 [1833] 103-108 [1833] 109-114 [1833] 115-120 [1833] 121-126 [1834] 127-132 [1834] 133-138 [1834] 139-144 [1834] 145-150 [1835] 151-156 [1835] 157-162 [1835] 163-168 [1835] 169-174 [1835] 175-180 [1835] 181-186 [1836] 187-192 [1836] 1836 (1836) FREYER S NEUERE BEITRAGE ZUR SCHMETTERLINGSKUNDE Volume 3: title-page and verso, pp. [i]-[ii] (index), 1-134, pis 193-288 ([1836J-1839). Heft 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Title-page Index pages 1-10 11-20 21-28 29-36 37-44 45-52 53-60 61-68 69-76 77-84 85-92 93-100 101-108 109-116 117-126 127-134 plates 193-198 199-204 205-210 211-216 217-222 223-228 229-234 235-240 241-246 247-252 253-258 259-264 265-270 271-276 277-282 283-288 date [1836] [1836] [1836] [1836] [1837]2 [1837J2 [1837]2 [1837]^ [1837] [1837] [1837] [1837] [1839]^ [1839]^ [1839]' [1839]2 1839 (1839) 2) Sherborn has given '1837' as the publication date of Heft 37 in his manuscript notes which are attached to the title-page of volume 3; presumably this is based on the records published by Erichson (see p. 3) and is accepted here in the absence of any other evidence. In the same notes Sherborn has dated Hefte 38-44 '1838'; however. Heft 38 must have been published not later than 1837 as in that year Sodoffsky (see p. 3) recorded that 38 Hefte had been issued. As there is evidence that Heft 41 was published in 1837, it follows that Hefte 39 and 40 were also issued in that year. Hefte 45-48 are dated '1839' in the afore-mentioned manuscript notes, the date presumably being based on Erichson's records. It is logical to assume that Heft 48 was published in 1839 as presumably it was issued with the title-page which bears that date. Volume 4: title-page and verso, pp. [i]-[ii] (index), i-ii, 3-167, pis 289-384 ([1839]-1842). Heft 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Title-page Index pages i-ii, 3-12 13-22 23-30 31-38 39-48 49-58 59-68 69-80 81-92 93-102 103-116 117-124 125-136 137-146 147-156 157-167 plates date 289-294 [1839] 295-300 [1839] 301-306 [1839] 307-312 [1839] 313-318 [1840] 319-324 [1840] 325-330 [1840]-' 331-336 [1840]-' 337-342 [1841]' 343-348 [1841]-' 349-354 1841 355-360 1841 361-366 1841 367-372 1841 373-378 1842 379-384 1842 1842 (1842) 3) The dates of publication of Hefte 55-58 are enigmatic. Hefte 55 and 56 were recorded by Erichson and dated '1840' (see p. 3); the same date is given by Sherborn in his manuscript notes attached to the title-page of volume 4, and presumably was based on the evidence O W. G. TREMEWAN supplied by Erichson. Hefte 57 and 58 are dated '1840' on the back of the wrapper of Heft 4 of Isis von Oken (1841) but are dated '1841' by the anonymous reviewer on p. 815 of the same journal (see p. 3). In 1842 Erichson recorded Heft 57 and dated it '1841', but in 1843 Hefte 58- 68 were recorded by him and dated '1842' (see p. 3). The wrappers of Hefte 59-62 bear the printed date '1841', thus indicating that Erichson's citation of dates cannot be relied upon. In the afore-mentioned manuscript notes of Sherborn, Heft 57 is dated '1841', and Hefte 58-64 are dated '1842'; it therefore appears that Sherborn also based these dates on those of Erichson. In view of what has just been said, the establishment of the publication dates of Hefte 55-58 is arbitrary. However, based on such evidence, the date of Hefte 55 and 56 is considered to be 1840, and that of Hefte 57 and 58 to be 1841 (the latter date is based on the anonymous review in Isis von Oken as the dates provided in those reviews are more consistent and logical. Volume 5: title-page and verso, pp. [iHii] (index), i-ii, 3-166, pis 385-480 (1842-1845). Heft 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Title-page Index pages i-ii, 3-14 15-24 25-32 33-44 45-52 53-62 63-74 75-86 87-96 97-106 107-116 117-124 125-134 135-144 145-156 157-166 plates 385-390 date 1842 391-396 397-402 [1842]^ 1842 403-408 1843 409-414 1843 415-420 1843 421-426 427-432 [1843]^ 1844 433-438 1844 439-444 445-450 [1844]^ 1844 451-456 1845 457-462 1845 463-468 1845 469-474 1845 475-480 (1845)^ 1845 (1845) 4) The wrappers of Hefte 66, 71 , 74 and 80 are of the kind shown in Fig. 5, i.e. they lack dates and the Heft and plate numbers have been added in contemporary handwriting. However, the publication dates of Hefte 66 and 74 must be 1842 and 1844 respectively, because the wrappers of Hefte 65 and 67 bear the date 1842 and those of 73 and 75 are dated 1844. It is assumed that Heft 80 was published in 1845 together with the title-page which bears that date. The date of Heft 71 is enigmatic as the wrapper dates of Hefte 70 and 72 are 1843 and 1844 respectively. The nominal taxon Lycaena balkanica Freyer, described on p. 63 (Heft 71), is dated 1844 by Sherborn (1924: 645) who also gives the same date for Heft 71 in his manuscript notes attached to the title-page of volume 5. However, Hefte 71-74 were reviewed in Isis von Oken (see p. 3) and dated 1843 and 1844; Heft 71 must therefore have been published in 1843 and this date is accepted here. The dates of Hefte 65, 66 and 71-74 that are cited in Isis von Oken (see p. 3) also confirm the dates established above for Hefte 66 and 74. It is possible that wrappers bearing printed dates were also issued and are still extant; however, until such wrappers are discovered, the dates for these Hefte should be placed in square brackets. FREYER S NEUERE BEITRAGE ZUR SCHMETTERLINGSKUNDE I Volume 6: title-page and verso, pp. [i]-[ii] (index), 1-106, 105-168, 177-195, pis 481-600 (1846-1852). Heft pages 81 1-12 82 13-20 83 21-28 84 29-36 85 37-48 86 49-60 87 61-68 88 69-78 89 79-88 90 89-96 91 97-106 92 105-112' 93 113-120 94 121-130 95 131-142 96 143-152 97 153-160 98 161-168 99 177-186' 100 187-195 Title-page Index [il-[ii1 plates date 481-486 1846 487-492 1846 493-498 1847 499-504 1847 505-510 1847 511-516 1847 517-522 1848 523-528 1848 529-534 1849 535-540 1849 541-546 1850 547-552 1850 553-558 1850 559-564 1850 565-570 1851 571-576 1851 577-582 1851 583-588 1851 589-594 1852 595-600 1852 1852 (1852) 5) The pages of Heft 91 are numbered 97-106, while those of Heft 92 are numbered 105-112, moreover, those of Heft 99 are numbered 177-186 and do not follow on from those of Heft 98. The plates associated with these Hefte are correctly numbered and it is the pagination which is incorrect, thus giving the impression that some pages are missing. Volume 7: title page and verso, pp. [iHii] (index), 1-178, pis 601-700 (1853-1858). Heft 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Title-page Index pages 1-12 13-20 21-28 29-38 39-46 47-54 55-62 63-70 71-78 79-86 87-96 97-104 105-114 115-124 125-132 133-142 143-150 151-158 159-168 169-178 plates date 601-605 1853 606-610 1853 611-615 1853 616-620 1854 621-625 1854 626-630 1854 631-635 1854 636-640 1854 641-645 1855 646-650 1855 651-655 1856 656-660 1856 661-665 1856 666-670 1856 671-675 1856 676-680 1857 681-685 1857 686-690 1857 691-695 1858 696-700 1858 1858 (1858) 8 W. G. TREMEWAN Biographical notes on C. F. Freyer Christian Friedrich Freyer (Fig. 1), the eldest son of Georg Ludwig Freyer and Henrike, nee Meyer, was born in Wassertriidingen, Bavaria, on 25 August 1794 and died in Augsburg on 10 November 1885 (Wulzinger, 1887). After his education at the local elementary and grammar schools he was employed as an administrator at Schloss Colberg in Ansbach and in 1820 took up a similar post in Augsburg where he lived for the remainder of his life. His wife Caroline, nee Pluntky, whom he married in 1821, was from Ansbach and they had six children. As a child Freyer was interested in natural history, especially entomology, and had already formed a small collection. In later years he collected with tireless enthusiasm during his spare time and on such occasions was supported and helped by his wife. He always attempted to recognize and identify the foodplants of the butterflies and moths that they found and, as he was interested in their early stages, he constructed rearing cages so that he could study their life histories more easily. He also exchanged specimens with other entomologists and his collection was distinguished by its size and neatness and the rarity of the species it contained. Freyer's first major work to be published was Beitrdge zur Geschichte europaischer Schmetterlinge mit Abbildungen nach der Natur which was issued in 24 pocket-sized Hefte from [1827]-1830 and formed three volumes. The publication of this work earned him recognition in the entomological world and resulted in correspondence with contemporary specialists at home and abroad. His Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde mit Abbildungen. nach der Natur, the subject of the present paper, was his final major contribution to the entomological literature and is indeed the most important. In order to produce the best illustrations possible, he had learned the art of copper engraving and took pride in the fact that all his figures were drawn and painted by himself, moreover, those depicting the early stages were always based on living material and not copied from other people's work. Not only were his publications regarded with esteem by contemporary Lepidoptera specialists, but through his illustrations Freyer was also recognized as an artist. In addition to the two major works just mentioned, he published a number of short articles on Lepidoptera and a book on the pest species of butterflies and moths occurring in Germany. In 1848 Freyer joined the local natural history society in Augsburg and later served on its council. He helped to build up the society's collection by donating specimens and eventually he became its curator. It is regrettable that Freyer's personal collection was split up after his death (Horn & Kahle, 1935: 82) as it contained much original material of the species that he had described and named himself. (Regarding the genus Zygaena Fabricius, only two syntypes have so far been traced (Tremewan, 1961: 282).) Following the death of his wife in 1869, Freyer applied for retirement from the administrative service in the spring of 1870, having served the town of Augsburg for 50 years - he was already in his 76th year. Acknowledgements I am indebted to the following for help in various ways: Mrs B. Leonard, Librarian, Royal Entomological Society, London; Mrs Audrey Z. Smith, Hope Librarian, University Museum, Oxford; Miss Pamela Gilbert, Entomology Library, and Dr K. Sattler, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History). References Hagen, H. A. 1862. Bibliotheca Entomologica 1: xii, 566 pp. Leipzig. Hemming, F. 1936. Report of the "Permanent International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature". Xir Congres international de Zoologie Comptes Rendus 1 (1): 181-196. Heppner, J. B. 1982. Dates of selected Lepidoptera literature for the Western Hemisphere fauna. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 36: 87-111. Horn, W. & Kahle, I. 1935-1937. Uber entomologische Sammlungen, Entomologen & Entomo- Museologie vi, 536 pp., 38 pis. Berlin-Dahlem. FREYER S NEUERE BE/TRACE ZUR SCHMETTERl.INGSKUNDE 9 Horn, W. & Schenkling, S. 1928. Index Litteraturae Entomologicae 2: 353-704, pi. 2. Berlin-Dahlem. Junk, W. 1926-1936. Rara Historico-Naturalia 2: [ij-fiv], 123-242. Den Haag. Nissen, C. 1969. Die zoologische Buchillustration. Ihre Bibliographie unci Geschichte I: 666 pp. Stuttgart. Sherborn, C. D. 1922. Index Animalium . . . part I. Introduction, bibliography and index A-Aff. 1801- 1850, pp. i-cxxi, 1-128. London. 1923. Index Animalium . . . part II. Index Aff.-Anus. 1801-1850, pp. 129-384, cxxxiii-cxxxvi. London. 1924. Index Animalium . . . part IV. Index Bail.-Byzos. 1801-1850, pp. 641-943. London. Tremewan, W. G. 1961. A catalogue of the types and other specimens in the British Museum (Natural History) of the genus Zygaena Fabricius, Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 10: 239-313, pis 50-64. Wulzlnger, E. 1887. Christian Friedrich Freyer. Bericht des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins fur Schwaben und Neuburg (a. V.) in Augsburg 29: xliii-xlvi. Annex The bibliographical data provided above are a direct result of research which was done to establish the correct dates of publication of the nominal taxa described by Freyer in the genus Zygaena Fabricius, 1775 (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae). A check-list of these taxa follows. Check-list of Zygaena Fabricius described, illustrated or mentioned by Freyer This check-list comprises the nominal taxa described by Freyer in his Neuere Beltrdge zur Schmetter lings kunde mil Abbildungen nach der Natur, volumes 1-7; those species which were described by other authors and illustrated or referred to by Freyer are also listed. No attempt has been made to establish the priority or validity of the names attributable to Freyer, as this will be dealt with in a forthcoming systematic catalogue of the Zygaeninae (Hofmann & Tremewan, in prep.). The nominal taxa are arranged chronologically in the check-list, i.e. in the order of their publication in Freyer's work. Names that are attributable to Freyer are marked with an asterisk (*). The authority of taxa described by other authors is that referred to by Freyer and therefore is not necessarily correct; however, if Freyer cited such a taxon without an author, the latter is provided in square brackets and is either correct or the one that Freyer had used previously. The names of the taxa described by other authors which have been misspelt by Freyer are listed as originally cited by him and misspellings have not been corrected. At the beginning of each species description, Freyer cited a genus number and the name of the genus in which he placed the species, followed by a species number and the name of the species; however, the species name is always prefixed by a genus name (abbreviated or in full) which is often different from that first cited and is one that was used by Linnaeus or other earlier authors. For example, the Zygaena species first listed and described by Freyer (1: 28) is cited as follows: 'Gen. XIX. Zygaena. 20. Sp[hinx]. Oxytropis.'. At the XII International Congress of Zoology, Hemming (1936: 185) reported that the following Opinion had been adopted by the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature: Tn interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer in his Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde to the species there described, each species is to be regarded as having been described by Freyer as belonging to the genus cited by him at the head of each description and not to the genus with which he actually associated the specific name . . .'. For the purposes of homonymy the species listed below were therefore all described in Zygaena and not in Sphinx Linnaeus. *Zygaena oxytropis Freyer, [1831], 1: 28, pi. 14, fig. 2. Zygaena cynarae Hiibner; Freyer, [1831], 1: 28, pi. 14, fig. 3. Zygaena triptolemus Hiibner; Freyer, [1831], 1: 28, pi. 14, fig. 4. Zygaena minos Hiibner; Freyer, [1832], 1: 156, pi. 86. fig. 1. Zygaena hippocrepidis Hiibner; Freyer, [1832], 1: 157, pi. 86, figs 2, 3. Zygaena triptolemus Treiischke; Freyer, [1835], 2: 114, pi. 164, figs 1, 2. Zygaena glycirrhiza Hiibner; Freyer, [1835], 2: 116, pi. 164, fig. 3. 10 W. G. TREMEWAN Zygaena cytisi Hubner; Freyer, [1835], 2: 116, pi. 164, fig. 4. Zygaena laeta Hubner; Freyer, [1836], 3: 12, pi. 200, fig. 1. Zygaena exulans Hubner; Freyer, [1836], 3: 13, pi. 200, fig. 2. Zygaena rubicundus Hubner; Freyer, [1836], 3: 13, pi. 200, fig. 3. Zygaena trifolii Hubner; Freyer, [1836], 3: 14, pi. 200, fig. 4. Zygaena dorjc/iii Ochsenheimer; Freyer, [1839], 3: 120, pi. 278, fig. 3. *Zygaena stentzii Freyer, [1839], 3: 120, pi. 278, fig. 4. Zygaena exulans [Hubner] ; Freyer, [1839], 3: 134. Zygaena cynarae Hubner; Freyer, 1841, 4: 106, pi. 350, fig. 1. Zygaena carneoUca Esper; Freyer, 1841, 4: 107, pi. 350, fig. 2. Zygaena sedi Hubner; Freyer, 1841, 4: 107, pi. 350, figs 3, 4. Zygaena stoechadis Hubner; Freyer, 1841, 4: 138, pi. 368, figs 1-4. *Zygaena anthillidis Freyer, 1842, 5: 27, pi. 398, fig. 3. Zygaena achilleae [Esper]; Freyer, 1843, 5: 44. Zygaena glycirrhizae [Hiibner]; Freyer, 1843, 5: 44. *Zygaena oxytropis Freyer; Freyer, 1843, 5: 44. Zygaena hippocrepidis Hubner; Freyer, 1843, 5: 44. Zygaena onobrychis [Denis & Schiffermiiller]; Freyer, 1843, 5: 44. Zygaena fausta [Linnaeus]; Freyer, 1843, 5: 61. Zygaena fausta [Linnaeus]; Freyer, [1843], 5: 74. * Zygaena favonia Freyer, 1844, 5: 76, pi. 428, fig. 1. Zygaena lonicerae Hubner; Freyer, 1844, 5: 108, pi. 446, figs. Zygaena astragali Borkhausen; Freyer, 1845, 5: 117, pi. 452, figs. * Zygaena pythia Freyer, 1845, 5: 152, pi. 473, fig. 1. * Zygaena contaminei Freyer , 1847, 6: 39, pi. 506, fig. 1. Zygaena dahurica Boisduval; Freyer, 1847, 6: 39, pi. 506, fig. 2. Zygaena syracusii Zeller; Freyer, 1847, 6: 39, pi. 506, figs 3, 4. Zygaena hippocrepidis [Hiibner]; Hepp in Freyer, 1849, 6: 88. Zygaena fausta [Linnaeus]; Hepp in Freyer, 1849, 6: 88. *Zygaena oribasus Freyer, 1851, 6: 135, pi. 568, fig. 1. *Zygaena laphria Freyer, 1851, 6: 135, pi. 568, fig. 2. * Zygaena ganimedes Freyer, 1851, 6: 136, pi. 568, fig. 3. * Zygaena dsidsilia Freyer, 1851, 6: 136, pi. 568, fig. 4. Zygaena fausta Treitschke; Freyer, 1851, 6: 154, pi. 578, figs. Zygaena exulans Hubner; Freyer, 1852, 6: 178, pi. 590, fig. 1. Zygaena laeta Hubner; Freyer, 1854, 7: 64, pi. 637, fig. 1. Zygaena onobrychis Hubner; Freyer, 1854, 7: 66, pi. 637, fig. 2. FREYER S NEUERE BEITRACE ZUR SCHMETTERLINGSKUNDE 11 Fig. 1 A portrait of C. F. Freyer which forms the frontispiece to volume 1 of his Neuere Beitriige zur Schmetterlingskunde. 12 W. G. TREMEWAN 31 c u e t e ^ e i t t d d e (S (^ m e 1 1 e r I i tt g § f u tt t) e tnit igt!5tet ©anil* ^efte 1 l\^ i6 tncU mit 96 timminirten ^upfertafeln. Tab. 1. — 96. ^tt ban ^^i(bni^ b« ^^crfai^er^. $eim SJerfaffer Lit. H. Nro. 25. 3n 5tommtf(Ioii bet Ux Sari £oI(tnann'f(^<<^ Suc^^antlang. 18 3 3. Fig. 2 The title-page of C. F. Freyer's Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde, volume 1. freyer's neuere beitrage zur schmetterlingskunde 13 91 e u e r e S c i t r it 8 c I u r mi ^bbiltiungen nad) tr^r llatur. Jpctauggegcfcen tion ®* ^^ ^tei^et^ .gefte 101 fciS 120 mit 100 itluminirten ^u^fertafeln. Tab. 601 m 700. beim SSerfaffer Lit. H. Nro. 25. 3n Jtommiffton feel ber iKat^. Dllcget'ft^en SSuc^^anblung. (3* ^« i&itttmei:*) 1858. Fig. 3 The title-page of C. F. Freyer's Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde, volume 7. 14 W. G. TREMEWAN fr- Tab: 578. »5^- ,Aii^^. Fig. 4 Plate 578 of C. F. Freyer's Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde , volume 6, depicting the adult, early stages and foodplant of Zygaena fausta (Linnaeus). FREYER S NEUERE BEITRACE ZUR SCHMETTERLINGSKUNDE 15 8^-^^^^:^: 01 e 11 e r e t It X I A t gur ®(^mettetlttt8^futt&e mtt Ahhilbunom m^ \\tx Uatun 3)?it A iauminirten ^u^f ertafeln. Tab. <7X — -y<^r :;Sie|e §eftc it>evbcn nur gegen ganj fid^ere SBepellnng cerfenbct. Stnmal Derlangte iinb burc^ bie S3u(^)tjanblung Cevfenbete ©fcmplare fomifii nid^t niel^v juriirfgenommen roerben. 'Man erfuc^t, fic^ jebe«nial ouf eincu ganjen ©cnb ober 20 ^efte ju fubfcrtbiven. ginjelne $ffte ton ben frii^etn 6 ^Ddnben roerben nic^t abgegeben. beim 33crfaffev Lit. H. Nro. 25. Gn .Sommiifion bci bet SKattI). SRteger'fc^en S3u(^t)anbhmg. {% ^. i^iinmer.) Fig. 5 The wrapper of Heft 16 (volume 1, pis 91-96) of C. F. Freyer's Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde. 16 W. G. TREMEWAN 91 c « c r c 1$ e t t r a a ^ jut: aitt ^^i^Sifbiutgdn nac^ bcr J^Jrtfur. sg**'' ^ c f t ^it 6 iUuminitten ^u|)fcttaf cln. Tab. 349. — 354. Zuv Nadjric!)t ©tefe ^efte tterbcn nur gegen ganj ftd^cre SScfteltung wetfenbet. (Stnmal werkngte unb burc^ bie SBu^t)anb(ung Dcrfenbetc eremplare fonncn nid)t mct)r juructgenommen iterben- 5JKan crfud^t, fi^ iebegmat auf cinen ganjcn 58anb obev 16 ^efte ju fubfcrtbircn, unb wer auf ben nadjjlen SSanb ntci^t me^r co nttnutrcn will, vsoUt fol^ieS bee trcffenben S5u^^anblung bet bem Borle^ten v^^eft gefdUtg anjetgen unb abbe^eUen. 2)er ©ubfcr. ^ret« beftet)t tn 1 ft. 24 !r. t^etn. 2)et Sabenprcig in 1 fl. 48 !r. rljein. flit's einjelne ^^eft mit 6 tUumtn. .Rupfertafeln. ^tt Qdf) ttr Qt beim 23erfnffcr Lit. H. No. 25. 3n ^ommtffiott bci fcer Sar( ^oUmftnn'fc^en 55ucf)l)(»nfc(u»ig. Fig. 6 The wrapper of Heft 59 (volume 4, pis 349-354) of C. F. Freyer's Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde. Ellis & Solander's 'Zoophytes', 1786: six unpublished plates and other aspects By Paul F. S. Cornelius Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, England & John W. Wells Department of Geological Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. Contents Abstract ........ Introduction ........ Background ........ Sir Joseph Banks's copy of Ellis & Solander's 'Zoophytes' The six unpublished plates ...... The preparation, production, and authorship of Ellis & Solander's 'Zoophytes' Notes on some of the original drawings for Ellis & Solander's "Zoophytes' . The dispersal and fate of Ellis's manuscripts and collections The unidentified figures of Ellis & Solander's Zoophytes Conclusion Acknowledgements Tables References Index 17 18 18 24 27 36 51 54 62 64 64 66 68 86 Abstract Ellis & Solander's (1786) The natural history of many curious and uncommon zoophytes ... set a new standard of taxonomic excellence in studies of the 'zoophytes', or animals whose colonies bear a superficial resemblance to plants. The book underpins much subsequent work on hydroids, sea fans, black corals, soft corals, stony corals, some other colony-forming invertebrates, and coralline algae. Several of the intended plates were not published with the work but six of these survive as apparently unique proof-pulls bound in Sir Joseph Banks's copy, held in the British Library. These are reproduced, and modern taxonomic assessment is made of the 22 nominal species depicted. These comprise 15 stony corals, three hydrozoans, two bryozoans and two red algae. In addition some 20 further species depicted on six of the originally issued plates but without captions are identified where possible and taxonomic notes given. This group includes eight stony corals, three sea fans, one hydroid, four bryozoans and three sponges. No type material is designated, but a number of types are recognized. Several other aspects are discussed in varying detail: the dispersal and subsequent fate of the specimens and collections on which the book was based; the fate of all Ellis's collections, manuscripts and library; the location and identity of the original pencil drawings for the Ellis & Solander book and the identities of the engravers where known; the joint authorship and production of the 1786 book; the lives and work of the two men; and notes on some of their manuscript material and correspondence. Keywords Sir Joseph Banks, Bibliography, Biography, British Museum, Bryozoa, Cnidaria, Collections, Corals, Coralline algae, Drawings, Jonas Dryander, John Ellis, History of Science, Hydrozoa, Manuscripts, Museums, Portland Catalogue, Scleractinia, Daniel Solander, Stylasterina, Taxonomy, Zoophytes. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (hist. Ser.) 16 (1): 17-87 Issued 28 July 1988 18 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS Introduction From its first publication in 1786 Ellis & Solander's The natural history of many curious and uncommon zoophytes . . . became a standard work in many branches of taxonomic zoology and botany, and has remained so for two hundred years. During its preparation Solander was for much of the time employed at the still young British Museum, and Ellis had tables there. The book was one of the first fruits to follow from the establishment of that world-famous institution. A feature of the work was its sixty-three exquisitely-engraved plates. The engravings for further plates had evidently been lost by that time, and only single proof-pulls from just six of them survive. These have long been known in a copy of the book once belonging to Sir Joseph Banks and now preserved in the British Library, but have been almost completely overlooked by taxonomists and bibliographers alike. Their scientific value is considerable. The six are at last reproduced herein (Figs 2-7; see also Fig. 8), and for the first time are taxonomically assessed (p. 27). Some other illustrations perhaps intended for the book survive only as the original pencil drawings (p. 51), but these are not assessed here. Various other aspects of the work of the two authors are considered, among them the background against which the joint book was produced, the division of authorship within it, the fate of the coral specimens illustrated in the book and of Ellis's manuscripts and other collections, the provenance of the largely extant original drawings for the plates, and taxonomic notes on the several illustrations in the book for which captions were not provided. Background Zoophytes: an obsolete concept At one time there was a widespread belief among naturalists that the several groups of animals forming sessile, branched colonies were actually plants. Such forms were uncritically classified together as 'zoophytes'. At the start of the eighteenth century the term encompassed animal groups as diverse as coralline algae, bryozoans, sponges, and the cnidarian (formerly 'coelenterate') classes today known as scleractinian corals, gorgonians, antipatharians and hydroids. The grouping together of 'zoophytes' is no longer acceptable in biology but in the context of the present subject the term serves a purpose and we have used it to avoid circumlocution. For a similar reason we have in places used the now restricted generic term Madrepora in the original, wide sense to embrace almost all the scleractinian corals, in the way that it was employed by Ellis & Solander (1786) and their contemporaries. During the eighteenth century zoophytes became better known and group by group their animal nature was revealed. But some authorities were slow to accept these revolutionary findings. A protracted international debate ensued. It was well documented by Johnston (1847; see also Savage, 1948: iv). In common with many others, Johnston considered that it was a London-based amateur naturalist John Ellis who, in the eighteenth century, became the champion of those who rightly considered most 'zoophytes' to be animals. John Ellis, F.R.S. (?1710-1776) Ellis's eminence and the international respect he enjoyed resulted from the excellence of his scientific work. Paradoxically, until recently rather little had been written about him. Groner (1987) has recently surveyed many little-known aspects of Ellis's life. For example, he has advanced evidence that the birth date of 1710 is probably correct; but has challenged the traditional view that Ellis was born at an unrecorded place in Ireland, concluding that he was born near London. Rauschenberg (1978«, 1978^), too, summarized many aspects of Ellis's scientific and non-scientific life. Ellis became a successful and respected merchant and was for some years King's Agent for West Florida and Colonial Agent for Dominica. Groner has given an extended account of these activities. Further biographic information about Ellis is given by Smith (1819, 1821), Stephen (1889), Carruthers (1901), Harmer (1931a), Savage (1934, 1948), and Rauschenberg (1978fl, b). ELLIS & SOLANDER'S ' ZOOPHYTES 19 In his zoological activities Ellis covered all the main zoophyte groups but his most detailed work was on the British hydroids. He published numerous scientific papers, mostly in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society but also in the Gentleman s Magazine and elsewhere. A nearly complete list is available in one of his publications (Ellis & Solander, 1786 - Ellis, 1766, is omitted; see also the bibliography in Elhs, 1767). Among his non-zoological scientific activities were many botanical, agricultural and horticultural projects (Rauschen- berg, 1978«, b\ Mackay, 1985; Groner, 1987) and the improvement of the crude microscopes of the day (Rowbury, 1982; Groner, 1987). His first book (Ellis, 1755) provided the earliest illustrations of some of the zoophyte groups and achieved a descriptive excellence and comprehensiveness which were unparalleled for many years. The illustrations were unusually accurate for the day, and were engraved by leading craftsmen (pp. 51-54). French, Dutch and German translations followed (Ellis, 1756fl, 1756^, 1767), the last being an expanded edition including a useful bibliography of Ellis's works then available and of those of other zoophyte workers. The 1755 work can be dated accurately. Ellis's own manuscript annotation to the title page of the presentation copy in the Royal Society, London, states 'March 6, 1755', indicating pubhcation at or around that time. A stamp on the reverse states 'Soc. Roy. Lond./ex dono. Auctoris'. Since the dedication at the start of the work was dated 15 December 1754, it seems that publication was swift. Ellis's own copy of the work is preserved in Glasgow University Library (shelf mark Sp. Coll. q 450; P. K. Escreet, pers. comm.). Some other particular copies can be mentioned. A copy of the French edition (Ellis, 1756a) in the Zoology Library of the British Museum (Natural History) [BMNH] (Cnidaria Section, shelf- mark 45E) bears a Hbrary book-plate of 'Alex^ Watt', the husband of Ellis's daughter Martha (Dawson, 1958), together with Watt's coat of arms. Martha Watt's great importance in Ellis & Solander's joint book is discussed below (pp. 23, 36, 50). Also in this copy of Ellis, 1756a, is a printed label stating 'Meriel Nevill Watt'; and a third, indicating 'Revd. Alfred Gatty' with his coat of arms. Written on the fly-leaf is 'Margaret Gatty October 1857 for 5/6'. The last-named was an amateur nineteenth century algologist. 'Margaret Gatty, a Yorkshire clergyman's wife . . . wrote a History of British seaweeds' (Barber, 1980: 31). Evidently the copy had a pedigree before coming to the BMNH in 1928. Comments on the previous ownership of a copy of the English edition (Ellis, 1755) preserved in the BMNH were given by Sawyer (1964). Ellis's work was not without fault. Ironically, he wrongly considered what are today known as coralline algae to be animals (Johansen, 1981: 179). But perhaps an even greater oversight was that he almost totally ignored the important work on Hydra, the 'freshwater polyp', which appeared when he was in his early thirties. The pioneer work was published in French by Trembley (eventually appearing in 1744), and almost identical subsequent research was reported by Henry Baker (published more quickly, in 1743). Trembley was mentioned only briefly in Ellis's first book (Ellis, 1755: xvi) and Baker not at all, despite his skilful work. Given that Hydra was already widely accepted as animal, and that it was clearly similar to the hydranths or feeding polyps which Ellis had studied closely in hydroids, it is odd that he did not invoke this similarity as a forceful argument for hydroids and hence other zoophytes being animal (p. 47). Ellis (1755: xvi, pi. 28, fig. c) mentioned Hydra and illustrated it with a figure so poor and unrepresentative that it would seem probable that he had not seen Hydra by this date. However, he later noted (Ellis & Solander, 1786: 10) that he made a thorough examination of specimens in 1770 - when already elderly - and was by then clear about their structure and affinity. Baker was still not cited, perhaps since he was widely, but possibly unfairly, considered to have plagiarized Trembley's work (J. R. Baker, 1952; Lenhoff & Lenhoff, 1985, 1986). There would seem little doubt that the books of Trembley and Baker were readily available to Ellis in London. Trembley's even appeared in the sale catalogue of Ellis's library (Robson, 1786: 62). Although the books of S. Dayrolles were mingled with those of Ellis in the catalogue Dayrolles apparently had no connection with biology (D.N.B.; B.M. Catg. Printed Books) and the Trembley book would most probably have belonged to Ellis. Given that Trembley's impact on biological thought was great, with repercussions quite outside the study of zoophytes, EUis's omission must be judged a major one. Archinard (1985: 20 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS 340) felt that 'Ellis, who often mentions Trembley in his book, was greatly influenced by his work with aquatic creatures' but the occurrence of just a single reference to Trembley in Ellis's book (in the introduction) seems to contradict this. But such oversights as these were unusual in Ellis's work and his subsequent high standing in the scientific community was well deserved. Linnaeus perhaps overstated the case when he remarked that Ellis was 'the main support of natural history in England' and that he had 'derived more information, through [Ellis's] various assistance, than from any other person' (Rauschenberg, 1978«: 150; Stearn, 1981: 19). But Ellis was certainly a leading naturalist and was highly talented. He corresponded with some 150 British and foreign naturalists (Savage, 1948; Groner, 1987), a number of contacts which would indicate industry even in today's mechanized world. His correspondents included many of the most senior naturalists of the day. Some measure of the excellence of his pioneer work on hydroids can be gained from the following. In the tenth edition of the Systema naturae (1758) Linnaeus, not being able to read English, based many of his zoophyte species on Ellis's (1755) illustrations (Cornelius, 1979: 309, note 13). Since zoological nomenclature is taken as starting with this edition of the Systema, Ellis's illustrations and the specimens from which they were drawn have a considerable importance in the several animal and plant phyla represented. An indication of Ellis's success in defining species is that, of the 26 hydroid species based by Linnaeus almost solely on the illustrations in Ellis's (1755) book, the validity of only one is doubted today. This one is Sertularia argentea Linnaeus, 1758 (discussion in Cornelius, 1979; see also Cornelius & Ryland, in press). The question of its validity is still not resolved but Ellis's reputation is undiminished. There can be few eighteenth century naturalists whose species lists are virtually accepted today, and still fewer who at the same time were pioneers in their fields. It may be that in his major research field none has a better record than Ellis. In addition to advancing these several fields of zoology Ellis was active in horticulture and agriculture, being especially interested in importing plants likely to be of economic use and making similar translocations between certain British colonies. In addition he made refinements to the still primitive single-lens microscopes of his time. These and many other aspects of Ellis's life and achievements were reviewed by Groner (1987), who provided an extensive bibliography of books, articles and manuscript material. Ellis died in 1776. Although his daughter, Martha Watt, gave the date as 15 October in the introduction to her father's book (Ellis & Solander, 1786) different dates were given in contemporary publications and Groner (1987), who examined the evidence, concluded that 5 October 1776 was the correct date. The state of biology in Ellis's England EUis's scientific achievements should be evaluated in their contemporary perspective. During his lifetime the study of most fields of terrestrial natural history was, in Britain as in most other countries, still only a little beyond the accumulation of folk-lore; and that of the sea was less advanced still. When Ellis's first book was published in 1755 the inauguration of the British Museum and its famous Department of Natural and Artificial Productions was still a year away. Ellis was about 45, and had already made a great impact on the world of science without the benefit of contact with a learned institution. The British Museum's first 'Under Librarian of Natural History', James Empson (d. 1765), was perhaps the earliest publicly-salaried biologist in Britain, the study of natural history being almost exclusively in the hands of wealthy amateurs at that time. Ellis was evidently among the first amateur scientists to make use of the facilities of the British Museum. The recent and masterly historical account by Carter (1988) has provided a wealth of information on Sir Joseph Banks and his scientific circle in these very early days of the 'BM'; and Groner (1987) has given a detailed analysis of Ellis's place in that embryonic scientific community. Many of the popular books on natural history produced in the mid-eighteenth century were merely a repetition of country gossip or religious dogma. Gilbert White (1720^1793), author of one of the earliest and most celebrated popular works that were trustworthy (White, 1789), ELLIS & SOLANDER's ' ZOOPHYTES 21 was in 1755 just re-settling in his childhood Selborne. Those of his journals and letters which were subsequently published commence in or soon after 1767 (Windle, in White, 1906; White, 1982) when Ellis was already about 57 and had achieved international fame as a scientist. At this time White was about to join in a debate that went on for some twenty years concerning whether swallows and martins migrated southwards to avoid the British winter or whether they settled in mud at the bottoms of ponds! Such was the state of British natural history. The cultural circle of naturalists, especially in London, must have been small and it was perhaps not just coincidence that one of the eventual publishers of Ellis's second (and posthumous) book (Ellis & Solander, 1786) was Benjamin White, brother of Gilbert and the leading natural history publisher in London at that time (Johnson, in White, 1982: xix, xxxv). Thus Ellis can be regarded as one of the leading amateur naturalists in mid-eighteenth century England. At this time there were virtually no professionals and his contributions both to the methodology of invertebrate zoology and to its total knowledge were great. Daniel Carlsson Solander (1733-1782) In the late 1750s John Ellis, together with another British naturalist, Peter Collinson (1694- 1768), had the foresight to ask Linnaeus to nominate an able student to visit England 'for a year or two' to promulgate his binominal system and views on classification (Banks, in Rauschenberg, 1964; Marshall, 1977; Rauschenberg, 1978fl). Linnaeus recommended Daniel Solander, an unusually capable scholar brought up in Pitea in the far north of Sweden before studying under Linnaeus in Uppsala. A resume of Solander's years in Sweden has been given by Jonsell (1984). Linnaeus regarded him as one of his most talented students. Solander based himself in London for many years and fully achieved what was expected of him. He arrived in 1760 and in 1763 took a post at the British Museum. He was charged with cataloguing the natural history collections (Rauschenberg, 1968; Marshall, 1977; Stearn, 1981; Diment & Wheeler, 1984). Later, from 1768 to 1771, he accompanied Sir Joseph Banks (1743- 1820) in his capacity as naturalist on James Cook's first circum-global expedition, in H.M.S. Endeavour. On returning Solander assumed a second major commitment, of assisting Banks in writing up the results from the enormous collections from this voyage (Marshall, 1977; Stearn, 1984; Wheeler, 1984^, 1986), though relatively little appeared in print. During these years Solander was again employed by the British Museum, of which Banks was a leading Trustee, and he was in consequence also one of the first salaried biologists in Britain (Stearn, 1981, 1984; Wheeler, 1984fl, 1984/?). Thus, in contrast to Ellis, Solander was for most of his career a full-time, professional naturalist. Solander was evidently well aware of the dangers that can beset a museum-based naturahst, an awareness perhaps instilled by Linnaeus himself. The following seldom-quoted anecdote conveys a warning still valid for any collection-oriented systematist: '. . . when a green Hving plant was brought to Solander by a lady to be named, he studied it attentively and then said: "Madam, if you shall take this plant home and put it between paper and shall sit upon it for a week, I shall tell you its name.".' [Cole (1895); cited in Geological Magazine (1895) 32: 477] Also in contrast to Ellis, Solander's numerous scientific activities have recently become well documented. Rauschenberg (1968) provided a long account which considered most aspects of Solander's life and work. Summaries of Solander's career after coming to London were given by Marshall (1977, 1984), and of Solander's role during and after the Endeavour expedition by Marshall (1977), Wheeler (1984«, 1984/?, 1986), Stearn (1984), Tingbrand (1984), and others whom they cite. Solander's manuscripts have been exhaustively documented by Diment & Wheeler (1984). The date of Solander's death was 13 May 1782 (Rauschenberg, 1968; H. B. Carter, pers. comm.). Some authors have misquoted it (Banks, in Alstromer, 1785, as 12 March 1782, translated similarly in Rauschenberg, 1964; Marshall, 1984, as 12 May 1782). The recent scholarly work by Carter (1988) includes a great deal of information about many aspects of Solander's life and work. 22 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS The association between Ellis and Solander, and their joint work At the start of the Endeavour expedition in 1768 Banks was 25 years of age, Solander 35 and ElHs, who did not take part, around 58. Their relative ages have some bearing on EUis & Solander's (1786) subsequent joint pubhcation, a book on zoophytes slightly longer than Ellis's first and rivalling it in excellence. Ellis had been preparing this second book over many years, starting at least as early as 1765 (letter from Ellis to David Skene, p. 41). The book was in the end posthumous to them both. It, too, can be dated fairly precisely since a copy was presented to the Royal Society on 23 February 1786 (note inside Royal Society copy), implying publication early that year. Lamouroux (1821) reprinted the 63 Ellis & Solander (1786) plates in his own book. In his preface he modestly stated that his book could be regarded a new edition of theirs, but it has never been so cited. Before Solander arrived in England Ellis seems not to have had the advantage of a scientific collaborator. Ellis was clearly eager to meet, and the two lunched on Solander's second day in England (Rauschenberg, 1968: 16). They became close colleagues. Indeed, it was the essence of Solander's great contribution to the English scientific scene that he assisted numerous naturalists in their endeavours - often without taking his due credit in authorship (Banks, in Rauschenberg, 1964). With Ellis, as perhaps with others, Solander evidently developed an informal friendship. Thus one letter to Ellis is marred by an enormous ink blot. At the end he wrote: 'To acct. for this Curious blot, contemplating on a fine Lady I threw the Ink instead of the Sand on your Letter which you must excuse as I have no time to copy it fair.' [undated; BL Add MSS 29-533, f. 39] Diment & Wheeler (1984) recorded that under this same British Library number are preserved 34 letters from Ellis to Solander written in less than three years from 1760 to 1763. Bearing in mind the paucity of 'biologists' at that time this leaves no doubt that they were intimate friends. Despite their difference in age they made at least one historic field trip to coastal localities in southern England looking at zoophytes (Ellis, 1766; Rauschenberg, 1968: 18; 1978a). A letter from Ellis to Dr David Skene, an Edinburgh physician and prominent naturalist (Lenman & Kenworthy, 1977), indicates the working relationship he had with Solander: '. . . I have told Dr Solander that we must sit down and arrange [the zoophytes] properly for him . . . Dr Solander has all this day been busy at the Museum ... but is to come and spend a day in order to answer your very proper objections to [the classification of] Linnaeus Zoophytes' [25 April 1765, University of Edinburgh Library MS; transcription published in Thomson, I860.] Clearly Ellis at this time valued Solander's advice on the then important question of generic divisions within the zoophytes. The authorship of Ellis & Solander, 1786 Solander undoubtedly had some role in Ellis's second book but its extent has been debated and is discussed further below (p. 36). The title page has led to its being cited as Ellis & Solander, but opinions have differed as to whether one or the other was sole author. Curiously, none of the critics has suggested that they each contributed sections but it seems that they did. The point is important since both Ellis's books (Ellis, 1755; Ellis & Solander, 1786) have long been regarded as major works. They occupy key positions in the early literature of groups as diverse as algae, sponges, bryozoans, hydroids and various of the anthozoan groups, especially the true or stony corals. ELLIS & SOLANDER'S ' ZOOPHYTES 23 Solander's reputation Assigning authorship of the different sections of the Ellis & Solander book is interesting also in bibliographic history, since it was the biggest zoological publication in which Solander was named as author. He produced an enormous amount of manuscript material (Rauschenberg, 1968; Wheeler, 1984^, 1984^, 1986; Diment & Wheeler, 1984; Steam, 1984) and sustained his fame posthumously through his past and continuing connections with Linnaeus, Banks, Ellis, James Cook and many others. In the context of the times much of his fame was surely justified. But published works by him were few, and in consequence during the nineteenth century his contribution to science was not given great credit (Stearn, 1984). This, and perhaps comments such as those by Banks (Rauschenberg, 1964) and several others on Solander's life style, have led to his reputation being tarnished in some quarters (Rauschenberg, 1968; Marshall, 1977; Wheeler, 1984b). However, as noted by Rauschenberg (1968) and Wheeler (19846) among others, his poor publication record belied his extraordinary energy, skill and output of manuscripts. Thus Krok (1925, quoted in Rauschenberg, 1968, and in Stearn, 1981) listed no fewer than 66 botanical publications in which Solander's work was included, and Stearn (1981) listed another. Jonsell (1984) even went so far as to say that in quality [some of] Solander's unpublished descriptions 'surpassed those of Linnaeus himself, though in such comparison the sheer magnitude of Linnaeus's output has to be considered. Solander made the demanding but successful voyage with Banks - a much younger man - and Cook, and remained Banks's closest colleague afterwards (Banks, in Rauschenberg, 1964). Their friendship also withstood a testing voyage to the Hebrides and Iceland in 1772 (Rauschenbrg, 1968). It should be recalled that Banks was one of the foremost cultural figures in Europe at that time, so to remain his close associate over many years, and after the confines of these voyages, was some testimonial. Solander died unexpectedly when only 49. His surviving manuscripts indicate that given more time he might have produced a work rivalling the Systema naturae itself in authority and scope (Whitehead, 1975; Diment & Wheeler, 1984; Stearn, 1984). Solander's critics have themselves been criticized by Rauschenberg (1968), Marshall (1977); Stearn (1981, 1984), Wheeler (1984fl, 19846, 1986) and Tingbrand (1984) all of whom emphasized Solander's achievements. Martha Watt, the book's editor Martha Watt was Ellis's sole surviving offspring. During her short life (27 December 1754 - January 1795) she had several misfortunes, but can be remembered as the person whose industry was responsible for the publication of Ellis & Solander's important book. Her mother died in childbirth when she was four and she was raised by an aunt, but it would seem that John Ellis had contact with her since she subsequently battled to have his book published. She lost her father when she was 22, and was 28 when Solander died. Thus it may well be that during her mid-twenties she was well aware of her father's virtually complete manuscript, with its beautiful and costly plates, lying untouched in Solander's office. On Solander's death she evidently lost no time in getting it published (p. 50). She herself died in childbirth at age 41. Groner (1987, ch. 2, note 59) has provided a more detailed synopsis of her life. We have not determined whether or not she was the 'Miss Ellis' responsible for Ellis & Solander's (1786) plate 28 (see below, p. 52). The six unpublished plates Solander died some six years after Ellis. The manuscript of their book passed to Banks and soon after to Martha Watt who saw it through to publication (p. 50). Many copies of this seminal work survive. All from the published issue known to us have 63 plain, or in some copies coloured, engraved plates. But in Banks's personal copy (British Library 461.1.19), evidently a proof, there are 6 extra plates numbered in manuscript 64-69. In size, style and manner of engraving they are roughly uniform with the others, and with them is a contemporary manuscript page of captions. 24 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS The copy seems unique in having these extra plates. We have examined it to determine the species depicted, and have included reproductions of the plates and accompanying manuscript captions herein (Figs 2-8). Students of the several groups covered by the work had been puzzled for years by some of the brief and often vague Latin diagnoses of species assigned by Ellis & Solander to the genus Madrepora, which at the time included all the scleractinian corals. Some of these and other taxonomic issues have been resolved from study of the six plates. The analyses of the bryozoan and the alga have been prepared respectively by Miss P. L. Cook and Mrs L. M. Irvine, both of the British Museum (Natural History), and we are grateful to them. Other aspects During our work we have collected information on other aspects of Ellis & Solander's book, and have included much of it in supplementary sections. Many of the exquisite drawings from which the plates were engraved are preserved in London. Several other drawings were perhaps also intended for engraving since there is brown transfer powder on their backs, but no reproduction of them is known. We have catalogued some of the drawings (pp. 51-54) and provided notes on what we know of the fate of some other Ellis manuscripts and of his important but largely lost collections (pp. 54-61). The Ellis manuscripts in the Linnean Society, London, are particularly valuable since in the genus Madrepora they include much biologically important detail omitted from the book (p. 43). Lastly, we have commented on the identity of several corals and some other zoophytes illustrated in Ellis & Solander's book without captions. Sir Joseph Banks's copy of Ellis & Solander's Zoophytes Text and plates The text of the copy (British Library 461.1.19) is identical with that of published copies and has the same pagination. Plates 1-63 are like those of other copies but have minor differences. They are clearly proofs on Whatman paper pulled before lettering. Most of the figure and plate numbers are in manuscript but correspond to the published captions to the plates (Ellis & Solander, 1786: 192-206). Plate 8 (holothurian and pennatulid) is oversize and folded: in published copies it is closely trimmed and unfolded. Plate 36 {Madrepora virginea) is duplicated. The first is in an earlier state than in the published version with more of the base of the coral showing and including three additional figures of enlarged details lacking in the issued plate; and there are no plate or figure numbers. The second is as published. But the most notable features of this apparently unique copy is that it has six extra plates after the normal 63, numbered 64-69 in manuscript (present Figs 2-7). They too are proof pulls. Following them is bound in a sheet with manuscript explanations of all but the last (Fig. 8). The handwriting is not certainly identifiable but comparison with examples of the handwriting of such likely persons as Solander and Dryander (Marshall, 1978) suggests Dryander, who may have compiled the captions from notes of Ellis or Solander when the volume was being assembled. J. B. Marshall kindly examined the explanation sheet and thought Dryander as the likely writer. Like the published edition, Banks's copy has no caption to plate 63. The earliest printed reference to Banks's copy was by Dryander (1796, 2: 338) in his catalogue of Banks's library, which was incorporated into the British Museum library (now forming part of the British Library): 'In nostro exemplo ectypa etiam adsunt 6 tabularum, quae post mortem auctoris deperditae, in libris editis desiderantur.' A piece of text showing this lettering, and evidently cut from a copy of Dryander's (1796) Catalogue, is pasted to the front endpaper of the Banks copy. ELLIS & SOLANDER'S 'ZOOPHYTES 25 H. Milne Edwards & Jules Haime (1850: 68; 1857, 1: xxii, 2: 107), who in the late 1840s spent some time in the British Museum studying the coral collections, noted the existence of the volume in that institution: '. . . six des planches preparees par Ellis furent perdues apres sa mort et ne sont connues que par les epreuves avant la lettre accompagnant I'exemplaire de Sir Joseph Banks, qui possede aujourd'hui la bibliotheque du British Museum, a Londres.' (Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, 1: xxii) and 'Cet exemplaire [in the BM] renferme les epreuves de six planches qui n'ont pas ete publiees et dont on n'a pu retrouver les cuivres apres la mort d'Ellis.' (Ibid, 2: 107, footnote) We know of no other comment on the timing of the loss of the six engravings, here implicitly - but not certainly - placed between Ellis's death in 1776 and Solander's in 1782 (p. 51). The comments may simply be a paraphrasing and elaboration of Dryander's note. There is evidence that there were other intended plates since some of the original drawings, which still survive in London and of which engravings or prints are not known, nevertheless have brown transfer powder on the reverse (p. 51). Edwards and Haime also cited one of the plates in the BM copy in their account of Madrepora mammilaris (see below, pp. 30-31). But the only other reference to Banks's copy we have found is that in the Printed Catalogue of the British Library. Watermarks Study of the watermarks of the Banksian copy provides some additional information. The majority of plates have a watermark but most of the text-pages lack one. There are two main types and some subsidiary ones. The most frequent watermark is a coat-of-arms with a bend (broad diagonal band) on the shield, a complex fleur-de-lis above, and the initials GR below. This occurs in the paper on plates 3, 4, 9, 12-13, 15, 19, 22, 28-30, 33, ?34, 38-41, 44-46, 48, ?51, 52-53, 56 and 60. It is closely similar to that dated 1776, from a 'place unknown', by Heawood (1950: pi. 24, type 158). Heawood associated the maker's-name watermark 'J WHATMAN' with this type, suggesting that James Whatman of Kent, whose name became associated with this kind of paper, supplied this batch. A 'J WHATMAN' watermark occurs on most intermediate plates, viz. plates 2, 5-6, 10-11, 14, 16-18, 20-21, 24-26, 31, 36 (normal version), 42, 47, 57-59, 61- 62, 64. Possibly the paper was cut so that the coat-of-arms watermark fell on one side of the cut and 'J WHATMAN' on the other. A type of watermark similar to the first appears on the flyleaf at the back of the book bearing Dryander's captions (present Fig. 8). But here the initials GR are replaced by a complex looped design. It is thus similar to that recorded from a James Whatman paper by Churchill (1935: cccx, type 415) except that his illustration shows a posthorn on the shield not a bend. That illustration is dated 1784 (Churchill, p. 84). The looped design appears in the watermark recorded from another Whatman paper, dated 1777 (Churchill, type 324). Thus although the paper bearing Dryander's captions is unique within the book it is nonetheless contemporary and from the same manufacturer as the bulk of it. A more complex design appears in a few places. It comprises a shield bearing a fleur-de-lis with a P in the central arm, an elaborate crown above, a simple geometrical figure below, and below this the initials LVG (pis 43, 54, 65, 67) or VCL (pi. 23). Plate 1 has a similar watermark but its letters are obscured by the printed figure, and plate 49 has the letters, if once present, off the edge of the paper. The LVG design corresponds closely to Churchill's Type 406 (his p. 301), and the VCL one to his Type 407 (p. 302). The LVG design he dated as introduced in 1733, and was apparently in use for many years. The LVG type was mentioned also by Heawood (1950: 105, pi. 254, type 1824) but with a minor difference, and classified as 'England, Kent, 1741'. On plates 7 and 55 the watermark comprises the paper maker's name 26 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS I VILLEDRAY. This was linked by Churchill (p. 302, Type 407) to the VCL design. Thus these 8 plates were printed on paper perhaps made some 30-40 years before that of the main batch. Possibly their engravings were among the first to be done (p. 41) and the proofs were stored by Ellis for many years. Several plates have no watermark, in common with most of the text (pis 8 (oversize), 32, 35, 37, 50). Some others lacking watermarks are on slightly thicker paper than the rest [pis 36 (the oversize copy), 63, 66, 69]. The paper of plate 68 bears just the tip of an unidentified but apparently still further kind of watermark, and that of plate 51 has the watermark obscured. Lastly, the watermark of plate 27 is unique within the Banks copy. It comprises the initials HR with a cross below and a geometrical figure above, the whole contained within a vertically- orientated oval. We have not identified this watermark. The surviving proofs of the six extra plates (64-69) unique to the Banksian copy were thus printed on a variety of papers. The paper of plate 64 dates from around the period 1777-1784; that of plates 65 and 67 is probably much earlier, from 1733 on; plates 66 and 69, and also plate 63, which lacked a caption in the published version, are on a thicker paper lacking a watermark; and plate is printed 68 on a paper of normal weight with perhaps yet another watermark type. The evidence from the watermarks thus shows that the Banks copy was printed on a small range of English papers. Their intermingling suggests that the text and most of the plates were printed within a short period. Though it is possible that some of the plates, being on a slightly different paper, were printed on other occasions we have no evidence whether or not this was so or of the time scale involved. Binding The inner endpaper at the front of the volume comprises two sheets with the 'LVG' watermark (see previous section) pasted together, implying that the existing binding is contemporary with the printing. The rear endpapers were present in 1978 when we jointly examined the book but since then, around the time that the photographic work was done for the present figures 2-8, they have gone missing. The binding has deteriorated over this period. The boards are now loose and it would seem likely that rebinding might occur. Hence it should be recorded that the lettering piece on the spine reads 'SOLANDER/ZOOPHYTES', an interesting wording since the book was written mainly by Solander's then late friend Ellis (pp. 36-51)! Solander had died some four years before publication, Ellis about ten. Dryander, Banks's librarian when and after the book was produced, later attributed the book to Ellis alone (p. 38) and would seem unlikely to have put Solander's name on the spine. Banks had been close to Solander for many years (p. 23) and it would seem plausible that he might have authorized the wording. Possibly he was partly responsible for the incorrect opinion that Solander wrote most of the book (p. 39). In the opinion of E. M. B. King, of the Department of Preservation Services of the British Library, the book was rebacked at an early stage - probably before transfer to the British Museum library in 1827 (the transfer taking place seven years after Banks's death). It is not clear if the lettering piece is the old one transferred to the new spine or an early replacement, but it is certainly contemporary or nearly so with Banks and his staff. Thus Banks's influence on the wording would seem likely. Published copies Three copies of the published version of the book preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) have slightly differing watermarks, though nearly all of the paper has the 'GR' type described above or a variant of it. In these copies the watermarks overlap the centrefolds, so that all are partly concealed with the binding. In the plates of the Banks copy, although the paper on which the text was printed was similar to that in the BMNH copies, nearly all watermarks occur in the centres of the pages or at least away from the edges. A copy in the Cnidaria Section of the Department of Zoology has the text on 'OR' paper and the plates lacking any watermark. Another in the Harmer Library, Bryozoa Section, has the text on this ELLIS & SOLANDER'S ' ZOOPHYTES 27 paper (excepting pages 97/98, which bear the LVG watermark) while the plates have a variant of the GR design. A third copy, in the Rare Books Room under the care of the Zoology Library, has both text and plates on paper with the GR watermark. In all three copies the plates are on slightly thicker paper than the text. Thus although the normal issue of the book was evidently produced on a range of papers, it is clear that the text and most of the proof pulls of plates in the Banks copy were on 'GR' paper contemporary with the main run. Conclusion The Banks copy was, therefore, probably assembled from several proof pulls of plates already made, possibly many years earlier, plus proofs of many other plates pulled around the time the text was printed, together with a set of text pages which were probably not proofs. If the text pages had been proofs they might have borne annotations and corrections but there are none. Hence it would seem likely that the text of the Banks copy was taken from the printing chases as finally set and imposed by the compositor. The six unpublished plates This section includes an analysis of the six Ellis & Solander plates newly published here (Figs 2-7) and unique to Banks's copy of the book in which they are numbered 64—69 in manuscript (p. 24). Our analyses have been written as follows: Miss Patricia L. Cook (PLC), pi. 64 (1-2); Mrs Linda M. Irvine (LMI), pi. 64 (3-4, 7-8); Paul F. S. CorneHus (PFSC), pi. 64 (5-6); John W. Wells (JWW), pis 65-9. The identifications of the specimens illustrated are summarized in Table 1. The single page of MS captions in Banks's copy is also reproduced here (Fig. 8). As noted (p. 24), the writing is probably by Dryander. It is incomplete, and though it relates to the extra plates it includes no captions for the unpublished plate 69. Banks's copy also has marginal annotations in the text of the book against the account of each species, referring to the illustrations on the six plates, but again plate 69 is not indicated. Plate 64, Figures 1-2. Cellaria ternata (Present Fig. 2) Gymnolaemata, Cheilostomata, Scrupocellariidae Cellaria ternata Ellis & Solander, 1786: 30 [pi. 64, figs 1-2]. Menipea ternata: Hincks, 1880: 38, pi. 6, figs \-A. Tricellaria ternata: Ryland & Hayward, 1977: 144, fig. 69. Part of a colony is illustrated life size in the unpublished plate 64, figure 1, in Banks's copy of Ellis & Solander's book, and shown at an approximate magnification of xlO in their figure 2. Our reproduction of each is slightly reduced. Their figure 2 clearly shows internodes of three zooids, scuta covering the opesia of some zooids, prominent oral spines, narrow, jointed nodes, and rhizoids. All are characteristic of modern concepts of Tricellaria ternata, and since the only other British species today referred to the genus, T. peachi (Busk), has many more zooids in each internode, a reduced number of spines and no scuta, the two species cannot be confused. T. ternata is type species of the genus Tricellaria Fleming, 1828, and is currently referred to this genus (Ryland & Hayward, 1977). 28 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS Plate 64, Figures 3-4. Sertularia spicata (Present Fig. 2) Algae, Chlorophyta, Dasycladaceae Genus Batophora J. Agardh, 1854 Batophora oerstedii J. Agardh 1854: 107; B0rgesen, 1913: 73-75, figs 58-59; Taylor, 1960: 98, pi. 4, figs 3-4, pi. 5, fig. 4. Sertularia spicata Ellis & Solander, 1786: 58 [pi. 64, figs 3-4]. Figure 3 on the unpublished plate 64 shows five erect plants of what appears to be a dasycladacean green alga, connected by a stolon. Figure 4 is a stylized magnified drawing of part of an axis bearing whorls of ternate branchlets: some of these are omitted from the drawing, presumably for clarity, but their positions on the axes are indicated. Several of the branchlets are fertile and show clusters of sporangia at the basal nodes. The aggregation of sporangia in this way suggests that the alga illustrated should be referred to the genus Batophora, rather than to Dasycladus itself. In the latter genus the sporangia are borne singly on the basal cells of the branchlets (Taylor, 1960: 97). Batophora also differs from Dasycladus in having a naked stipe below, rather than being clothed with branchlets throughout. The provenance of the original specimen of S. spicata was not indicated in the original description. B. oerstedii occurs throughout the Caribbean, a region from which many of Ellis's zoophytes were collected. As far as LMI is aware Sertularia spicata Ellis & Solander has not previously been considered an alga, no doubt because the description was difficuh to interpret without the accompanying plate. It should be noted that the specific epithet antedates that currently used in the monotypic genus Batophora (B. oerstedii J. Agardh) by many years. B. oerstedii is usually described as occurring as single individuals, not with erect shoots connected by a stolon as in the previously unpublished plate 64, figure 3; although B0rgesen (1913) illustrated the base of a specimen with many irregular, lobed and ramified rhizoids. Dr M. Nizamuddin, University of El Fatah, Libya (pers. comm. to LMI), commented that his work on the related genus Udotea indicates that this feature is not easy to detect and careful field observations are necessary to determine the presence or absence of a stolon. Plate 64, Figures 5-6. Sertularia evansi (Present Figs 2, 9) Hydrozoa, Hydroida, Syntheciidae Genus Synthecium Allman, 1872 Sertularia evansi Ellis & Solander, 1786: 58-59 [pi. 64, figs 5-6]; Johnston, 1838: 127. Dynamena evansi: Lamouroux, 1816: 177; da Costa, 1842: 20-22, pi. 8, fig. lA, a. Dynamena tubulosa Heller, 1868: 35, pi. 1, figs 5-6. Synthecium evansi: Marktanner-Turneretscher, 1890: 248-249 (syn. Dynamena tubulosa Heller, 1868); Stechow, 1919: 82; Stechow, 1923: 150; CorneUus, 1980: 7-8. Stechow (1919) provided additional references. Figure 5 on previously unpublished plate 64 shows two branched hydrocauli on a substrate which could well be the fucoid indicated in the text; and figure 6 a single, branched hydrocaulus enlarged. Two pencil drawings from which the engravings were prepared are preserved in the Royal College of Surgeons of England (p. 51; Fig. 9). However, the specimen itself is lost (pp. 54-61). Previous comment was provided by Cornelius (1980). ELLIS & SOLANDER's ' ZOOPHYTES 29 The engraving corresponds closely with the textual description except that the illustrated specimen is infertile. However, the comment in Ellis & Solander that the 'ovaries are lobated, and arise from opposite branches, which proceed from the creeping, adhering tube' would seem to relate not to reproductive structures but either to part of the stolon or to a structure which is not part of the hydroid. The description does not indicate whether these tissues were alive or preserved in spirit. But since they were examined by Ellis after being 'brought from' Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England, implicitly to London some 140 miles distant, it would seem they were in spirit. The statement that the species 'creeps on fucus's' indicates that Ellis might have removed the stolon from the alga before the drawing was prepared, and subsequently misinterpreted this part of the specimen. Indeed, the unusual reproductive structures found in Synthecium were not described until 1868 (by Heller, as Dynamena tubulosa) and next only by Broch (1912) without illustration and Leloup (1934); so that Ellis might be excused his wrong interpretation of this part of the specimen. Ellis & Solander stated that the specimen was 'about two inches' (50.8 mm) in height, a dimension in keeping with the size implied by the drawing. The species was originally assigned to the genus Sertularia Linnaeus, 1758, the only suitable genus then available; and later became one of the originally included species in the genus Dynamena Lamouroux, 1816. The Qarhesi published illustrations of the species were probably those by da Costa (1842), who was the second to record material of it. His identification was remarkable since Ellis & Solander's description was confusing and incomplete, and of course then lacked illustrations; and also because at the time the Italian da Costa wrote Synthecium evansi had been nominally recorded only from English coastal waters. S. evansi was not included in the original scope of the genus Synthecium Allman, 1872, and was first assigned there by Marktanner-Turneretscher (1890) who was also the earliest to regard Dynamena tubulosa Heller, 1868, as conspecific. The Ellis & Solander record was based on the specimen reportedly from Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England, but the species has not since been reliably recorded north of the Mediterranean Sea. Arguments are roughly balanced as to whether or not the Norfolk record is valid. Ellis obtained the specimen from an East India Company employee, John Evans, who was evidently based at Great Yarmouth, so it could have come from warmer waters by ship (Cornelius, 1980; see also Johnston, 1847: 67, footnote). Norfolk summer sea temperatures are the warmest around mainland Britain (Garstang, 1901). In certain areas the water is warmed as the incoming tide flows over the extensive intertidal sand flats of the Wash. Some other warm water hydroids have been recorded from the Norfolk area. Thus, Obelia bidentata Clarke and Clytia paulensis Vanhoffen have been found in this region and from almost no other British localities (Cornelius, 1982). Sertularella cylindritheca (Allman) has been tentatively recorded from off Norfolk but not otherwise north of the Strait of Gibraltar, almost paralleling Synthecium evansi (W. Vervoort, in Cornelius, 1979: 306). Thus by analogy it is possible that the S. evansi locality is valid. It would be odd if it were proved that so large and distinctive a species had otherwise gone undetected along so well worked an area as the English coast of the southern North Sea. But the inshore waters of south-east England were for long poorly worked for hydroids (Hamond, 1957). For example, the much larger and shallower-water Obelia bidentata was undetected until the 1950s yet commonly occurs stranded intertidally along this coastline (Hamond, 1957; Cornelius, 1982). Against this background it is difficult at present to determine the validity of the locality of this record of S. evansi. Several authors of faunal lists have regarded the Ellis & Solander record as British without comment (Gmelin, in Linnaeus, 1791; Lamouroux, 1816; de Blainville, 1834; Johnston, 1838, 1847; Gray, 1848; Landsborough, 1852) but none has reported further British material (Cornelius, 1980). Hincks (1868), the main nineteenth century monographer of British thecate hydroids, seems to have been the first reviewer to have omitted the species from the British faunal list. 30 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS Plate 64, Figure 7. Corallina pinnata (Present Fig. 2) Algae, Rhodophyta, Helminthcladiaceae Genus Liagora Lamouroux, 1812. Liagora pinnata Harvey, 1853: 138, pi. 31B; Taylor, 1960: 329. Corallina pinnata Ellis & Solander, 1786: 117 [pi. 64, fig. 7]. Figure 7 on the unpublished plate 64 shows a twice pinnate, bushy plant with a percurrent axis. The branches shown are blunt ended and scarcely tapering. These features, together with the comment in the text (Ellis & Solander, 1786: 117) that it was 'covered with a mealy substance', suggest that the plant depicted should be referred to the genus Liagora. In fact, the illustration closely resembles L. pinnata Harvey, originally described from Sand Key, Florida. The original specimen of Corallina pinnata Ellis & Solander had been found on the coast of the Bahamas, whence L. pinnata has also been recorded (Taylor, 1960). Although Ellis & Solander's epithet pinnata is much earlier than Harvey's, transfer to the genus Liagora would result in an inadmissible combination constituting a later homonym of L. pinnata Harvey. Plate 64, Figure 8. Corallina loricata (Present Fig. 2) Algae, Rhodophyta, Corallinaceae Genus Corallina Corallina officinalis Linnaeus, 1758: 805; Ellis & Solander, 1786: 118-119, pi. 23, figs 14-15; Hamel «& Lemoine, 1952: 31, pi. 1, fig. 1. Corallina loricata Ellis & Solander, 1786: 117 [pi. 64, fig. 8]. Figure 8 on the previously unpublished plate 64 is an illustration of a sterile plant typical of the genus Corallina. The description given by Ellis (p. 117) states that it was 'much larger than the Coralline of the Shops, being four times as big' and that it was found in the Mediterranean Sea. The 'Coralline of the Shops' was Corallina officinalis L. The illustration of it on Ellis & Solander's plate 23, figures 14-15, is certainly of a very small plant or part of a plant but it is otherwise closely similar to that on the previously unpublished plate 64, figure 8. There is no fundamental difference between Ellis & Solander's description of the two. The reference to 'knobs' in C. officinalis simply indicates the presence of reproductive conceptacles. There is nothing to suggest that C. loricata is anything other than a sterile specimen of C. officinalis, a species which is widespread in the Mediterranean (Hamel & Lemoine, 1952) and elsewhere. Plate 65, Figures 1-2. Madrepora mammillaris (Present Fig. 3) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Oculinidae Genus Oculina Lamarck, 1816 Madrepora mammillaris Ellis & Solander, 1786: 154 [pi. 65, figs 1-2]. Madrepora mamillosa Lightfoot, 1786: 98 ('A large and perfect specimen'). Oculina banksi Milne Edwards & Haime, 1850: 68; Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 (vol. 2): 107 (nom. nov. for Madrepora mammillaris Ellis & Solander, 1786). Oculina valenciennesi Verrill, 1901: 176, pi. 32, fig. 5. non Astroites mammillaris Walch, 1775: 50, (homonym; nom. nov. for 'Heliolithe cylindrique' Guettard, 1770 (vol. 3): 514-515, pi. 54, fig. 3). non Madrepora mammillaris: Wilkens, in Pallas, 1787: 131. Guettard's 'Heliolithe cylindrique', named Astroites mammillaris by Walch and later referred to Madrepora by Wilkens, is a fossil coral from the Middle Jurassic near Besangon (Doubs). ELLIS & SOLANDER's ' ZOOPHYTES 31 Milne Edwards & Haime evidently renamed Ellis & Solander's M. mammillaris because of supposed pre-occupation by Walch rather than from a sense of propriety. The type of O. banksi is in the BMNH (regd. no. 1834.12.15.3) and is the same species as the coral figured by Ellis & Solander. Pourtales (1871: 66) suspected that O. banksi was the same species as O. varicosa (Lesueur, 1821), and Verrill (1901) tentatively included it in O. valenciennesi Milne Edwards & Haime. Verril stated that the type of O. valenciennesi was probably from the collection of Sir Joseph Banks who may have received it amongst the Bahamian corals Mark Catesby presented to Banks. However, while the type of banksi is in the BMNH it is not the specimen figured by Ellis & Solander which was probably Banks's specimen. Verrill was apparently misled by Milne Edwards & Haime's indication "Madrepora mammillaris Ellis & Solander Zooph., pi. 65, f. 4 [sic] de I'exemplaire de Joseph Banks' - a reference to Banks's copy of the Zoophytes (Ellis & Solander, 1786), with its six extra plates, and not to the specimen. Plate 65, Figure 3. Madrepora oculata (Present Fig. 3) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Oculinidae, Oculininae Genus Madrepora Linnaeus, 1758 Madrepora oculata Linnaeus, 1758: 798; Ellis & Solander, 1786: 154^155 [pi. 65, fig. 3]; Zibrowius, 1980: 36, pi. 13 (cum syn.). The figure on unpublished plate 65, figure 3, is a good representation of a typical specimen of M. oculata. Plate 66, Figures 1-2. Madrepora erubescens (Present Fig. 4) Hydrozoa, Stylasterina, Stylasteridae Genus Sty taster Gray, 1831 Madrepora erubescens Ellis & Solander, 1786: 156 [pi. 66, figs 1-2]. Stylaster erubescens Pourtales, 1868: 135 (non Ellis & Solander, 1786, homonym); Pourtales, 1871: 34, pi. 4, figs 10-11; Boschma, 1957: 8 (cum syn.); Cairns, 1983: 142 (passim); Cairns, 1986: 58, fig. 26. By coincidence Pourtales's Stylaster erubescens from the West Indies is evidently the same as Ellis & Solander's nominal species of the same name from St Vincent. Pourtales gave no reference to the earlier usage by Ellis & Solander, nor has any subsequent author. The specimen figured on unpublished plate 66 is one of the many corals collected in the West Indies about 1764 by John Greg of Charleston, South Carolina, while serving as secretary to the commissioners sent to dispose of lands in the islands ceded to Great Britain by the treaty ending the French and Indian wars. Plate 66, Figures 3-4. Madrepora rosea (Present Fig. 4) Hydrozoa, Stylasterina, Stylasteridae Genus Stylaster Gray, 1831 Madrepora rosea Pallas, 1766: 312; Houttuyn, 1772: 170, pi. 129, fig. 4; Ellis & Solander, 1786: 155 [pi. 66, figs 3-4]. Stylaster rosea (Pallas) Boschma, 1957: 14 (cum syn.). Elhs & Solander's figures of their specimen from St Vincent (W.I.) sent by John Greg resemble very closely the first illustrations by Houttuyn of this West Indian hydrocoral, an illustration regarded by Boschma as typical. Ellis & Solander noted the pink blush of the main branches and white colour of the branchlets. 32 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS The 'Rose Madrepore' of Shaw & Nodder (1799: vol. 10, pi. 383), listed as 'Madrepora rosea' in their index (vol. 24), is not Stylaster but Allopora, possibly A. nobilis Kent of southern African waters; and the primary homonymy needs resolving. Plate 67, Figure 1. Madrepora agaricites (Present Fig. 5) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Agariciidae Genus /Iganda Lamarck, 1801 'Madrepore d'une structure raboteuse' Dezallier, 1755: 367, pi. 22, fig. 7. 'Agaricus seu Fungus quercinus' Seba, 1758: 205, pi. 110, fig. 6cc. Madrepora agaricites Linnaeus, 1758: 795 (no references or figures indicated); Pallas, 1766: 287 (syn. 'Agaricus seu Fungus . . .' Seba, 1758, M. agaricites Linnaeus, 1758); Houttuyn, 1772: 130, pi. 127, fig. 2; Linnaeus, 1775: 683-684, pi. 21, fig. 2 (same plate as Houttuyn); Ellis & Solander, 1786: 159- 160 [pi. 67, fig. 1], non pi. 63. The citations above, except for Linnaeus's introduction of the binominal, are to the early illustrations of Agaricia agaricites. For further usage see Weisbord's (1974) uncritical synonymy. Linnaeus, in his original diagnosis of M. agaricites, cited no figure. Pallas indicated Seba's good illustration which can be considered the protograph of this well known West Indian hermatypic coral. The specimen figured by Ellis & Solander on the previously unpublished plate 67, with no explanation, is A. agaricites forma danai (Milne Edwards & Haime, 1860). The specimen illustrated on the pubUshed plate 63 by Ellis & Solander, identified as A. agaricites by some authors (Lamouroux, 1821; de Blainville, 1830, 1834; Milne Edwards & Haime, 1860; Gregory 1895; inter alia), is not Agaricia but a species of Pavona. Plate 67, Figure 2. Madrepora sinuosa (Present Fig. 5) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Mussidae Genus Isophyllia Milne Edwards & Haime, 1851 ?'Meandrites costis amplioribus acutis' Gualtieri, 1742: No. 43 (verso pi. 51). Madrepora sinuosa Ellis & Solander, 1786: 160-161 [pi. 67, fig. 2]; Gmelin, in Linnaeus, 1791: 3761. Oulophyllia ?spinosa Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848: 239; Milne Edwards & Haime, 1849: 269. Isophyllia spinosa: Milne Edwards & Haime, 1851: 87, 374; Matthai, 1928: 237, pis 2, 3, 23, 35-39, 55, 57, 61 {cum syn.). Isophyllia sinuosa: Matthai, 1928: 237, pis 2, 3, 23, 35-39, 55, 57, 61 {cum syn.); Alloiteau, 1957: 261, text-fig. 184, pi. 12, figs 4-5. The 'original description of M. sinuosa by Ellis & Solander, published without a figure, was insufficient to permit reliable identification of the species. Esper (1790: 286), in his review of Ellis & Solander's species, considered M. sinuosa to be a form of his M. maeandrites with broader valleys and shorter meanders in which he included M. labyrinthica of Ellis & Solander. However, Esper's figure (pi. 4) shows a coral of the dimensions and growth form of /. sinuosa with mussid septal dentations. Quoy & Gaimard's (1833) identification of their Meandrina sinuosa from New Ireland with M. sinuosa Ellis & Solander was a good but incorrect guess. Milne Edwards & Haime made no reference to Ellis & Solander's M. sinuosa although they must have seen the unpublished plate 67 in Banks's copy of the Zoophytes at the British Museum along with its accompanying MS captions. Matthai, in his elaborate analysis and iconography of/, sinuosa, noted (p. 245) that the type specimen of/, spinosa, type-species of the genus Isophyllia, could not be found in the Paris Museum. However, Alloiteau, after a long search, found the holotype in the Michelin collection in Paris and figured it. ELLIS & solander's 'zoophytes' 33 Figure 2 on the previously unpublished plate 67 is a passable representation of this common West Indian coral, based on a specimen, now presumed lost, from the West Indies collected by John Greg. Plate 68, Figure 1. Madrepora spongiosa (Present Fig. 6) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Acroporidae Genus Montipora Quoy & Gaimard in de Blainville, 1830 Madrepora spongiosa Ellis & Solander, 1786: 164, without reference to figure [pi. 68, fig. 1]. Montipora verrucosa Quoy & Gaimard, 1833: 247, pi. 28, fig. 11. Manopora foveolata Dana, 1846: 507. Montipora foveolata: Bernard, 1897: 54, pi. 6, fig. 1, pi. 32, fig. 1 {cum syn.); Wells, 1954: 434, pi. 146, figs 5-7. Figure 1 on previously unpublished plate 68 is poor but resembles the textual description indicated in the manuscript explanation (Fig. 8). The infundibuliform (foveolate) deep 'stars' surrounded by obtuse ridges (ambulacra) are typical of Montipora foveolata as described and illustrated by Bernard. The only published use of the combination M. spongiosa Ellis & Solander is in Lamarck's (1836: 439) description of his Porites verrucosa under which is 'An madrepora spongiosa? Solander & Ellis, no. 49'. M. spongiosa (Ehrenberg) Klunzinger and M. verrucosa (Lamarck) are both papillate species {vide Bernard, 1897: 86, 103). This coral belongs to Ellis & Solander's group 'Aggregatae' under which they described 24 species, 14 of them figured on the published plates, 5 not figured but identified with earlier figures, and 5 with neither figures nor references. Of these last, one is Montipora verrucosa (unpublished plate 69, fig. 1), one is Montipora spongiosa (pi. 68, fig. 1), one is Acropora papulosa (pi. 68, fig. 5), one, Madrepora hyades, has been identified as a Siderastrea, and the remaining two, M. cavata and M. bulliens, from the brief descriptions, are probably species of Favites. Plate 68, Figure 2 (No manuscript caption or text reference) (Present Fig. 6) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Astrocoeniidae Genus Stylocoeniella Yabe & Sugiyama, 1935 [Ellis & Solander, 1786: pi. 68, fig. 2]. (Not included in text, and illustration not included in book.) Porites armata Ehrenberg, 1834: 119. Porites astreoides Ehrenberg, 1834: 119 {non Lamarck). Stylophora ehrenbergi Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857: 139. Stylocoeniella armata: Wells, 1954: 409, pi. 96, figs 1-4 {cum syn.); Wells, 1966: 205, fig. 10. The calices of the small coral illustrated in unpublished plate 68, figure 2, are circular, nearly flush, about 1.5 mm in diameter, slightly separated with suggestions of spinose intercalicular areas, with 12 thick, equal septa the upper margins of which extend about halfway to the calicular axis, dropping steeply to the bottom of the calice where there is a styliform columella. None of the descriptions in Ellis & Solander's 'Aggregatae' fits this coral. Its combination of structures can only be interpreted as those of the astrocoeniid Stylocoeniella, an inconspicuous but widespread Indo-Pacific hermatype genus. S. armata, first described as Porites by Ehrenberg and placed in Stylophora by Milne Edwards & Haime, was first illustrated by Klunzinger (1879: pi. 8, fig. 12). The styliform pillars commonly present at the margins of the calices in this genus are not evident in figure 2; but in many specimens they are very small or even absent, as in the example from the Great Barrier Reefs figured by Veron & Pichon (1976: 34 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS fig. 50). It is curious that Ellis or Solander had access to a specimen of this species, considered a great rarity for 150 years thereafter. Plate 68, Figure 3. (No manuscript caption or text reference) (Present Fig. 6) The figure is of a ramose, subplicate colony. It lacks any details of corallites, but the growth form and general aspect is that of figure 4 of the previously unpublished plate 69 (Psammocora contigua (Esper)), described on page 36, with which it is here associated. Plate 68, Figure 4. (No manuscript caption or text reference) (Present Fig. 6) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Poritidae Genus IGoniopora de blainville, 1830 IMadrepora botryotes Ellis & Solander, 1786: 172. The previously unpubUshed plate 68, figure 4, depicts a clump or tuft of short, blunt branches arising from a worn, vasiform base. Details of the surface of the branches are very poor: suggestions of irregular, slightly separated calices can barely be made out. It might represent one of the 9 species in Ellis & Solander's (1786: 170-173) 'Ramulosae' 6 of which (damicornis, digitata, seriata, muricata, pontes, and verrucosa) they figured or referred to earlier-described species and pertain to forms of Pocillopora, Stylophora, Seriatopora, Acropora, and Porites. The remaining three (limitata, botryotes, and granosa) have not been generically identified. Of these the only one figure 4 might represent is botryotes, all too briefly described as having very short, obtuse branches bunched together, and having intercalicular areas (ambulacra) rough and uneven. Plate 68, Figure 5. Madrepora papillosa Ellis & Solander (Present Fig. 6) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Acroporidae Genus Acropora Oken, 1815 Madrepora papillosa Ellis & Solander, 1786: 169 [pi. 68, fig. 5; probably also pi. 69, fig. 3]. Madrepora securis Dana, 1846: 486, pi. 43, fig. 2. Madrepora cuneata Dana, 1846: 487. Madrepora plicata Brook, 1891: 465; Brook, 1893: 134, pi. 9, fig. D. Acropora plicata: Vaughan, 1918: 179, pi. 80, figs 1, la, lb. Acropora cuneata: Wells, 1954: 429, pi. 100, fig. 3, pi. 131, figs 1-3, pi. 132, fig. 4. The figure represents a small, very convex or subglobose corallum with two small offsets, covered with crowded, short, thick-walled tubiform corallites about 1.5 mm in diameter. It is a species of the Acropora group lacking prominent axial corallites {'Isopora') in which Brook (1893) included 5 species: palifera Lamarck, hispida Brook, securis Dana, cuneata Dana, and plicata Dana. The first two have the inner walls of the corallites very thin or incomplete, whereas the walls of the last three are complete as are those of the figure 5. The differences among the nominal species cuneata, securis, and plicata are trifling and Wells (1954) regarded them a single species under the name A. cuneata, of which Madrepora papillosa Ellis & Solander is a senior but hardly used synonym. In the brief description of their species Ellis & Solander noted that it was very much like Madrepora muricata Linnaeus, and was possibly an early stage of that species. ELLIS & SOLANDER'S ' ZOOPHYTES 35 The previously unpublished plate 69, fig. 3, probably also represents this species (see below). Plate 69, Figure 1. (No manuscript caption or text reference) (Present Fig. 7) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Acroporidae Genus Montipora Quoy & Gaimard, in de Blainville, 1830 Madrepora verrucosa Lamarck, 1816: 271. Porites verrucosa Lamarck, 1836: 439. Montipora verrucosa Bernard, 1897: 103, pi. 19, fig. 2 {cum syn.)\ Vaughan, 1907: 160, pis 53-59 {cum syn.); Wells, 1954: 438, pi. 143, figs 6, 7, pi. 147, fig. 3. The rather poor figure with two small enlargements of calices represents a submassive corallum with calices about 1 mm in diameter with 11 thick septa shown on one enlarged calice. On the sides of the calices on the lower left side of the corallum are papillae of the M. verrucosa type. These are not shown over the rest of the corallum. This is possibly because the specimen was worn, although many colonies of M. verrucosa, especially those from Hawaii, lack papillae over small areas. M. verrucosa of Quoy & Gaimard (1833) is not that of Lamarck and was renamed M. foveolata by Dana. Plate 69, Figure 2. (No manuscript caption or text reference) (Present Fig. 7) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Faviidae Genus Cyphastrea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848 Ellis & Solander, 1786: [pi. 69]. Madrepora chalcidicum Forskal, 1775: 136. Cyphastrea chalcidicum: Veron & Pichon, 1976: 173, figs 342-349 {cum syn.). non Astroites Seba, 1758: 208, pi. 112, fig. 18 { = Porites sp.). Figure 2 of the previously unpublished plate 69 is a good representation of a small nodular colony with an enlargement of four calices. These are circular, nearly flush, about 1.5 mm in diameter with 24 slightly alternating septa that are thick marginally and thin internally, most of them extending to a spongy columella. The intercalicular surface is spinose. These are the characters of C. chalcidicum as illustrated by Veron & Pichon (1976: fig. 344). This common Indo-Pacific species, resurrected by Klunzinger in 1879, was also first figured by him (pi. 5, fig. 8, pi. 10, figs lla-c). None of the three still unplaced species {nodulosa, cavata, and bulliens) of Ellis & Solander's 'Aggregatae' corresponds to this coral. M. nodulosa, referred (Ellis & Solander, 1786: 165) to Seba's pi. 112, fig. 18, is probably a Porites, and from the short descriptions M. cavata and M. bulliens seem referrable to Favites. Plate 69, Figure 3. (No manuscript caption or text reference) (Present Fig. 7) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Acroporidae GQn\x% Acropora Oken, 1815 Madrepora papulosa Ellis & Solander, 1786: 169 [pi. 68, fig. 5]. Madrepora cuneata Dana, 1846: 487. Acropora cuneata: Wells, 1954: 429, pi. 100, fig. 3. pi. 131, figs 1-3, pi. 132, fig. 4. The figure shows a small corallum with growth form and corallites like those of M. papillosa 36 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS Ellis & Solander (unpublished plate 68, fig. 5, discussed above). Two enlarged figures of the corallites show them to be tubular with complete, thick walls and 12 septa with primaries reaching the corallite axis. Plate 69, Figure 4. (No manuscript caption or text reference) (Present Fig. 7) Anthozoa, Scleractinia, Thamnasteriidae Genus Psammocora Dana, 1846 Ellis & Solander, 1786: [pi. 68, fig. 4] Madrepora contigua Esper, 1795: 81, pi. 66, figs 1-4. Psammocora contigua Veron & Pichon, 1976: 22, figs 13-22 {cum syn.). Figure 4 on the previously unpublished plate 69 shows a ramose, subplicate corallum suggesting Psammocora, and the small enlargement of the surface reveals the characteristic petaloid aspect of the large septa - a detail that confirms that it is Psammocora. No description remotely suggesting this coral can be found among those species lacking figures or references in Ellis & Solander's text. The first description of the species was by Esper (1795). Veron & Pichon included under P. contigua four, possibly six, other ramose nominal 'species'. The preparation, production and authorship of Ellis & Solander's Zoophytes (1786) Ellis died in 1776 and Solander in 1782, and their book was posthumous to them both. Many contradictory published comments have left doubt about who was responsible for the final text. The question is important since the book provided a foundation for much subsequent work on cnidarians, sponges, bryozoans and coralline and other calcified algae (see Introduction). Though the book has usually been ascribed solely to Ellis, a few commentators have stated or implied that Solander wrote it. In fact, it seems that Ellis wrote most of it and Solander a little. Curiously, this view has not been advanced before. Much of the published and manuscript material pertaining to the question of authorship also provides information on how the book came to have its final scope, and in part on where and when it was written and edited. The sources for these different categories of information are often the same, and the two aspects of authorship and production are treated together to avoid undue repetition of source material. The book is unusual in lacking an introductory section. After a brief preface by the editor, it starts straight in with the account of the first genus treated. This is in contrast to Ellis's (1755) first book which has a lengthy introduction. Title page and introductory advertisement Both the title page and the introductory advertisement to the book included ambiguities and contradictions that need resolving. The absence of punctuation at the end of the fifth line of the title (Fig. 1) might be taken to indicate that Ellis himself collected all the material described in the book, while introducing a full stop or comma would change the sense to imply that Ellis just described the specimens and did not necessarily collect them. In fact both authors collected some of the material, Solander for example bringing many of the true corals {Madrepora) back on the Endeavour (p. 57); but probably most of the specimens described came from the collections of others (pp. 54-61). The presence of a large capital initial at the start of line six, implicitly starting a new sentence, supports the interpretation that Ellis wrote all the text. However, lower down the page it is stated that the species in the book were 'systematically arranged and described' by Solander. But, again in contrast, the book's subsequent editor Martha Watt, who was Ellis's ELLIS & SOLANDER's ' ZOOPHYTES 37 daughter, stated on page vi of the introductory advertisement that (only) 'the arrangement of the descriptions' was done by Solander, implying that ElHs had actually written them. On the same page she stated that Ellis alone was responsible for having the plates both drawn and engraved. Probably neither of her statements is entirely correct, nor did Ellis write all the text. Strangely, her assertion (Ellis & Solander, 1786: vi) that Ellis had 'proceeded no farther than the completion of [the] plates' before he died also seems incorrect since there is overwhelming evidence that in fact Ellis had by this time written most of the text! Indeed, she implied as much on the same page by stating that Solander just arranged the descriptions. Again in contrast, in the dedication of the book (to Banks), Ellis alone is indicated and Solander's name does not appear. It may be that Martha Watt did not intend that a detailed analysis should be made of her dedication and introductory advertisement, but the above inconsistencies and some others require explanation. Thus she stated (Ellis & Solander, 1786: vi) that the book was 'published at the request of Sir Joseph Banks, Bart. P.R.S.'. Yet a surviving letter (p. 47) from Mrs Watt to Banks suggests that it was her initiative that led to its publication some four years after Solander's death and ten years after her father's. There seems no reliable evidence that during these ten years Banks or his assistant Solander worked on the book at all. The evidence we offer below shows that had it been published in 1776, when Ellis died, it would have been virtually the same book. Banks and Solander had apparently left it untouched, and in view of its scientific excellence one might ask why. In 1786 Banks was already President of the Royal Society and was undoubtedly a central figure on the British and European scientific scene. Martha Watt was in contrast merely the daughter of an amateur who had been dead nearly ten years. Solander was Banks's closest colleague (Banks, in Rauschenberg, 1964). The text of the book would possibly have been shown to Banks, who might well have read at least the introductory advertisement. It could be that Banks's unwitting influence resulted in Martha Watt incorporating the implication that Solander was greatly involved in authorship. Indeed, it seems that he did write a small yet important part, that written at the British Museum (p. 44). Ellis also worked there (p. 44) and Banks would have had ample opportunity to discuss Ellis's work and to realize that Ellis had prepared an extensive manuscript. Later, others also gained the impression that Solander was its author (pp. 37-39). It would seem plausible that there was genuine misunderstanding of Solander's role. Ellis was long since dead, and had been sickly towards the end of his life (p. 50); but Solander had still been active when Ellis died, being only about 43 years of age. He had undoubtedly helped Ellis in his later years, especially at the BM where Banks would have known that Solander had worked on the section he actually wrote (p. 39). Ellis, meanwhile, had a full professional life of his own (reviewed by Groner, 1987, and by others whom he cites) and might have appeared only occasionally at the Museum. Indeed, even within London there was much communication between Ellis and Solander by letter. Hence it might be argued that Ellis's major contribution to the book could have been overlooked by Banks (p. 39). Solander could have unwittingly given the impression that he was himself responsible for more of the book than he was, simply by working on it where he did. Apparently he worked on the Madrepora section for only about three weeks (p. 44), but perhaps that was enough to give the impression that he was more deeply involved with Ellis's book than he was. Thus the statements at the start of the book are contradictory. Some of the evidence which is analysed below is equivocal even when the sources seem authoritative. Yet the overall implications of the title page and of the introductory advertisement, written by Ellis's daughter, that Ellis was largely responsible for the book, seem in the end correct. Contemporary comment Remarks in the Dictionary of National Biography by Boulger (in Lee, 1898) and elsewhere by Rauschenberg (1968) suggest that Solander alone wrote the book. But neither author considered contemporary comments which, apart from the ambiguities of Martha Watt's introduction, indicate Ellis alone. Thus Lightfoot (1786), when referring to the book, used the 38 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS abbreviation 'Ellis Zooph.' some 27 times, and 'E&S' 16 times, clearly implying a major involvement by Ellis. The work attributed to Lightfoot (1786) was the extensive sale catalogue of the Duchess of Portland's collections, known as the Portland Catalogue. It included many zoophytes. Lightfoot was one of the Duchess of Portland's curators (Pennant, 1789: preface) and would certainly have been well placed to have compiled it. Slightly earlier Solander also curated her collections, and for part of the 1770s visited her one day each week (Banks, in Rauschenberg, 1964; Rauschenberg, 1968). Thus Lightfoot could well have known about the authorship of the Ellis & Solander work. It happens that authorship of the work ascribed to Lightfoot (1786) has itself been debated (Dance, 1962; Clench, 1964; Kay, 1965; Rehder, 1967; other references in Wheeler, 1984fl, 1984^), undermining the authority of the comment attributed to Lightfoot. But Banks (in Rauschenberg, 1964) implied that Lightfoot was indeed the author, and in addition that the zoophyte entries in the work ascribed to Lightfoot were drafted by Solander. Lettsom (1786: 54), writing of John Fothergill's important coral collection, said '[Fother- gill's] corals, from whence Ellis . . . delineated his system, and created a new species . . .', and did not even mention Solander. Similarly Dryander (1796, 2: 338), Banks's librarian, ascribed the book to Ellis alone and did not mention Solander's name in his catalogue entry. Dryander was successor to Solander's post. He must have had frequent opportunity to become well aware of which of the nominal authors was responsible for writing the text. It seems virtually certain that conversation about the writing of such a major work, with its expensive plates, would have taken place occasionally between Banks, Dryander, Solander, and Ellis - though not necessarily together. And yet it seems that Dryander was incorrect in ascribing the book entirely to Ellis. Two contemporary book reviews offered some views on authorship. The first (Anon. 1, 1786) indicated Ellis as sole author, Solander's contribution being only to 'arrange' the work - the word perhaps being taken from the title page. Concerning the treatment of the genus Madrepom, the author of the review commented (p. 5): 'The madrepora is generally described; but here we begin to lose our author's [Ellis's] assistance . . .', a comment on the less detailed treatment in that section. This is the section apparently written by Solander (p. 44). The second book review (Anon. 2, 1786) was still more explicit. It stated that Solander's contribution was to 'introduce system, that vital principle of all researches', implying in this context that Solander grouped the species according to the Linnean system. This may be what was meant on the title page and in the introductory section by the use of the word 'arranged'. Indeed, contemporary dictionaries suggest that the word implied 'putting into a definite and logical order' rather than the present-day meaning which tends towards simply 'putting in the sequence observed'. The review continued: 'At the same time, [Solander] has added such new objects as have been discovered since Mr Ellis's [1755] publication, either by himself, or by others . . .', but this is hardly true since it seems that most of the non-coral text and related plates of the 1786 work were prepared by Ellis - albeit possibly with occasional help from Solander. Thus the strong implication from this review is that Solander's contribution was to arrange the species and genera along the lines of the Linnean system, with genera and higher taxa logically ordered, and to add descriptions of material additional to that which Ellis knew. This may well be so: and would explain the origin of some manuscript notes extant in the Linnean Society of London (p. 43), written (albeit in Ellis's hand) at least 10 years before the book was pubHshed, delimiting the genera and defining some of them. The notes suggest that Solander early on showed Ellis how to adopt a Linnean-style classification, lacking in Ellis's first book (see also the Ellis letters to David Skene, p. 41). Indeed, this is why Solander had been asked to come to London - to promulgate Linnaeus's views on classification; and Ellis had been among those responsible for inviting him (p. 21) and clearly welcomed his input. Nevertheless, despite the implications of the second review, there is no evidence that Solander did any of the writing outside the important Madrepora section. Curiously, contemporary comment on the book made no direct reference to this major ELLIS & SOLANDER'S ' ZOOPHYTES 39 contribution by Solander. This might suggest that neither of these two anonymous reviewers, or the other authors mentioned (Dryander, Lettsom, Lightfoot), had really detailed knowledge of the authorship. They were perhaps writing partly from heresay, and it should be remembered that the book was posthumous to both authors. Neither of the two who knew both authors well and who lived to see the book published, Banks and his assistant Dryander, implied or mentioned contributions from Solander. Solander's obituary by Sir Joseph Banks, written in 1784 (published in Swedish by Alstromer, 1785, and in English by Rauschenberg, 1964), points to a similar conclusion. It serves as an obituary of Solander. Banks knew Solander extremely well. He greatly praised Solander's work and mentioned his friendship and scientific cooperation with Ellis but, notably, did not mention the Ellis & Solander book. The book was already in advanced manuscript in 1784, and at that time it could even have been with the printer since a copy was presented to the Royal Society in London on 23 February 1786 (note inside Royal Society copy). Its introductory advertisement confirms that Banks was well aware of it. So its omission from the obituary by Banks is noteworthy, especially since the book became the biggest pubhshed zoological work with which Solander's name is associated as author and almost certainly included descriptions of many corals which Solander and perhaps also Banks had collected on their epic voyage with James Cook. Banks mentioned several works in which Solander had been deeply involved and his lack of comment on the then unpublished Elhs & Solander book might simply have reflected the minor role Solander had had in it. There were many other works by Solander worthy of inclusion to comment on. If, as is deduced below, Solander's contribution to the book was 'just' the bulk of the Madrepora descriptions then Banks might have considered it too small an item to include. Indeed, it seems that Solander wrote the Madrepora descriptions briskly, in less than three weeks (p. 44): and Banks was commenting on more than twenty years of energetic scholarship. The evidence for considering that Solander helped Ellis to some extent in preparing some of the illustrations may also be valid. But even so, this too might not have ranked high enough in Banks's estimation to warrant inclusion in the letter. Still, the omission is bibliographically misleading and with hindsight it can be regarded an unfortunate error by Banks. Thus there seems no support from contemporary published evidence for the contentions of Boulger (in Lee, 1898) and Rauschenberg (1968) that Solander wrote the book. A confusing note by Stoever (1794, p. 300) implies that Solander handled proof pulls of some of the plates: 'In 1771, the father of Linnaeus [Jr] complained that he had not heard of Solander for several years, yet he had done so much for him as [for] any one of his pupils. He rejoiced, however, at seeing the new edition of Ellis's Essay on corallines, published under the auspices of Solander, who sent him some of the proof-plates.' The 'new edition' referred to would probably have been the much amended German edition of Ellis's first book (ElHs, 1755, translated into German as Ellis, 1767). No involvement by Solander is mentioned in its detailed introductory passages, but although it may seem that Stoever was mistaken in this it remains plausible that Solander handled some aspects of the book's publication. The proof pulls which Solander is said to have sent to Linnaeus [Sr] would have been from the 1786 joint work. In or soon after 1771 Solander had some of the scleractinian coral {Madrepora) engravings prepared (p. 40), under Ellis's supervision to an unknown extent, and it would seem likely to have been these which Solander would have proudly sent to Linnaeus. They probably depicted specimens collected by Solander on the Endeavour and passed to the collector John Fothergill who evidently returned them to the BM for Solander and Ellis to work on (p. 43). Though Stoever's passage is confused and hence suspect it does provide some corroboration that Solander started to supervise these engravings, which became incorporated into the book, in 1771 soon after his return from the voyage of the Endeavour. 40 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS Later published opinions Lamouroux (1821), in his introduction, stated that ElHs wrote the descriptions and that Solander only corrected them ('Les descriptions faites par ElHs et corrigees par Solander . . .'). Although he might simply have been quoting Martha Watt it seems he could have had near-contemporary knowledge since he or his publisher had obtained most or all of the copper engravings of the 63 plates from the book as published and he may well have learnt something about its history. He could have heard directly from Banks. Lamouroux died in 1825, at the relatively early age of 45 (Redier, 1967), and had little opportunity for further comment. We have not attempted to locate any relevant correspondence of Lamouroux or others involved in the production of his book. Similarly, Milne Edwards & Haime (1857: xxii) considered Ellis the sole author: 'Ce livre . . . porte les noms d'Ellis et de Solander, comme si ce dernier avait reellement contribue a sa redaction; mais il est evident qu'il est du tout entier a Ellis.' This is an assertion that Solander was not involved. But the new evidence we have examined suggests that he was. Although Milne Edwards and Haime visited the BM and might have obtained evidence for their view they were writing long after the book's appearance, and their published opinion has to be treated cautiously. Paradoxically, they overlooked Solander's important contribution to the section on scleractinian corals (Madrepora) which was their main interest in the work. In contrast, Boulger (in Lee, 1898, article on Solander) recorded that Solander 'arranged and described [all] the material for John Ellis's Natural History of Zoophytes (1786)', but he was not so close to the events as Dryander, Lamouroux and Lettsom, and was perhaps simply repeating what might be inferred from the title page. Concerning the illustrations, Rauschenberg (1968: 19) pointed out that Ellis had asked Solander to 'supervise the production of the illustrations for publication' of an article on hydroids in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society as early as 1762, some fourteen years before Ellis's death; and Solander is known to have supervised some of those used in the book (p. 39). In a letter to Borlase, written in 1764, Ellis stated that 'Solander [was] to describe those plants' on which Ellis was working at that time (Rauschenberg, 1968: 24). Similarly, Sir Joseph Banks wrote in 1784 - two years after Solander's death - concerning a joint botanical work by Banks and Solander, that there was 'hardly a clause written in it . . .in which [Solander] had not shared' (Banks, in Rauschenberg, 1968: 43), adding weight to the general opinion that although Solander only infrequently published under his own name, he made major contributions to the scientific writing of others. Rauschenberg (1968: 54) considered that 'John Ellis was the person whom Solander aided the most . . . Solander wrote the descriptions for Ellis's book on Zoophytes'. However, although Solander might have helped Ellis with the text, Rauschenberg gave no evidence that Solander was author of all the descriptions and seems almost entirely misled on the question of authorship. Several of the biographies about Ellis or accounts of his work (Smith, 1819, 1821; Stephen, 1889; Carruthers, 1901; Harmer, 1931«; Savage, 1934, 1948) have failed to touch upon the question of authorship of the book. A note published to commemorate the birth of Solander (Anon. 4, 1936) mentioned his involvement with the work but similarly gave no detailed information about who wrote what. Rauschenberg (1978a: 15), citing pages v-vii of the book (Ellis & Solander, 1786), later commented that after Ellis's death Solander had given 'aid on taxonomic matters' to Ellis's daughter during production of the book, and that John Fothergill and later Sir Joseph Banks had helped financially with it. However, in the book itself (Ellis & Solander, 1786: vi) it is stated that Fothergill paid for some of the engravings and that they were done under Ellis's supervision and, therefore, during Ellis's lifetime. Though Banks is discussed there is no statement that he helped financially, although Fothergill's generosity is mentioned. It seems that Rauschenberg was partly wrong. The wide-ranging accounts by Wheeler (1984fl, 1984^) noted that Solander was involved ELLIS & SOLANDER'S ' ZOOPHYTES 41 with the coral section and repeated the statement in Martha Watt's preface to the book that (only) the 'arrangement of the descriptions' was due to Solander. Wheeler aptly cited our view that 'some of the credit' for the importance of the book in subsequent invertebrate taxonomy 'must lie with Solander who from their correspondence and from the text of the book clearly made a significant contribution to the work'. Our analysis corroborates this view. Manuscripts and letters Some evidence on authorship exists amongst the extensive manuscript material pertaining to Ellis & Solander's book. It is preserved mainly in the archives of the Linnean Society of London and was recorded briefly by Savage (1948: 92, item 14; also p. 50, 'Daniel Solander, eight letters'). Recently it was mentioned by Wheeler (1984a, 19846) and catalogued by Diment & Wheeler (1984). Some of the letters have been published in a variety of places. The manuscripts are incomplete and do not include more than a few of the published species descriptions. Nevertheless, there are several pages in Ellis's hand of drafts for the introductions to the genera Sertularia, Antipathes, Gorgonia, Millepora and Madrepora, as well as several Madrepora species descriptions which, however, were not eventually published (see next section). Thus it is clear that Ellis was very much involved in the early drafting of at least these sections. Unfortunately, the authorship of the published species descriptions in any of the genera cannot be deduced from this material save that in most of the Madrepora species it was evident that they were not based on these notes and, therefore, were implicitly not due to Ellis. In the late 1760s Ellis evidently considered himself to be sole author. Thus, he wrote to Dr David Skene (26 March 1765): 'I have already sufficient for six plates as large as my frontispiece, and the Royal Society have oblig'd me with the use of those plates that belong to the Papers I have at different times laid before them.' (Quoted in Groner, 1987.) Groner has identified these papers as Phil. Trans. 49: 449, 50: 188, 50: 845, and 53: 419. They are not necessarily cited in the present reference list. Groner (1987: chapter 5) considered that Ellis's correspondence with Skene about this time provides the earliest indication that Ellis was working on a second zoophyte book, though he cited evidence from as early as 1765 that Ellis planned a book on algae which was evidently soon abandoned. We too have come across no evidence that Ellis worked on his second book before 1765 but this possibility is not precluded. EUis wrote again to Skene (30 January 1766): 'As to my part I shall ... in my next book . . .' [Edinburgh University Library MS.] And to the same (28 July 1768): 'I have done little or nothing in the Zoophytes having been otherwise engaged. Indeed the getting the plates executed is so troublesome that I am quite disheartened. I had a few which you sent me and am in hopes to tempt a good engraver to live near me for I grow too old to walk 3 mile a day after them.' [Ibid.] This gives the clear impression that Ellis was sole author. A later letter to Skene also implies this: 'What little description [there is] will be in English for I shall only be laugh'd at [if I attempt Latin descriptions]. If I can give my friends an idea equal to what I have myself of them I shall be satisfied.' [Ibid.] This might suggest that someone else did the Latinized species definitions in the book, but 42 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS many were copied from the 1755 book. Solander could well have supervised them - but we have no evidence for or against this. Solander left on the Endeavour a month later (26 August 1768; Rauschenberg, 1968), and would probably have been too busy to be of effective assistance to Ellis at this period. Later, Ellis wrote to Skene (26 December 1770): 'I have so much business to direct my attention that I have not minded my 2nd volume.' [Ibid.] This, too, implies that Ellis was intending to be sole author at the time the Endeavour left. Descriptions of the true corals (Madrepora) Most of the extant archival material concerns the Madrepora section, which is that most likely to have been written by Solander. Solander returned with Banks from their long voyage with James Cook on HMS Endeavour (1768-1771) to a hero's welcome which in a sense went on for several months (Rauschenberg, 1968); but the corals and other cnidarians collected by the expedition were not written up as a collection. The Madrepora descriptions (excepting the first three) which appeared in the book probably included some of the Endeavour material. Most are quite perfunctory and much less detailed than the species descriptions throughout the rest of the book. Furthermore, Ellis was in poor health from 1773 - soon after the return of the Endeavour - and is thought to have had impaired sight from 1774 (Savage, 1934), additional reasons for suspecting that he might not have written the bulk of the Madrepora descriptions. Ellis's health perhaps declined gradually until his death in 1776. But Solander is known still to have been healthy, since his death at the age of 49 came as a surprise (Banks, in Rauschenberg, 1964). He was more than 20 years younger than Ellis, and was apparently at that time the more capable of doing the work. It seems plausible, if Ellis was incapacitated and contributed little to the book after the Endeavour returned, that the text was largely written by that time and that he delayed its publication to accommodate the exciting Endeavour coral material. Although many of the coral descriptions were based on earlier accounts, chiefly those of Pallas (1766) and Linnaeus (1767), half (41 out of 81) were described as new to science. One of the 'new' species (the first, described in detail, probably by Ellis) was from the Mediterranean, six were from the 'East Indies', three were from the 'Pacific', two were from the 'West Indies', and in 29 no locality was recorded in the book. In only three of the 'new' species were the collectors named. Such imprecision as to localities and collectors would have been unusual for Elhs, even perhaps in ill health. Hence it seems likely that these are Solander's descriptions, many perhaps being based on his own collections from the Endeavour voyage. They are written in a sloppy style quite unlike anything Ellis ever published under his own name alone. Nevertheless, the descriptions can be included among the short list of zoological material from the Endeavour voyages said to have received contemporary attention (Rauschenberg, 1968; Whitehead, 1969). Ellis, it seems, wrote only the introduction to the Madrepora section (although this could have been redrafted by Solander: there is no evidence either way) and the descriptions of the first three species; and Solander the rest of that section. Some further evidence is provided by the pencil illustration of 'Madrepora interstinctd' [Millepora coerulea Pallas, 1766 (Heliopora)] for plate 56, preserved in the Royal College of Surgeons of England (p. 53). It was engraved by the distinguished Georg Ehret (1708-1770) in 1752, some 24 years before Ellis's death: yet no description of the species is given in the text of the book (p. 167), merely a short synonymy. Such perfunctory treatment differs from Ellis's usually detailed approach and lends weight to the idea that the account of this and hence of most other Madrepora species were not his work. It seems inconceivable that Ellis would not have written any notes to accompany such a beautiful and presumably costly illustration. And indeed, it is now known that Ellis had prepared notes on some Madrepora species and that Solander did not make use of them (p. 43). Kerr (1910) implied that Ellis wrote all the coral descriptions, but his was only a passing ELLIS & SOLANDER'S 'ZOOPHYTES 43 reference in a sub-heading to a list of specimens in Glasgow University. He headed the table 'List of specimens of corals described by Ellis, and now in the University collection'. Almost certainly the heading represents an unfortunate choice of words rather than an intended opinion on authorship. It happens that none of the three Madrepora species described by Ellis was listed by Kerr. The Ellis manuscripts preserved in the Linnean Society of London include (MS book No. 287, items 109-124; ?Savage, 1948: 92) what the original curator referred to as Ellis's 'home made note book'. It includes drafts of descriptions of several Madrepora species. Many of the species were eventually treated in the book (M. cyathus, M. fungites, M. undata, M. agaricites, M. cristata, M. rotulosa, M. radiata, M. astroites, M. labyrinthiformis, M. meandrites, M. sinuosa); but some were not {M. talpa, M. exarata, M. molaris, M. acropora, M. cavernosa, M. indivisa). Curiously, none of the descriptions nor much of the information in the note book was published. For example, the note book account of Madrepora undata, a species newly described in Ellis & Solander (1786: 157, pi. 40), comprises a Latin definition and nearly 100 words of English prose stating inter alia that the specimen came from 40 fms (73-15 m) off the north coast of Jamaica, and that it was 8 inches (20-3 cm) long and 7-5 inches (19-1 cm) broad. Under several other species, too, Ellis's notes include details lacking in the book, so it seems most unlikely that Ellis was responsible for their published accounts. As shown by other evidence also, it seems that although Ellis prepared these drafts Solander wrote most of the Madrepora section and did not use Ellis's notes. Unfortunately space does not allow their publication herein, but there is little doubt that in several of the species some information supplementary to that in the book awaits evaluation by scleractinian taxonomists. Several letters from Solander to Ellis refer to the work on the Madrepora section: Solander to Ellis. London. 22 July 1774. '. . . However, I have waited on Dr Fothergill, to let him know that I would, according to your desire, deliver back to him all the corals that are already figured; but he chose rather that they should remain in your chamber till his return . . .' (Smith, 1821: 14-18) Solander to Ellis. London. 7 November 1774. '. . . This week I shall certainly settle and mark your corals; it vexes me very much that I have not been able to do it long ago . . .' (Smith, 1821: 20) Evidently Ellis had Fothergill's corals in Solander's rooms at the British Museum and Solander was working on them for Ellis. Two other letters from Solander to Elhs also give a tantalisingly brief insight into how the two friends worked together: Solander to Ellis. London. 9 November 1774. 'My Dear Sir, 'Yesterday I began to look over and write names to Dr Fothergill's coralls; I went through two of the boxes which stood in the passage, and has selected those who were not figured or engraved. Those that are engraved is placed in the same boxes, and they are now ready to send home [presumably to Fothergill, and hence into oblivion, p. 57]; the others I have laid upon one of your Tables 'till I can find a box to lay them in. Either next Saturday or some day next week I will proceed with the rest. I have also looked over all your plates, and wrote on the paper which they are wrapped up in, the proper names of the subjects which are engraved upon them. I am with great regard. My Dear Sir, Your sincere friend, and humble servant, Dan Solander.' [Linn. Soc. London MS] (Listed by Savage, 1948: 50, under 'undated letters, Daniel Solander, eight letters of no great importance . . .'!). 44 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS The first sentence confirms that at least some of the coral material, perhaps Ellis's, was already illustrated, and that some was Fothergill's - perhaps a later batch, originating from the Endeavour. Fothergill's name appears only once in the Madrepora section, on page 149, but no other collectors are mentioned and it would seem likely that he supplied many of the illustrated specimens. Indeed, it is implied by this letter; and Ellis, in the manuscript description of M. rotulosa mentioned already, stated that he had seen a specimen of that species in Fothergill's cabinet. It would seem that Ellis worked on Fothergill's corals himself, presumably some time before Solander worked on them, and maybe on Fothergill corals from sources other than the Endeavour. Evidently Ellis had more than one table at the British Museum in Solander's area. Solander stated his intention to do all Fothergill's coral specimens that were piled up in his passageway; and that he had identified all Ellis's copper engravings - presumably some or all of the coral ones done up till then - and written the names on. This suggests that Ellis was not sufficiently familiar with scleractinians to name for himself all the copper plates he had had made, though it appears that he had at least some knowledge of the scleractinian (madreporan) corals: or perhaps his health prevented him from doing the work. The reference to 'all your plates' perhaps relates only to those of some of the scleractinians (p. 42) and might or might not have embraced the six published herein. The introductory section of the book (Ellis & Solander, 1786: vi) states that the wealthy John Fothergill paid for some of the engravings, and it may be that these were of his own specimens (which had quite possibly come from the Endeavour , p. 57). Thus it seems likely that Solander collected the corals on Cook's voyage and gave or sold them to Fothergill who paid for their engraving (and initial illustration?) for inclusion in Ellis's book - with Solander providing their scientific diagnosis. The impression is overwhelming that Solander was almost entirely responsible for the description of these later 'Fothergill corals' though Ellis might earlier have prepared descriptions of pre-Endeavour Fothergill corals which were not eventually used in the book. The advertisement of the book clearly stated that the plates 'were all engraved under Ellis's immediate inspection'; so there seems to have been collaboration over the Madrepora species. Several of these facts indicate that Solander wrote the bulk of the published version of the Madrepora section. A further letter adds a little more to the picture: Solander to Ellis, London. 22 November 1774. 'My Dear Sir, If this morning had not turned out to be so very bad, I had proposed to have finished the naming of Dr Fothergill's coralls and begin with yours. Now it must be postponed till next Monday or Tuesday. Last week I went through the aggregated and branched ones. Yesterday I saw Dr Fothergill, when I told him we wanted boxes to lay them in for to send them home, in a safe manner; when he promised to send two or three empty chests to your chambers for that purpose. My best complts to Mr Scott and all about you. I am with utmost regard My Dear Sir Your sincere friend and humble servant Dan. Solander' P.S. Mr Banks & Omai are still in the country. [Linn. Soc. London, MS] (Savage, 1948). Solander evidently worked fast, and it was clearly in and around November 1774 that he wrote the descriptions of Fothergill's corals eventually published. He did not make use of Ellis's notes; and it might be deduced that those notes on some of the coral species, preserved in the Linnean Society, London (p. 41), relate to non-Endeavour material. Solander's modest 'Last week I went through the aggregated and branched ones' indicates that he rushed through ELLIS & SOLANDER S ZOOPHYTES 45 most of this section for Ellis in about a week, yet subsequently he became credited by some with having written the whole book (pp. 37-39). Some of the available evidence suggests that Ellis was for much of the time handling the production of the plates with little or no assistance from Solander. Thus he wrote to David Skene (24 February 1767), a year and a half before Solander left on the Endeavour: '. . . I shall send you specimens of my plates as soon as I can get them struck off . . .' [Edinburgh University Library MS] See also Ellis's letter of 28 July 1768 (p. 41), in which use of the first person implies the same; and that of 26 December 1770, when Solander was away, also indicating that ElHs was supervising the plates (p. 56). The original drawing for Ellis & Solander's (1786) plate 12, figures 2 and 4, also indicates that Ellis was mainly responsible for the plates. The single illustration comprises a specimen of "Gorgonia ceratophyta' supposedly growing on one of 'Millepora caerulea" {=Heliopora). The original drawing for the engraving is preserved (Royal College of Surgeons, London, Hunterian Drawings vol. 1, f. 16) and shows that the drawing of Gorgonia has been stuck over that of the coral. The engraving shows an identical figure, except that it is reversed. This famous collection of drawings has always been referred to as being of Ellis, and was sold with Elhs's effects (rather than with Solander's) (Hutchins, 1791). The circumstantial evidence from this and the rest of the original drawings is strong that Ellis was responsible for them. Nowhere in the Hunterian volume do contemporary MS annotations indicate an involvement by Solander. Solander's slip catalogue Another possible source of evidence on authorship might have been the extensive slip catalogue of plants and animals prepared by Solander and still preserved in the Botany and Zoology Libraries of the British Museum (Natural History) (the 'Solander Slips' mentioned and discussed by among others Sawyer, 1971; Marshall, 1977; Diment & Wheeler, 1984; and Wheeler, 1984fl, 1984^, 1986, all of whom commented on its preparation and contents). However, there are only a few 'zoophyte' slips. Three are of corals {Madrepora cornucopia, M. hirtella and M. turbinata {=M. prolifera)), but only one of these appears in the book {M. hirtella, p. 155, pi. 37). Two slips relate to Alcyonium species; one to Spongia (Porifera); 6 to Flustral Eschara (Bryozoa); 37 to 'Corallina\ including hydroids and bryozoans as well as coralline algae; and 7 to Pennatula species. But that is all. The joint book includes many more species in each of these genera and it is evident that Solander did not enlarge the slip catalogue from the manuscript of the book which he is known to have had in his possession (p. 47). It could be argued that Ellis might have borrowed any extra slips there were, but this seems unlikely since Solander would have had the opportunity to retrieve them after Ellis died. There is thus no evidence from the slip catalogue that Solander wrote the book. It is noteworthy that there are no slips preserved relating to the extensive Scleractinia material which Solander collected with Banks on Cook's first voyage and which probably formed the basis of much of the published Madrepora section. General correspondence A letter written by ElUs to Dr David Skene, dated 26 December 1770, included the following: 'The tediousness and impertinence of engravers have been the great occasion of delay in publishing my 2d volume . . . We live in hopes of hearing from Banks and Solander tho' our fears encrease as the time is nearly expir'd when they were expected.' (Savage, 1948: 77) Banks and Solander were on the Endeavour with Cook and it seems from Ellis's letter that he was at that time being held up by the engravers, implying that the text was well advanced; 46 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS and his use of the first person suggests that at least in 1770 he was intending to be sole author. Possibly when Solander returned with his coral collection Ellis considered joint authorship, but there is no evidence for this. Two letters from Ellis to Skene indicate Solander's role in assisting Ellis in choosing the generic divisions for the book, and also that Ellis was the senior author: '. . . I am beginning to arrange the sea-zoophytes, beginning with the most simple, neither following Linnaeus nor Pallas but my own plan. [A list almost identical with that adopted follows.] I should be glad of your opinion. Since Solander left this [list, before going on the voyage,] I have no friend that knows anything of this dark part of Natural History . . .' (24 September 1768) [MS in Edinburgh University Library] '. . . I have attempted to place those of which I have or shall give figures in the following order. [There follow 16 generic names as finally adopted in the book.] I have left out the Cellopora of Linnaeus ... I have adopted some of Pallas' genera because I think him right, but I shall bring back the true red coral or Isis nobilis to the Gorgonias and call it Gorgon: estimabilis . . .' (12 November 1768) [Ibid.] The two letters suggest that Solander had drafted out the generic divisions for Ellis before leaving on the Endeavour in August 1768; but that once he had gone Ellis himself took decisions on which genera to admit. Solander would clearly have had opportunity to alter the order in which the genera appeared after Ellis's death eight years later, but there is no indication that he did so; and he evidently did not change the generic divisions themselves. His role in this can hardly be considered authorship. Ellis's correspondence with Linnaeus might also be expected to provide a clue. The correspondence is largely available, preserved in the Linnean Society of London. Most of it was published by Smith (1821), with his own apparently random emendations, and a few additional items by Savage (1948). Here again there is good evidence which points to Ellis having written the descriptions. In a letter to Linnaeus dated 25 September 1770 ElUs stated (six years before his death): T have not time from public business to attend ... my System of Zoophytes as I could wish but live in hopes to print it in time. At least / will leave my figures and descriptions to the world and wish they were done by abler hands . . .' (from the original; italics ours; Smith's published transcription has emendations). From this it would seem likely that Ellis did leave many of the species descriptions but the extent to which they were emended by Solander, or for that matter by Martha Watt, is hard to determine. The Endeavour had not yet returned and Ellis's comments do not contradict the idea that the book was largely ready; and that on the return of the Endeavour publication was delayed to accommodate the new, largely scleractinian, zoophyte material from it. Some of ElHs's letters to Linnaeus (Smith, 1821), as hinted by Rauschenberg (1968), indicate that Solander might have helped prepare some of the descriptions made towards the end of Ellis's life, particularly those of the Madrepora species. But there is no firm evidence of his having a role after Ellis's death in 1776. However, there is a suggestion that Solander might have continued to work on corals after Ellis died. Sir William Hamilton (1730-1803), who 'resided at Court' in Naples, wrote 9 February 1779 from near there to Banks: T have sent Solander a collection of corals for our Museum. There are duplicates of many, which he may give to you if they should be curious and worth your acceptance.' (Smith, 1911: 62). However, only two localities given in the Madrepora section of the book are Mediterranean (species 1, 'Madrepora patella", probably described by Ellis and hence too early to have been ELLIS & SOLANDER's ' ZOOPHYTES 47 part of Hamilton's shipment; and species 15, 'Madrepora oculata\ one of Solander's descriptions). Hamilton's name does not appear in the section and almost none of the species descriptions is accompanied by a locality. Thus although the amount of use made of Hamilton's collection by Solander when preparing the Madrepora descriptions cannot be deduced accurately, it seems to have been little or none. Martha Watt evidently had some difficulty in recovering the manuscript of the book when Solander died in 1782 since she wrote to Sir Joseph Banks on 1 September 1782 thanking him for: 'the trouble you have taken in recovering my Father's papers. Not having received any account previously to that you had kindly indulged me with last week, I began to apprehend the Manuscript was mislaid amid such variety of papers relating to Natural History as our late worthy friend [Solander] must have had in his possession.' [British Library Manuscripts Dept., Add. MSS 33977, f. 173]. The letter confirms that when Solander died he had the (?entire) manuscript in his possession. He might have been writing parts of it, but there is no evidence for this and he might merely have been working in an editorial capacity, or even doing no work on it at all. Bearing in mind that Solander was a close friend of Banks, it would have been discourteous of Martha Watt to have implied in her letter that the MS of the book was Ellis's alone unless this were true. Possibly she did not know of Solander's role in the Madrepora section. Expertise and seniority Ellis undoubtedly enjoyed the assistance of Solander in later years both in his zoophyte research and in Solander's having supervised the preparation of at least some of the engravings of Ellis's specimens (above evidence; also Rauschenberg, 1968). Although Solander did not have a great published output, he nevertheless spread himself widely in research over both animal and plant kingdoms and is validly regarded as having been one of the earliest professional biologists in Britain (Rauschenberg, 1968; Marshall, 1977; Stearn, 1981; Wheeler, 19846). A student of Linnaeus, he eventually became the sole natural history curator in the British Museum. Ellis, on the other hand, was an amateur naturahst, being by profession a merchant and both a King's Agent and a Colonial Agent (exhaustive account in Groner, 1987; other references above). But Ellis had a deep interest and great expertise in hydroids and other zoophytes, and in a number of other rather specific aspects of natural history. In contrast to Solander's youthful impact on the European cultural scene Ellis was probably about 45 when his first book appeared (Ellis, 1755), and he did not communicate with Linnaeus until the following year (Carruthers, 1901). It would seem natural, therefore, for Ellis to concentrate in the joint book with Solander on the description of those zoophyte groups on which he had already published - in fact almost all of them - and for Solander to help whenever he could. Since Solander was about twenty-three years Ellis's junior it might have been natural for this reason also for Ellis to have had the greater share of the writing. Ellis, too, was unusually talented, rising from obscurity in which even the year and place of his birth were uncertain (p. 18; discussion in Groner, 1987) to become a successful merchant, a King's Agent, a Colonial Agent, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and a leading light in one of the great international biological debates of the eighteenth century, that concerning the animal nature of zoophytes. He stood significantly above most contemporary European writers on zoophytes. By 1755 he had developed a rare style of writing in which there was a strong tendency for the observed facts alone to find place so that even today his works seem remarkably free of errors. In striking contrast, bibliographic sources show that Solander never otherwise published on zoophytes and during his whole life published hardly a single item on any zoological subject as senior author (Rauschenberg, 1968). He was, however, junior author of several botanical works and sole author of some lengthy manuscript catalogues - mostly now preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) (Diment & Wheeler, 1984). The greatest zoological 48 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS publication with which he was associated as nominal author was the book with Ellis. Perhaps if he had lived beyond the age of 49 some of the promised works might have followed, and it should be borne in mind that there was little pressure to publish quickly in those days. Nevertheless, it must be said that many other naturalist authors of the time were relatively prolific, and almost all were amateurs in that they were not paid for their work. Solander, the professional, seemingly had ample opportunity to publish but he hardly ever did. The conclusion that he was the sort of person who is slow to publish is inescapable. This does not necessarily detract from his scientific ability. Such people are of course common today, and it seems unnecessary to invoke special eighteenth-century conditions to explain the lack. It has been suggested that the 'slip catalogue' preserved in the BMNH was to have been along the lines of the Sy sterna naturae (p. 23). In Rauschenberg's (1968: 57) opinion Solander's death came at the height of his career. Yet the near absence of published zoological works is striking, considering the opportunities he must have had. In the 1770s there were hardly any publications on hydroids and other zoophytes available (Bedot, 1901) and certainly few comparable in merit with Ellis's (1755, 1767) first book. Hence it seems still less likely that Solander might have written the bulk of the joint work. The manuscript captions in the British Library copy Jonas Dryander (1748-1810) was once Solander's shared assistant and was sucessor to his post. Dryander (1796) noted that the six extra plates were found after the death of 'the author' (p. 25), implicitly Ellis, though whether this was before or after Solander's death is not clear. The manuscript captions on the fly-leaf are in Dryander's hand (J. B. Marshall, pers. comm.; Marshall, 1978). If Solander had seen these six plates, and had Solander written the text of the book, one would have expected a printed cross-reference to them by Solander on the appropriate pages. But the only cross-references are those written in the margins, probably also by Dryander, suggesting that Solander did not prepare the text or modify it later and, therefore, that the text had already been written before Ellis's death. Evidence from the pubUshed text Some of the evidence on authorship presented so far is open to alternative interpretation. Among the strongest evidence, however, is that which can be gleaned from the published work itself. Throughout the text there are occasional sentences in the first person singular, and the contexts in which they occur suggest overwhelmingly that Ellis was the author. It remains possible, but seems most unlikely, that Solander wrote these passages as though written by Ellis. Although the quotation from Banks already mentioned (in Rauschenberg, 1964) indicates that Solander did this kind of 'ghost writing' a much simpler explanation is that Elhs was the true author. A typical example (Ellis & Solander, 1786: 33) runs: 'In my Essay on Corallines [Ellis, 1755: 32] I have taken notice that . . .'. Further, nowhere in the joint work does use of the first person singular imply authorship by Solander. Apparently unequivocal indications that Ellis wrote at least the draft of the text occur in most of the 16 included genera (though Madrepora must be excepted: p. 42). In the list which follows the page numbers refer to indications of this sort. The extent of the account of each genus is indicated by the page numbers following its name. I Actinia (Pp. 1-8) Pp. 1 (re Actinia sociata; see also p. 5); 7. II Hydra (Pp. 8-10) No direct evidence, but use of the first person singular suggests that Ellis wrote this section. III Flustra (Pp. 10-18) Pp. 12, 15, 16, 17. IV Cellaria (Pp. 18-30) No direct evidence, but since so many as 13 of the 18 species included were described earlier by Ellis alone it seems probable that he would have written at least most of this section. The remaining five species were described as new in the joint work. ELLIS & solander's 'zoophytes' 49 V Tubularia (Pp. 30-32) No direct evidence, but the three included species had each been first described by Elhs so that it seems probable that he would have written this section. VI Sertularia (Pp. 32-60) Pp. 33, 34, 35, 41, 43, 45, 45-46, 46, 50, 54. No fewer than 27 of the 36 included species had been described earlier by Ellis (1755) so it seems highly likely that he would have written this section. Indeed, it is in this genus - now largely disbanded amongst other hydroid genera and some ectoproct ones - that Ellis made his greatest contribution to 'zoophyte' studies. VII Pennatula (Pp. 60-67) Pp. 62, 62-63, 63, 64, 65. Of the ten included species nine had been described by Ellis in earlier works, six as new to science. Almost certainly he would have written this section. VIII Gorgonia (Pp. 67-97) Pp. 68 (twice), 70, 75 (twice), 76, 84 (The specimen was presented to me by Dr Solander'), 86 (The specimen was 'sent to me ... in the year 1755' - before Ellis had started to correspond with Linnaeus, and even longer before he had met Solander), 89. IX Antipathes (Pp. 97-104) Although the first person singular is used in places in this section there seems no unequivocal clue as to authorship. X Isis (Pp. 104-108) Again, no decisive evidence. The clause 'We Hkewise find that' (pp. 106-107) could be a turn of phrase and not a valid use of the first person plural. Ellis (1755) frequently wrote in this way in his earlier book, unquestionably a single-author work. XI CoralUna (Pp. 108-128) Pp. 109, 119, 122, 127. XII Millepora (Pp. 128-143) Pp. 128, 133 ('We frequently observe . . .' - see note under Isis), 139, 140 ('I had ... a specimen . . . from Dr Solander'), 141. XIII Tubipora (Pp. 143-145) P. 144 ('Dr Solander saw [Tubipora musica] in vast abundance ...'). XIV Madrepora (Pp. 145-173) Pp. 146 ('By Madrepore corals, we mean . . .', conceivably indicating joint authorship - see note under Isis, above), 149. Authorship of this section was probably largely by Solander, and is discussed above (pp. 42^5). XV Alcyonium (Pp. 173-182) Pp. 176 (twice), 177 ('We have but an imperfect figure of it in Rondeletius; but . . . Dr Schlosser has given us a very good figure of it in . . .', again almost certainly a turn of phrase rather than an indication of joint authorship: see note under Isis), 178, 188. XVI Spongia (Pp. 182-191) P. 182 (three times); also p. 182 ('. . . my letter addressed to Dr Solander . . . Phil. Trans, vol. 55, p. 280'). The published captions Many of the captions to the plates are extremely brief but others are more extensive. It is perhaps justifiable to ascribe them respectively to Solander and Ellis; but many are intermediate and could have been written by either of them, so that a detailed analysis would be necessary. Only in two is there a firm indication that Elhs was not the author: PI. 26 'No explanation of this plate was found in Mr Ellis's papers'; PI. 32 'No explanation of this plate was found.' One might have expected Solander to have identified the species depicted on these particular plates had he worked on Ellis's manuscript following Ellis's death. It is possible that the book's eventual editor, Martha Watt, was responsible for these and for some of the other captions. It would seem inescapable for her not to have been involved with them at least to some extent, since ensuring that they matched the plates and the names used in the text would have been a necessary editorial task. There is no firm evidence for or against Solander's having been involved in writing the captions, but it would seem likely that he was at least partly involved since he had identified the coral plates. Similarly, neither is EUis precluded. 50 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS Authorship: concluding remarks The date when ElUs started working on the 1786 book is unclear. The earhest indication is 1765 but the absence of information before that date does not preclude an earlier start. The book is unusual in lacking an introduction, excepting that provided by Martha Watt which really comprises a preface to the main text. This is in striking contrast to Ellis's (1755) earlier work in which the introduction spans 13 pages. We have come across no manuscript material which might have formed an introduction, but this does not preclude Ellis's having written one which was subsequently lost. Solander clearly had ample opportunity to prepare an introduction. But though he might have done so and it might have been lost, the lack of evidence of his having done detailed editing of the book makes it seem more likely that he did not prepare one. There seems good evidence that Ellis wrote almost all the text of the book in its final form, and this is in keeping with his having published widely on the 'zoophyte' groups. Nowhere in the text is there a reference to any event between Ellis's death in 1776 and Solander's in 1782, nor indeed to any between 1776 and the book's publication early in 1786: circumstantial but strong evidence that the text was written before Ellis's death. Solander, the younger man by some 23 years, although undoubtedly helpful to Ellis, seems to have written only the bulk of the Madrepora section, just 21 of the book's 206 pages of text. However, Solander's contribution should be seen in perspective. It includes a disproportionate number of species per page; and Solander's assistance with the plates (p. 39) also justifies his nominal joint authorship. Evidence on authorship of the captions is inconclusive. Ellis's drafts of the Madrepora species descriptions preserved in the Linnean Society of London were not used by Solander. The first three species in the Madrepora section were probably written by Ellis. The remainder of the account of this genus was probably written by Solander in November 1774 (p. 43), towards the end of Ellis's life. Ellis's health and eyesight were failing in 1774 (Savage, 1934) and it would perhaps have been natural for Solander to take on the remaining work. As Whitehead (1969) remarked, it was probably based partly on Banks's and Solander's Endeavour material, but also on Fothergill's (some of which originated from the Endeavour), on a few specimens in the collections of the Duchess of Portland, and on material from several other collections (p. 54). It might be expected that after Ellis's death Solander would have played some editorial role, and as much is implied by the title page and by Martha Watt's introduction. However, there seems no evidence that Solander materially altered Ellis's descriptions other than in the genus Madrepora as outlined - and then only by not using Ellis's drafts. Why he did not use them is unexplained. Both authors were alive at the time and the extant correspondence shows that they were in friendly contact, yet Solander's descriptions left out such important data as collecting localities that were included in Ellis's drafts (p. 43). With the rest of the book, it may be that Solander simply collated the manuscript material left by Ellis with the illustrations - but there is no evidence that this task was not done by Martha Watt who, being Ellis's daughter, might well have known enough of the subject to have done it. Indeed, her letter to Banks in 1782 (p. 47) suggests that in fact Solander had not been working on the manuscript. Production of the book Solander died some six years after Ellis. Sir Joseph Banks retrieved the manuscript from amongst Solander's effects soon after Solander's death and passed it to Martha Watt. A letter from Martha Watt written in September 1782 shows that Banks had located the manuscript and offered to help in the editing of the book, and also that she accepted his offer (BM Add. MSS. 33977 f. 173; precis in Dawson, 1958: 861). However, we have no evidence on the extent to which she actually drew on his help. Her energy, it seems, was largely responsible for the eventual publication of this remarkable book. There is no evidence that either she or Banks changed the text, but either might have done some work on the captions. The introduction, written by her, implies by default that Banks was not deeply involved in the book's production - though it was dedicated to him. Banks's implied lack of involvement is surprising since he was clearly able to help and had known both authors, and perhaps also Martha Watt, for a ELLIS & solander's 'zoophytes' 51 long time. All the evidence suggests that the manuscript they left was in an advanced state so perhaps Banks had confidence in Martha Watt to see it through publication. There is evidence that around 1 September 1782 Martha Watt sought Banks's advice on the process of publication (Watt to Banks, BL Add. MSS. 33977 f. 173). Slightly prior to this all Solander's manuscripts had been impounded by the Swedish embassy in London. An undated letter from Martha Watt apparently to the then publisher of the book indicates that she was relying heavily on Banks to retrieve the Ellis & Solander manuscript from the embassy (BL Add. MSS. 33982 f. 243). Whether or not the copper engravings were included is not indicated in the letter, and we have not determined if the six missing ones (present figs 2-7) might still be extant in Sweden. Certainly the effusiveness of Martha Watt's introduction to the book would suggest that had Banks been more greatly involved, she would have acknowledged him appropriately. The sequence of known events concerning certain aspects of the production and publication of the book as deduced herein is as follows: September 1770, Ellis wrote to Linnaeus implying that he had completed the 'figures and descriptions'; 12 July 1771, Endeavour returned (Rauschenberg, 1968); Ellis perhaps delayed the book to incorporate new material, especially scleractinian corals; 1773, Ellis in poor health; November 1774, Solander prepared most of the Madrepora section and shortly after returned many {1 Endeavour) coral specimens to Fothergill; October 1776, Ellis died, the book still unpublished; May 1782, Solander died; August 1782, Banks retrieved the manuscript from Solander's effects, apparently impounded by the Swedish embassy, and passed it to Martha Watt; 23 February 1786, copy presented to Royal Society. Notes on some of the original drawings for Ellis & Solander's Zoophytes The history and provenance of these drawings was outhned by Sir Sidney Harmer (1931^) who commented on them in some detail. One, of the coralline alga 'Corallina lichenoides', has recently been reproduced by Woelkerling & Irvine (1986: fig. 2), and another is reproduced here (Fig. 9). The drawings were purchased by John Hunter (1728-1793) at the Ellis Sale in 1791. Some of these aspects are discussed further elsewhere (pp. 54-61). Today the drawings are preserved in the Library of the Royal College of Surgeons, London, in a folio volume entitled 'Hunterian Drawings, Vol. I'. As noted by Harmer, the volume includes all the original drawings for most of the plates of stony corals and for many of the illustrations of other groups in the Ellis & Solander (1786) book; and a number of Ellis's pencil sketches and some of the drawings for three of the six previously unpublished plates (64, 65, 67). It includes also many of the drawings for the plates in the earlier book (Ellis, 1755), and some from his papers in Philosophical Transactions. Some helpful typewritten notes by Harmer are bound in. In addition a few rough sketches by Ellis are preserved in the manuscript collection of the Linnean Society of London (Item 287). There follows an annotated list of the drawings relevant mainly to the scleractinian corals in the 1786 book from notes made by JWW in 1934, by both of us in 1978, and by PFSC in 1986. Asterisks (*) indicate specimens now in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, following a manuscript list compiled in 1978 by Dr P. E. P. Norton (see also Table 2). The lists published by Young (1877) and Kerr (1910) were less complete. The artist is listed where indicated on the drawings or otherwise known to us. Most of the plates were reversed from the drawings 52 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS when published. A note under pi. 12 indicates that at least some of the drawings were arranged for the plates by Ellis himself (rather than by Solander). Plate/Fig. 12 Fig. 1 Gorgonia mirabilis (Folio 16) Fig. 2 Gorgonia ceratophyta on Fig. 4 'Madrepora caerulea {= Heliopora) . Two drawings, that of Gorgonia stuck over and overlapping that of Pocillopora. (Folio 16) Fig. 3 Wanting. Fig. 4 Millepora (Pocillopora) caerulea (See under Fig. 2.) Fig. 5 Isis coccinea (Folio 16) 13 Fig. *5 Madrepora axillaris. Pencil (Folio 17). 28 Miss Ellis. Reversed (on the printed plate). Madrepora patella, M. fungites, M. cyathus. *29 Simon Taylor. Not reversed. M. anthophyllites. 30 J(ames) R(oberts) fecit 1769. M. fascicularis. *31 G. D. Ehret pinx, 1753. Coloured. Figs 5-6, M. flexuosa. Figs 3-4, not those of the engraving: they show a non-carinate species of Pavona. Not reversed. 32 Fig. 1 Drawing shows dentate septa more clearly. Reversed. M. tibicinal Appears to be Hoplangia durotrix. Only part of drawing finally engraved. See also p. 60. Fig. 2 Only part was engraved. 33 J. R. 1769. M. fastigiata. Folio 55 has an ink-and-wash drawing by J. Roberts, dated 1769. It is not the engraved version, which lacks a patch of Porites just below the middle corallite. *34 J. R. delin., 1769. M. angulosa. Much of the background not engraved. *35 M. carduus. Reversed. 36 M. virginea. Not reversed. Part of the substrate not engraved. 37, 38 No drawings. *39 G. Miller sculp. Ink and wash. Not reversed. M. aspera. *40 G. D. Ehret del. 1755. Coloured. Not reversed. Drawing shows about half as many septa as the engraving. M. undata. *41 Drawn March 1773. M. ampliata. 42 M. cucullata. Not reversed. J. Barnes on engraved plate. *43 J. Barnes del. et sculp. Not reversed. M. cinarescens. Verso: fine drawing of M. agaricites. 44 J. Roberts del. M. lactuca. Also a sketch for this in oils. See also present Fig. 10. *46 J. Roberts del. 1 January 1774. M. daedalea. Fig. 3 shows a continuous spongy columella better than the engraving. 47 Figs 1-2 M. porites. Fig. 3 appears to be Favites sp. Figs 4-5 M. areolata. Fig. 7 M. galaxea, tinted brown. 48 No drawing. 49 J. Roberts del., 1772. Fig. 1, M. denticulata. Fig. 2 M. siderea. ELLIS & solander's 'zoophytes' 53 Fig. 3 M. exesa. The drawings are better than the engravings. *50 Fig. 1 M. favosa. Drawing shows mussid teeth and columella well. Fig. 2 M. abdita. 51 M. gyrosa. 52 No drawing. 53 *M. annularis; M. stellulata; *M. faveolata; M. pleiades. 54 J, Barnes del. et sculp. Fig. 1 M. spongiosa. Fig. 2 M. retepora, ink-and-wash. *55 M. rotulosa. A very poor oil sketch. Reversed. 56 Ehret, 1752. M. interstincta [coemlea]. Coloured blue on ink drawing. Reversed. 57 J. Barnes. M. muricata. 58-63 No drawings. 64 (See present Figs 2, 9). Fig. 2 Cellaria ternata. Reversed. Pencil. (Folio 53, D). Fig. 3 Sertularia spicata. Reversed. Pencil. (Folio 47, H). Fig. 4 S. spicata. Reversed. Pencil. (Folio 52, I). Fig. 5 S. evansi on Fucus. Reversed. Pencil. (Folio 47, B). Fig. 6 S. evansi. Reversed. Pencil. (FoHo 49, E). Fig. 7 Corallina pinnata. Reversed. Pencil. (Folio 48, C). Fig. 8 C. loricata. Reversed. Pencil. (Folio 57, A). A life-size habit drawing of 'Cellaria ternata'' also appears on Folio 53, but although it has brown transfer powder on the verso it does not appear on plate 64. 65 (See present Fig. 3) On verso of Folio 28. Figs 1,2 M. mammillaris . Fig. 3 M. oculata. Reversed. 66 (See present Fig. 4) See 'Folio 58', below. 67 (See present Fig. 5) Fig. 1 M. agaricites. On verso of Folio 30. Fig. 2 M. sinuosa. On verso of Folio 32. In addition there are some drawings by Ellis, probably tentative sketches or lay-outs for plates: Folio: 47 Hydrocoral {Stylaster or Allopora). 50 Verso. Sketch for details of Tubipora. 53 & 54 Verso. Four sheets of pencil sketches of corals. None seems to be for engravings. They are marked in upper corners 'PI. 55', 'PI. 56', 'PI. 57', but are not the originals for those plates. 58 Upper sheet: pencil sketches, evidently a study for a plate. One is M. rosea, same as PI. 66, fig. 4 (present Fig. 4); another is M. violacea, same as Folio 47 above, but not M. violacea of the text. Folio 58 also includes several unpublished drawings of species described in Ellis & Solander (1786): 54 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS Tubularia ramosa Ellis & Solander, 1786: 32 (today referred to Eudendrium [Hydrozoa]. Millepora spongites Ellis & Solander, 1786: 132. M. cervicornis Ellis & Solander, 1786: 134. M. skenei Ellis & Solander, 1786: 135. M. verrucaria Ellis & Solander, 1786: 137. M. alcicornis Ellis & Solander, 1786: 141. Madrepora rosea Ellis & Solander, 1786: 155 (today referred to Stylaster, p. 31). 59 Rough pencil sketches of M. astroites, M. radiata, M. cavernosa and M. interstincta. Also a sketch of a coral, pi. 20, fig. 14, of Ellis (1764: Phil. Trans., p. 52) [Galaxea ellisi Milne Edwards &Haime, 1857]. The dispersal and fate of Ellis's manuscripts and collections The Ellis manuscripts that survive are tolerably well documented (Savage, 1948), much of his correspondence is published (Smith, 1821), and the drawings from which the 'zoophyte' illustrations for his two books (Ellis, 1755; Ellis & Solander, 1786) were engraved are well preserved (Harmer, 19316; personal observation by both of us in 1978). Recently Groner (1987, appendix) has listed much archival material either written by Ellis or concerning his life. In contrast, most of his collections and those of others on which he worked were dispersed soon after his death and now can hardly be traced. Origins of the Ellis & Solander material The origins of many of the specimens described in the book were indicated in the text. Groner (1987) has provided a summary, from which the following is drawn: John Greg (11 specimens direct to Ellis, a further 6 via the Earl of Hillsborough) [Greg and Hillsborough each gave material to the BM as well; A. C. Wheeler, pers. comm.]; John Fothergill (5 given to Ellis); Banks and Solander (several Endeavour specimens); the following, small numbers - Jean- Baptiste Bohadsch, Rev. Dr William Borlase, Gustavius Brander, Mark Catesby, Rev. Clarke, Vitaliano Donati, Joseph Gaertner, Corbyn Morris, P. S. Pallas, Dr James Parsons, Thomas Pennant and William Webber. The sources of many other specimens were not indicated. Both Ellis and Solander had ready access to the collections of Fothergill, the BM, and the Duchess of Portland, and many specimens from these sources were described in the book. Lastly, many of the species included were those that had been described already in Elhs's earlier book (Ellis, 1755) based largely on Ellis's own cabinet - at that time collected largely by himself. Thus, apart from Ellis's own collections, the material came from many sources. With this exception, there never was a single large repository of Ellis & Solander types; and their subsequent whereabouts would be difficult to trace. However, the fate of a small proportion can at least be commented on; and if only a small amount of type material survives, at least the way can be shown to be largely clear for the future designation of neotypes. Surviving material The potential importance of any surviving Ellis or Ellis & Solander material would be great. For example, Ellis's earlier book (Ellis, 1755) was cited as sole taxonomic indication under many of the Sertularia species described by Linnaeus (1758) so that some, perhaps many, of the specimens in Ellis's cabinet were probably types of the corresponding Linnean species. Short notes concerning other aspects of the Linnean Sertularia species and Ellis's publications and collections have been published elsewhere (Cornelius, 1975fl: 267, 273; 19756: 394; 1979: 309). Probably similar importance would attach to Ellis (1755) zoophyte specimens referred to other genera by Linnaeus (1758). In addition, numerous species were first described in the second book (Ellis & Solander, 1786) and mentioned specimens from that work are similarly important. A review of a lot of the earlier work attempting to locate the Ellis collections of ELLIS & SOLANDER's 'ZOOPHYTES 55 both animals and plants was provided by Dixon (1960). The notes which follow largely present an account of the continued loss of these important collections. Most noteworthy of the surviving specimens are the dozen or so Ellis & Solander corals still preserved in Glasgow (Young, 1877; Kerr, 1910; Wheeler, 1986: 29; see also Table 2). There is another of the illustrated coral scleractinian specimens in the BMNH (present Fig. 10). A single hydroid specimen said to have originated from Ellis is preserved in the Royal College of Surgeons (p. 61). A single sponge specimen surviving intact in the BMNH collections has recently been located by Professor P. R. Bergquist and S. M. Stone. It is currently labelled Phyllospongia foliascens (Pallas, 1766), regd. no. 1872.9.25.1, presented by R. G. Whitfield; and is illustrated in Ellis & Solander, 1786: pi. 59, fig. 1, without textual comment apart from the caption 'sponges from Otaheite' (Tahiti). This interesting specimen has been studied by Bergquist et al. (in press). At least one species, a coralline alga, now has a designated neotype specimen and the original pencil drawing of it has been reproduced (Woelkerling & Irvine, 1986). It is probable that most of the hydroid specimens in the Linnean Herbarium in London were given to Linnaeus by Ellis (Svoboda & Cornelius, in press) but this certainly occurred after the publication of Ellis's first book (Ellis, 1755). Though the specimens might have originated from Ellis most are probably not primary types of the species included in the tenth edition of the Systema naturae (Linnaeus, 1758) (Cornelius, 1979: 309, notes 13-14). However, a specimen of the hydroid Aglaophenia pluma (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Linnean collection has been designated neotype (Svoboda, 1979; redesignated lectotype by Svoboda & Cornelius, in press); and others of A. kirchenpaueri (Heller, 1868) recognized as perhaps comprising the earhest record of the species from the British Isles although the species was not at that time recognized as distinct (Svoboda & Cornelius). Both these Aglaophenia specimens were almost certainly collected by Ellis. Certain of the Linnean hydroids are known to have origins other than Ellis but these are only a few (Cornelius, 1979: 309). Engravings for the plates Lamouroux (1821), in his preface, recorded that he had obtained the 63 copper plates of Elhs & Solander (1786) for reproduction in his own book. We have not attempted to trace their subsequent fate. British Museum material (see also section on Ellis's hydroids, below) It seems that some, maybe all, of the 1421 specimens of 'corals, sponges &c' in the collections of Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753) (de Beer, 1953) were in the BM when Solander and Ellis worked. Some were undoubtedly used by them when compiling the book, for in just a few places in the text they acknowledged the BM collection. But there is little specific evidence of the subsequent fate either of Sloane's zoophyte collections as a whole or of the particular specimens indicated by Ellis & Solander (1786). Many might have perished in the early years of the nineteenth century (p. 57). Ellis & Solander (1786) indicated BM material on pages 44-45 {Sertularia myriophyllum), 66 {Pennatula argentea), 86 {Gorgonia placomus), 110 {Corallina monile, a green alga, today known as Halimeda monilis (E&S)), 141 {Millepora alcicornis), 158 (Madrepora lactuca), and 179-80 {Alcyonium mammillosum and A. ocellatum). Of this material, only the specimen of the coral Madrepora lactuca has definitely been located in the modern BMNH collections (see caption to Fig. 10). A contemporary herbarium-preserved hydroid specimen of Sertularia myriophyllum [regd. no. 1973.10.5.50 (sic)], today referred to the genus Lytocarpia (= Thecocarpus in part), might be that mentioned by Ellis and Solander. But there is no definite indication and the specimen is smaller than the illustration in the book implies. In addition to the material indicated to be in the BM by Ellis & Solander, material they noted as being then in other collections might have been deposited there after the book was printed: but we have not checked this possibility. In 1983 our colleague Dr Shohei Shirai, of Mie-Kon, Japan, surveyed all the recent scleractinian types in the BMNH and found no Ellis & Solander type specimens. Whitehead (1975: 61) noted that in 1809 many natural history specimens were sold by the 56 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS BM to the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, London. The sale included many specimens, and is well known (e.g. also Barber, 1980: 162; Stearn, 1981: 21-22). A. C. Wheeler kindly showed PFSC typed transcripts of the manuscript reports indicated by Whitehead. They included no reference to cnidarian material so it would seem that Ellis & Solander specimens did not reach the Royal College of Surgeons by this route. One memorandum, dated 5 March 1836, by W. Clift (1775-1849), Curator at the Royal College of Surgeons, details all the specimens. It is clear that they were almost entirely vertebrate, mainly medical and anatomical (Clift, 1836). The statement by Cornelius (1975fl: 267) that some Ellis hydroid material is present in the Hans Sloane herbarium, preserved in the BMNH, differed from the opinion of Dandy (1958) who considered the material Cornelius cited to have originated from Buddie. Dandy was probably correct. The 'four glazed frames' of Ellis's 'zoophyte' specimens mentioned by Ellis (1755: vii), exhibited at the Royal Society in June 1752, and once hanging in a room in the old British Museum building, have still not been traced. They were probably decorative montages comprising hydroids, bryozoans, coralline algae and 'keratophytes'. The BM building was 'transformed' between 1823 and 1847, partly to accommodate the fast-growing natural history collections (Stearn, 1981: 41). The four frames have not been reported subsequently, possibly being disposed of at that time. Ellis's own account and description indicates that they were prepared at least as early as 1752. Since many of the species accounts in Ellis's (1755) first book were used as indications by Linnaeus it follows that some of the specimens in the glazed cases would have been eligible for type status. Rymsdyk & Rymsdyk (1791: 53) also mentioned the specimens: 'They have in the British Museum, in the Coral Room, on the chimney four pictures disposed in the form of landscapes of various classes of Coral, with their explanations given by Mr. Ellis, who endeavoured to prove that they are all of the animal kind.' They thus formed part of a scientific exhibit demonstrating one of the much-debated biological questions of the day; but whether they were originally prepared with that in mind cannot be determined. They were mentioned also by Harmer (1931a: 83): 'four glazed frames containing specimens presented by Ellis to the Royal Society, were later in the British Museum, but no trace can be found of this collection'; and by Sherborn (1940: 49): 'Antipathes were in a case over a mantel in the British Museum but no trace could be found in 1929.' It is not clear what evidence Sherborn had that antipatharians were involved. Wheeler (1984fl: 27) recorded the presenting of these framed montages of specimens to the BM shortly before 7 September 1758. He told us of an entry in the Donation Book of the BM for 1756-1782: '7 September 1758, 4 pictures of corallines, and nine specimens of corals and keratophytes, from John EUis, Esq.' which are presumably these items. Further literature citations to these 'pictures' were given by Dixon (1960) who confirmed their continued loss. A. C. Wheeler kindly brought to our attention what is apparently the only relevant entry in the Diary and Occurrences Book of the BM (Add. MSS 45875, f. 5) for 21 October 1774 (shortly before Solander wrote the Madrepora descriptions for the Ellis & Solander book - see p. 43): 'John EUis of Wimpole Street, Esq., has presented several specimens of corall [sic], from Jamaica. D. Solander.'. Rauschenberg (1978fl: 162) stated that during Ellis's lifetime his zoophyte collections were 'housed in his own quarters for a time, then in the British Museum, and finally in Ellis's last years at the Royal Society'. However, it is evident that with perhaps a single exception (Fig. 10) the specimens are no longer in either institution and were sold some time after Ellis's death. The specimens concerned might have been the four glazed frames already discussed, or other material from Ellis's collections. Thus Ellis wrote to David Skene (26 December 1770): 'I . . . could not send you the specimen of Zoophytes that you desire having long left off collecting, and what few I have I have given to the British Museum and have framed for the Royal Society.' [Edinburgh University Library, MS] ELLIS & SOLANDER's ' ZOOPHYTES 57 Between Banks's death in 1820 and the 1840s when the energetic curator J. E. Gray became involved with the zoological collections, the British Museum was not a safe place for delicate or unfashionable biological material. One historian has commented: 'The inability of the Natural History Department even to conserve its specimens . . . was so notorious [at this time] that the Treasury frequently refused to entrust it with specimens that had been collected at the Government's expense' (Barber, 1980: 162). Many specimens were burnt, and eventually the 'basement was cleared of its former dross' (Miller, 1973: 115). Among it was possibly much zoophyte material from Sloane, Ellis, Solander, Banks and the Endeavour. The Museum's reputation for curation has since changed! Numerous herbarium-mounted hydroid specimens stored in the botanical collections survived this sorry period, however, including many which had been collected from Ireland by Robert Brown (1777-1858), the first Keeper of Botany. These are now preserved in the Zoology Department of the BMNH. Apart from these there are few hydroids from the eighteenth century zoological collections of the BM extant today. Fothergill's collections The extensive collections of John Fothergill (1712-1780) were examined by Ellis & Solander in the 1760s and 1770s (presently cited correspondence, p. 43). A number were described in their book and would be types. Thus in a letter to David Skene Ellis wrote (22 October 1765): 'I . . . have the pleasure of often seeing my good friend Dr J. Fothergill who [visits me at home - Ellis was temporarily sick]. He has the best collection perhaps of any one person, of shells, corals, sponges and other marine substances. He has promised to lend me some of his sponges and what else may be curious in any way.' [Edinburgh University Library, MS] Evidently Ellis made use of Fothergill's collection over a long period, since he and Solander examined Fothergill's corals in 1774. Fothergill's collections were eventually sold and became largely untraceable. Whitehead (1978: 70, 82) dated the sale at 1781 and stated the price to be £1,100. Only a few of the corals remain (p. 55). Whitehead stated 'Fothergill undoubtedly had many Cook specimens', which were almost certainly seen by both Ellis and Solander when preparing their account. Durant & Rolfe (1984) concurred and drew attention to the existence of some of the Fothergill corals in William Hunter's collection in Glasgow. They were partly listed by Young (1877) and Kerr (1910), and a more complete list is given in Table 2. Indeed, surviving letters indicate that many of Fothergill's corals were being examined by Solander at the BM for Ellis in November 1774, when Solander was writing that part of the book (p. 43); and the published caption to plate 60 states that the illustrated specimen of the crown-of-thorns starfish, today known as Acanthaster planci (Linnaeus, 1758), 'was brought from Batavia by Captain W. Webber, and is in the possession of Dr. Fothergill'. Thus many of the specimens coming into Fothergill's possession became Ellis & Solander types (that oi A. planci was not a type, the species having been described earlier by Linnaeus). It is curious that Banks and Solander, who had jointly collected the corals originating from the Endeavour, did not incorporate them into the BM collection. Whitehead also stated that 'Hunter intended selling Fothergill's duplicate shells, flies and perhaps corals after they were arranged and labelled by his assistant'. Maybe that is why only a fraction of the total complement of coral species that there might have been survives. The scant evidence suggests that many of the Ellis & Solander Madrepora types, collected by Banks and Solander on James Cook's HMS Endeavour, were eventually sold as curios! 58 PAUL F. S. CORNELIUS & JOHN W. WELLS Sales of Ellis specimens The bulk of Ellis's collections, including some corals, was sold by auction on 10 June 1791, by the London dealer Hutchins. It is likely that species illustrated in both books (Ellis, 1755, Ellis & Solander, 1786) were involved. Lettsom (1786) recorded that Hunter bought 'Ellis's corals . . . and other curious subjects of natural history' for £1,500, an enormous amount of money. He commented: 'his corals, from which Ellis . . . delineated his system, and created a new species of animal beings . . . was the foremost in Europe. It included some corals from Cook's voyages. These and other curious objects of natural history were purchased by Dr Hunter for £1500.'. (Lettsom, 1784, vol. 3: liii; Lettsom, 1786: 55). Lettsom implied that many of these were Fothergill coral specimens and were Ellis & Solander types, and this seems to have been so. We have no evidence that any Endeavour corals passed into Ellis's hands, although since Ellis and Solander were friendly this is a possibility. Only a few survive (Young, 1877; Kerr, 1910; see also Table 2). By implication, A. C. Wheeler (in Chalmers-Hunt, 1976: 15) rated the Ellis collection among the few foremost in zoological importance, other than those of mollusc shells, to be sold by auction during the long period 1700-1972. A copy of the Ellis sale catalogue (Hutchins, 1791) preserved in the Prints & Drawings Room of the British Museum, London, has annotations giving many of the buyers and the prices paid. The sale comprised 107 lots. Number 97, annotated as purchased by the London dealer George Humphreys (1739-1826) for seven guineas, included 'seven large glazed frames, six of them in a mahogany case, with shelves and folding doors, in which are arranged a very fine and extensive collection of corals and corallines, sponges, &c. from which the figures and descriptions in the History of Zoophyte [Ellis & Solander, 1786] were taken; most of the specimens, which are chosen ones, are labelled, either by Mr. Ellis or Dr. Solander; . . .' Nine of the lots (11, 25, 42, 47, 61, 74, 79, 86, 93) included corals or other zoophytes, some 33 specimens of which were specifically named comprising 22 identified species of Madrepora, all species described in the 'Zoophytes'. Lot 93 consisted of two specimens: 'Madrepora protrusa [lapsus for M. pertusa], from the South Seas; and madrepora axillaris, both kinds extremely scarce. - See Ellis Zoophyte [sic], the descriptions and figures in which were taken from these specimens.'. An H in the margin of the BM copy of the sale catalogue suggests that these were purchased by Humphreys, who was identified by annotations of his full name at other places in the copy. Ellis's six-drawer cabinet and the seventh, separate, case evidently contained numerous specimens from which the illustrations were prepared and many would no doubt quaUfy for type status. Lot 98 in the Ellis Sale was: 'A parcel of sketches and drawings of corallines, sponges, and other zoophyte', sold to John Hunter for five guineas. Four other lots (100, 101, 102, 104) of drawings, including four by G. D. Ehret, were also purchased by him for £1 2s 6d. These drawings are now in the Royal College of Surgeons of England, London (Harmer, 19316) where they were examined jointly by the present authors (p. 51). Included among this magnificent collection of drawings of scleractinians, sponges, hydroids and other zoophytes were examples of the work of Roberts, Taylor and Ehret. Humphreys also bought from the Ellis sale Lot 30 'A wainscott box containing a very large collection of fuci, or sea-weeds, the whole of which are arranged by Mr. Ellis' (MS note in BM copy of Hutchins, 1791). Its subsequent fate is unknown to us. The coralline algae from Ellis's collections were also sold at this sale, and can no longer be traced (Woelkerling & Irvine, 1986). Other lots in the Ellis sale included various 'zoophyte' items, almost certainly with a few types, but the buyers are not recorded in the BM copy. George Humphreys was active for many years (summary in Whitehead, 1975: 72). Some clue as to the subsequent fate of some of the Ellis specimens might be hoped for in following his activities after the sale. A MS note by W. Clift, Curator at the Royal College of Surgeons, London, dated 16 June 1830, states that George Humphreys's collection was bought by 'Mr Sowerby, Dealer & Auctioneer, and afterwards sold at various sales and times'. He continues with a note on the fate of a specimen of Encrinus from the Ellis sale in 1791 [Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, Hunterian Drawings vol. 1, f. 11]. Whitehead (1975) fisted some of Humphreys's purchases at the Ellis sale but corals were not ELLIS & SOLANDER'S ' ZOOPHYTES 59 among them. In 1786 Humphreys bought at the 'Portland Sale' (Skinner, 1786); and in 1797 he conducted a sale for a Paris dignitary, C. A. de Calonne. In fact, the only sale catalogue ascribed to G. Humphreys in the British Library Catalogue of Printed Books was that of the de Calonne sale (Humphreys, 1797). Humphr