Aug 17/[18]92
THE CAMP, SUNNINGDALE.
Dear Mr. Prain
The two drawings of Orchids[?] safely arrived but in a very crumpled condition. Very many thanks for sending them. They are, as I expected, new species, & I [am] much amused[?] to get them figured -- but what with the loads figured & still to figure of the "Icones" plates, that are referred to in Fl. B. Ind., & those forms of the Calcutta Garden Annuals, I fear that I shall choke botanists[?] with Orchids[?]. Nevertheless the more I blunder away at the order the more sure I am, that plates, however bad, are alone really useful for specific determination. -- I will take care that the 2 drawings go back to you. The two boxes of Palms[?] arrived

two days ago, & I will report[?] upon them soon. There are I fear [1 word illeg.] both species & numbers of Scortechinis of which I have seen nothing. Most of the Calami*1 now sent appear to me to be new to our collection. I am interested in what you say of Colletts big Rore[?]. I have not compared it with R. indica, but shall ask Baker about it, & let you know the result. I have just done Pandaneae for Fl. B.I.*2 - a weary & unsatisfactory job. It is really a scandal, that after all the lives, money & time, that have been invested in Botany in India, whole groups of common things should be left in deplorable disorder as far as I can discover King & Griffiths are the only men who have attempted the reduction of some of them to limits, generic & specific. i. e. since Roxburgh's times

I have at least 6 Pandani (Burmese & Malayan) of which I can make nothing. The specimens are far too imperfect to describe, & even were they better I should probably have named them as ever to be afterwards proved to be species named before from [1 word illeg.]. The condition botanically of the Scitaminea, great Aroids, Dioscoreas Smilaxes & of Bengal & the Circars{?] is a disgrace to Indian Botany. I allude especially to species named or described by Roxburgh, many of which might surely be absolutely identified, & others guessed it with a useful if not absolute approach to accuracy. The interests of Bengal Botany have been sacrificed to those of distant & more attractive regions. Griffith, led by a love of Morphological research & the ambition to publish a "Flora Indica" alone took up the big ugly things. I know the difficulties, & am not

blaming the present garden staff, who has done & is doing splendid work, but this is an old grievance. Roxburgh did get trusted many Scitamineae how is that no one since &c & Dmons if has got 1/2 [as] many of these, or added to them in Bengal? I have not heard of Dr King for some weeks -- he should have been at Kew long before this according to his earlier intentions. You will be greatly disappointed with my Palm work. I have never felt at home with them & Beccaris voluminous undigested Italian notes, whilst saddling me with specific names &c has left me to find diagnoses & characters. They are noble things but to set them out in a form suitable for a Concise Flora requires that they should have been fully & systematically described in detail beforehand -- I have made great use of the "leaflets" size[?][,] number & arrangement as great helps to the beginner; but one must be up in Palms to use any book on *3 Ichele[?] set to N Guinea[?] as far as I have disputed the Palms now cut. Jos. D Hooker [signature]