Gerard Krefft

Johann Ludwig (Louis) Gerard Krefft (17 February 1830 – 19 February 1881), a talented artist and draughtsman, and the Curator of the Australian Museum for 13 years (1861-1874), was one of Australia's first and most influential zoologists and palaeontologists. According to Macdonald, et al. (2007), Krefft "was among the first to raise the alarm" in relation to "the devastating effects" of the invasive species, such as "sheep, cats, etc., on native species". Also, along with significant others, such as the proprietor of the Melbourne ''Argus'', Edward Wilson, Krefft expressed considerable concern in relation to the effects of the expanding European settlement upon the indigenous population.

In addition to his numerous scientific papers, his publications include ''The Snakes of Australia'' (1869), ''Guide to the Australian Fossil Remains in the Australian Museum'' (1870), ''The Mammals of Australia'' (1871), and ''Catalogue of the Minerals and Rocks in the Australian Museum'' (1873).See list of Publications, below. He is also noted for his scientific description of the Queensland lungfish.
::"Gerard Krefft is a significant figure in the history of nineteenth century Australian science. He is celebrated not only for his zoological work but as a man who was prepared to challenge individuals on points of scientific fact regardless of their position in Sydney society or metropolitan science. He is also remembered as one who could be abrasive and incautious in delicate political situations and a man whose career and life ultimately ended in tragedy. The dramatic end of Krefft’s career in 1874 where he was stripped of his position as Australian Museum curator, physically removed from the Museum and his character assassinated often overshadows his early career and his development as a scientist." (Stephens, 2013, p.187)

Family

Krefft was born on 17 February 1830 in the Duchy of Brunswick (now part of Germany), the son of William Krefft, a confectioner, and his wife Johanna (''née'' Buschhoff).Rutledge & Whitley (1974).

He married Annie McPhail (-1926), later (1893) Mrs. Robert Macintosh, on 6 February 1869. They had four children, only two of whom survived their infancy: Rudolph Gerard Krefft (1869-1951), and Herman Gerard Krefft (1879-1911). An unnamed stillborn daughter was born on 2 July 1874.

Artist

He was educated at St Martin's College in Braunschweig (i.e., ) from 1834 to 1845. As a youth, he was interested in art and wished to study painting. After his schooling, his family found employment for him at a mercantile firm in Halberstadt.

In order to avoid the military draft, he emigrated to New York City in 1850.Stephens, 2013.Nancarrow (2009), p.146. Whilst there, he encountered the work of John James Audubon at the New York Mercantile Library. Having been granted permission to do so, Krefft made copies of some of the Audubon plates, which he then sold to raise his fare to Australia. Krefft arrived in Melbourne in November 1852 and worked in the Victorian goldfields for some five years. Krefft contributed examples of his drawings to the ''Victorian Industrial Society's'' Exhibition, in Melbourne, in February 1858:
::"Mr. Krefft’s drawings have a special interest, as they are illustrations from the life of some of the more curious animals, &c., of the country, taken during the late expedition to the Murray, with Mr. Blandowski. The most striking is that of a native corroboree, at Gall Gall, and of the rare animal, the chæropus, about which there has of late been so much controversy.” Review of the Exhibition, ''Illustrated Journal of Australasia'', March 1858.

Museum curator and administrator

Krefft was one of a number of influential German-speaking residents such as William Blandowski, Ludwig Becker, Hermann Beckler, Amalie Dietrich, Diedrich Henne, Johann Luehmann, Johann Menge, Ludwig Preiss, Carl Ludwig Christian Rümker (a.k.a. Ruemker), Moritz Richard Schomburgk, Richard Wolfgang Semon, George Ulrich, Eugene von Guérard, Robert von Lendenfeld, Ferdinand von Mueller, Georg von Neumayer, and Carl Wilhelmi who brought their "epistemic traditions" to Australia, and not only became "deeply entangled with the Australian colonial project", but also "intricately involved in imagining, knowing and shaping colonial Australia" (Barrett, et al., 2018, p.2).

Melbourne

A talented artist and draughtsman, and having met Blandowski when he (Krefft) was making copies of Gould's illustrations in ''The Mammals of Australia'' in the Public Library of Victoria, Krefft was hired to help sketch and collect specimens for the National Museum of Victoria on William Blandowski's explorations on the Murray River and Darling River in 1856–1857.

Blandowski was recalled to Melbourne by the Victorian Government in early August; and Krefft took command of the expedition until it returned at the end of November 1857.Whitley (1958), p.23. In 1858 he was appointed to the National Museum of Victoria, to catalogue the expedition's collection of 17,400 specimens.

Sydney

In 1858, following the death of his father, he went back to Germany, via England (where he visited the principal museums and, also, visited John Gould in London), taking many illustrations and specimens with him. Krefft returned to Australia from his sojourn in Germany, with brief stays ''en route'' at the Cape of Good Hope and Adelaide, arriving in Sydney on 6 May 1860.

In June 1860, on the recommendation of Governor Sir William Denison, he was appointed Assistant Curator to Simon Rood Pittard (1821–1861). at the Australian Museum, "much to the annoyance of the museum trustees, who would have preferred someone with a formal degree". Pittard, driven by his Anglo-Catholic, Puseyite views and following the practice of Charles Willson Peale at the Peale Museum, in Philadelphia adorned the walls of the Museum with inscriptions of biblical texts. Less than three weeks after Pittard’s death in August 1861 the Trustees decided that these inscriptions were " obe removed, and that in future “no words be inscribed on the walls of the Board Room without the consent of the Trustees"."

Having performed all of the duties of the position since the death of Mr. Pittard in August 1861, Krefft was appointed Curator of the museum in May 1864.

During his time at the Australian Museum, Krefft maintained a relationship with the Melbourne Museum, corresponding and exchanged specimens with Frederick McCoy, its Director. He also corresponded with a wide range of eminent overseas naturalists, including Charles Darwin, A.K.L.G. Günther, and Sir Richard Owen in the UK; L.J.R. Agassiz in the USA; "and many learned German scientists" and these were "informal communications with individuals rather than official dealings through government agencies, with the ensuing connections giving rise to further interactions with savants and museums in other centres of knowledge and power, including Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Sweden, Argentina, Canada, India and the United States, as well as Britain" (Davidson, 2017, p.8).

"The New Museum Idea"

Krefft was "a dynamic figure who vigorously researched, wrote about and promoted the Museum’s collections". He served as the Australian Museum's Curator at a time of significant culture change, when the museum itself was shifting "from einga colonial offshoot of the British science establishment, managed by a group of gentleman naturalists, towards ecomingan institution serving the needs of an increasingly independent and professional group of scientists".

During his tenure as Curator Krefft was responsible for making many significant changes to the Museum's premises and its displays, and, also, for actively promoting the concept of the museum as a popular institution appealing to a broader audience that is, an establishment designed to provide experiences that engage, entertain, ''and'' educate all ages, economic groups, education levels, and social classes as well as being a place for the collection, preservation, and display of specimens, and the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, Krefft's advocacy of the complete separation of the Museum's at-the-time confused and disordered collection into:
:(a) the exhibition spaces and ordered, comprehensive, displays for the public (known today as ''synoptical collections''), and
:(b) the (systematically housed elsewhere on the premises) specimens, catalogues, and other research material primarily intended for research, rather than display,
produced a culture-clash with the " gentlemen amateurs" among the Trustees, who were collectors themselves, and were "building up heirprivate collections sometimes at the expense of the museum" these included, Dr. James Charles Cox, Edward Smith Hill, Sir William John Macleay, Captain Arthur Onslow, and Alexander Walker Scott that, eventually, would lead to Krefft's later 1874 dismissal.

Cabinets of curiosities

For at least two centuries British (and colonial) museums, clearly reflecting their '' Wunderkämmer/Cabinets of Curiosities'' heritage, had done little more than present "aimless collection of curiosities and bric-à-brac, brought together without method or system of collections"; where, for instance, one of the most famous collections in "bygone days", that of the seventeenth century’s '' Musæum Tradescantianum'' (the collection which later provided the nucleus for Oxford University’s Ashmolean Museum), "was a miscellany without didactic value", "its arrangement was unscientific, and the public gained little or no advantage from its existence" (Lindsay, 1911, p.60).

In August 1846, within the Act establishing the Smithsonian Institution, was a provision transferring the custody of the United States' official ''National Cabinet of Curiosities'', previously deposited in the US Patent Office Building, to the Smithsonian.

Public museums

In 1864, towards the end of his lengthy career as the Curator of the British Museum, John Edward Gray, acknowledging the differences between a museum's research and public pedagogy functions, and expressing his hope that his colleagues would "heartily concur in doing all that is in our power to render he British Museumand other institutions conducive to the increase of the knowledge, the happiness, and the comforts of the people",Gray (1864), "Presidential Address", p.86. remarked that, in his view "public museums" were meant to serve two purposes:
::1: "the diffusion of instruction and rational amusement among the mass of the people";Gray (1864), "Presidential Address", p.76. and
::2: "to afford the scientific student every possible means of examining and studying the specimens of which the museum consists".
At a time when "Colonial museums tended to exhibit specimens row upon row, and for the most part neglected to incorporate up-to-date techniques such as explanatory labels and habitat cases" (Sheets-Pyenson, 1988, p.123), Gray's scientific position, curatorial rationale, and administrative approach were strongly supported by Krefft who was "devoted to the museum's interests", rather than to those of the trustees who had already begun separating his own museum's research collections from its exhibition collections, and had already adopted many of Gray's measures by the early 1860s:
::"The interest which all classes take in Natural History, has gradually changed the old fashioned curiosity shops of fifty years ago, into useful Museums where rational amusement, combined with instruction, is offered to the mass of the people, and where students have every opportunity to examine and study the specimens, of which the Museum consists." — Gerard Krefft, 5 August 1868.

The new museum idea

::"The new museum idea sthat the museum is not a conservative but a progressive educational force, that it has a teaching quality or value peculiar to itself, that the museum succeeds if it teaches, fails partially if it merely amuses or interests people and fails entirely if it simply mystifies. The old museum idea was that of a sanctuary or refuge, a safe deposit vault for curious, rare, or beautiful objects which might be lost or destroyed; the ignorant visitor was tolerated rather than attracted, the curator was a keeper, not a teacher." Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, 15 October 1912.
::"The "new museum idea" encouraged curators to design galleries and carefully select objects for display so as to actively and explicitly ''teach'' visitors, rather than simply (and passively) allowing them access to the entirety of the collection and expecting them to engage in self-directed study." Erin Lorraine Anderson (2020, p.100).
In 1893, Sir William Henry Flower, labelled Gray's view "''The New Museum Idea''", describing it as "the key-note of nearly all the museum reform of recent date", (Flower, 1893, pp.29-30). Although these views were not unique to Gray, it does seem that Gray's (1864) axiom had the widest dissemination over the ensuing years, was the most widely quoted and, therefore, can be said to have had the greatest influence influencing many world-wide, including Krefft, and in the UK, such as Flower, at the British Museum (see: Flower, 1898), in the USA, such as G. Brown Goode at the Smithsonian Institution (see: Goode, 1895), etc.

In 1917, American museum director John Cotton Dana lamented the fact that there was still great room for improvement, noting that the best museum displays were to be found in department stores, rather than in museums of the day.

Photography

::"A photographic establishment is one of the most essential parts of a modern museum" Gerard Krefft, 5 August 1868.
One of Krefft’s most important curatorial innovations was his introduction of photography into the Australian Museum's practice a medium he had encountered during his time with the Blandowski Expedition in 1856–1857 a decision which not only served to substantiate the veracity of Krefft’s observations, and enhance his international recognition overall; but, also, over time, significantly reduced the need to send precious specimens and samples overseas to the detriment of the Museum's own collections.
::"Photography was promoted by the museum's curator, Gerard Krefft, not only as a way of documenting the museum's objects and collections but also a means to reorient colonial natural history away from its traditionally one-way trajectory – based on the colonial–imperial binary of Sydney and London – towards a more cosmopolitan perspective that involved other European traditions and centres."
::"Through this strategic use of photography, Krefft leveraged the Australian Museum and his own scientific standing away from a position of almost complete subservience to the dictates of the centre to claim a greater level of intellectual autonomy and, ultimately, international acknowledgement for the Australian Museum’s significant role in the advance of imperial science." (Davidson, 2017, pp.57, 16.)
The thousands of meticulously arranged visual images on the glass plates that Krefft and his assistant, Henry Barnes, produced (over 15 years) through the collodion wet plate process, both on-site (at the museum) and in-the-field, recording landscapes and people (on expeditions), demonstrated and validated Krefft's expertise to all and sundry.

Given the widespread, prevailing "mistrust with which colonial explorers' and naturalists' observations and material evidence were sometimes received by London's scientific elite due to their lack of credentials or social standing" (Davidson, 2017, p.68), the images not only "provide ocular proof and thus incontrovertible photographic evidence" of the claims Krefft made for a specific item of interest, but also, given the extremely wide range of disciplinary mindsets prevailing at the time, they also served as (inclusive) "'' boundary objects''" viz., entities that "facilitate an ecological approach to knowledge making and sharing" by "provid ngconnections between different individuals and groups who nevertheless might view them, interpret them, and use them in distinct ways, or for different aims" (Davidson, 2017, p.10).

The Queensland lungfish (''Neoceratodus forsteri'')

In 1835, Louis Agassiz, having examined teeth that had been extracted from the Rhaetian (latest stage of the Triassic) fossil beds of the Aust Cliff region of Gloucestershire in South West England, identified and described ten different species of a holotype he named ''ceratodus latissimus'' (‘horned tooth’ + 'broadest'), and which he supposed (based upon the structure of their teeth plates) belonged to a kind of shark.

"Natural History" columns in ''The Sydney Mail''

Given that one of Krefft's main objectives, as Curator, was to re-position the Museum as a "forum of people's science" (Moyal, 1986, p.99), and given Krefft's recognition of the economic, social, and educational value of a wider dissemination of an accurate, up-to-date knowledge and understanding of scientific matters (especially Australian natural history) and the useful contribution that knowledge and understanding might make to the emerging colony and its developing community he published more than 150 lengthy once-a-week "Natural History" columns (from March 1871 until June 1874) on an extremely wide range of subjects (see

, in the ''Sydney Mail'', that were specifically directed at an educated Australian lay audience (rather than, that is, engaging with his well-informed fellow scientists).

In his first article (Krefft, 1871), Krefft spoke of how, although "few countries offer such a wide field to the student of nature as Australia" reflecting a view that had been expressed a decade earlier by the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker that there were very few "handy books for the beginner" available in Sydney, "which has caused, in some measure, the apathy of the people to study our natural products". Moreover, "the most useful books" were little known, and many of those were "so expensive that they cannot be purchased, except by the wealthy" and so, "under these circumstances", he wrote, he would "try and supply the deficiency by giving in the columns of the ''Sydney Mail'' a series of articles on our natural history, which, in course of time, will form a complete work on the subject".

Due to the distractions connected with the last stages of his disputes with the trustees of the Australian Museum, the last item he published whilst still Museum curator was on 27 June 1874. Sixteen weeks later, following his separation from the Museum, he resumed his weekly articles, and went on to publish another 33 "Natural History" articles over the next nine months.

July 1873

In July 1873, he devoted two of his columns (1873a, 1873b) to

The Darwin Correspondence Project contains an un-dated fragment of a letter from Krefft, in which he explains that, given the "dreadful ... ignorance of even well educated people", and the constant criticisms of Darwin's "theories" voiced in Melbourne by the devout Irish Catholic Professor Frederick McCoy of the National Museum of Victoria, and the Evangelical Anglican Bishop of Melbourne Charles Perry, and, especially, the well-attended (7 July) Sydney lecture by the Melbourne-based Jesuit, Joseph O'Malley, on "Noah's Ark" with the devout Irish Catholic layman and Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Peter Faucett in the chair,

Dismissal from office

The Trustees controversially dismissed Krefft from his position of Curator in 1874. Krefft's assistant curator for the preceding decade, George Masters, had resigned earlier that year, in order "to become curator of the growing collection of Sir William Macleay" (Strahan, 1979, p.135) a collection which Masters continued to curate, once it was transferred to the Macleay Museum at the University of Sydney, until his retirement in 1912. The Museum trustees, at a special meeting held the day after Krefft's removal from the Museum's premises, appointed the Macleay ''protégé'', Edward Pierson Ramsay, to the position of Curator (Strahan, 1979, p.38), an office that Ramsay held until 1895, when he was succeeded by Robert Etheridge.

Gold theft and its aftermath

Following his report to the trustees that, upon his return to the Museum on Christmas Eve 1873, he had discovered a robbery (which was never solved) of "specimens of gold to the value of £70", and the trustees (although eager to do so) being unable to find any evidence of Krefft's complicity, he had fallen foul of the Trustees especially William John Macleay, whose extensive private collection would, in the 1890s, become the foundation of the collections of the Macleay Museum at the University of Sydney (Strahan, 1979, p.37) with his subsequent accusations that the trustees were using the Museum's resources to augment their own private collections.

Museum closure

In the process of the escalating dispute between the trustees and Krefft, the Museum was closed to the public, by order of the trustees, for eleven weeks from 4 July 1874 to 23 September 1874 and, at the same time, a police guard was stationed at the Museum, and Krefft was denied access to all parts of the Museum (including the cellar within which the fuel for his much-needed-in-the-winter fires was stored), except his private residence. Krefft had been unable to meet the trustees' request to appear before them on the Thursday (2 July 1874) because he was unwell (he had supplied a medical certificate to that effect), and that his wife, whose difficult confinement had been attended by George Bennett, had just delivered a stillborn child (on 2 July 1874), a daughter, after two days of intense labour with Krefft by her side the whole time.

Eviction from his residential quarters

On 1 September 1874, three weeks before Krefft's forceful eviction, long-term trustees George Bennett (who, at the time, was attending Mrs Krefft's confinement) and William Branwhite Clarke both resigned "as a consequence of the steps recently taken by the trustees of the Museum with respect to the Curator".

On 21 September 1874, Krefft and his family were physically removed from his Museum apartment within which he had barricaded himself, by the "diminutive bailiff" Charles H. Peart, assisted by two known prizefighters (identified as Kelly and Williams) who had been expressly hired to effect the eviction, because the Police refused to act on the grounds that Krefft had not been dismissed by the Government, only by the trustees (and, therefore, it was a civil (and not a police) matter). The press report of Krefft's subsequent (November 1874) damages action noted that,
::"throughout the affair reffthad denied the trustees' power to dismiss him; and, on the trustees appealing to the Government, the Colonial Secretary iz.,_Henry_Parkes.html"_;"title="Henry_Parkes.html"_;"title="iz.,_Henry_Parkes">iz.,_Henry_Parkes">Henry_Parkes.html"_;"title="iz.,_Henry_Parkes">iz.,_Henry_Parkeshad_cautiously_told_the_trustees_that,_as_they_thought_it_expedient_to_expel__refftwithout_first_seeking_the_advice_of_the_Government,_no_assistance_could_be_afforded".Law:_Jury_Court:_Sittings_for_Trial_of_Causes:_Krefft_v._Hill,_''The_(Sydney)_Empire'',_(Thursday,_19_November_1874),_p.4.
/ref>
_
At_the_time,_all_of_his_possessions_were_seized;_and,_almost_two_years_after_his_forcible_eviction_Krefft_was_complaining_that_"my_own_and_my_wife's_personal_property,_my_books,_specimens,_scientific_instruments,_medals_and_testimonials",_all_of_which_had_been_"illegally_taken_possession_of_by_the_trustees",_were_still_to_be_returned_to_him._At_the_time_of_his_eviction,_and_he_was_forcibly_carried_out_of_his_apartment,_refusing_to_move_from_his_chair,_and_was,_then,_unceremoniously_thrown_out_into_Macquarie_street_by_the_prizefighters.

_Krefft's_position

Krefft's_position_was_that_the_trustees,_acting_independently_of_the_New_South_Wales_government,_had_no_right_to_dismiss_him.

_Trustee's_allegations

The_trustees__two_members_of_which,_William_John_Macleay.html" ;"title="Henry_Parkes">iz.,_Henry_Parkes.html" ;"title="Henry_Parkes.html" ;"title="iz., Henry Parkes">iz., Henry Parkes">Henry_Parkes.html" ;"title="iz., Henry Parkes">iz., Henry Parkeshad cautiously told the trustees that, as they thought it expedient to expel refftwithout first seeking the advice of the Government, no assistance could be afforded".Law: Jury Court: Sittings for Trial of Causes: Krefft v. Hill, ''The (Sydney) Empire'', (Thursday, 19 November 1874), p.4.
/ref>

At the time, all of his possessions were seized; and, almost two years after his forcible eviction Krefft was complaining that "my own and my wife's personal property, my books, specimens, scientific instruments, medals and testimonials", all of which had been "illegally taken possession of by the trustees", were still to be returned to him. At the time of his eviction, and he was forcibly carried out of his apartment, refusing to move from his chair, and was, then, unceremoniously thrown out into Macquarie street by the prizefighters.

Krefft's position

Krefft's position was that the trustees, acting independently of the New South Wales government, had no right to dismiss him.

Trustee's allegations

The trustees two members of which, William John Macleay">William Macleay and Captain Arthur Onslow, "manifested great animus towards Mr. Krefft, and used their utmost exertions to cast obloquy upon that gentleman" responded by accusing Krefft of drunkenness, falsifying attendance records, wilfully destroying a fossil sent to the Museum by one of its trustees, George Bennett, for its preparation to be sent on the Richard Owen at the British Museum an entirely false allegation that was completely (and independently) refuted by a letter from Owen, received by Bennett in late June 1874, in which Owen "acknowledged receiving he fossil specimenin good order" and, even, condoning the sale of pornographic postcards. The (fifty to sixty) postcards in question, "some of which were of the most indecent character" (which had been "seen" by one of the trustees "in the workshop of the Museum") had been copied entirely without Krefft's knowledge or consent, by the museum employees (and Krefft's subordinates) taxidermist/photographer Robert Barnes and his brother Henry Barnes.

Legal action and legislative outcome

Krefft subsequently brought an action, in November 1874, to recover £2,000 damages for trespass and assault against one of the trustees, Edward Smith Hill, and "the jury, after a short deliberation, found a verdict for the plaintiff, with £250 for damages". The judge ( Justice Alfred Cheeke) held that Krefft was a superior officer under government, and that no one had power to remove him but the governor with the advice of the executive council.

In 1876, the New South Wales parliament passed a vote of £1,000 to be applied in satisfaction of Krefft's claims.
::When the courts awarded Krefft damages n 1874 the trustees refused to pay up, though they had plundered the museum's coffers to recoup their own legal costs.
When parliament voted £1000 for arrears of salary n 1876 the Robertson government refused to pay unless Krefft renounced all other claims. refftdeclined, sued the trustees for his medals and property, and was awarded £925. They offered to return his belongings with only £200. All things considered, the trust appear to have acted unconscionably and illegally, though possibly under provocation." Macinnes (2012), p.114.

Death

Krefft died on 19 February 1881 from congestion of the lungs. He was buried in the churchyard of St Jude's Church of England, Randwick, Sydney.

Research

* 1864: he published a ''Catalogue of Mammalia in the Collection of the Australian Museum''.
* 1865: he published the pamphlet, ''Two Papers on the Vertebrata of the Lower Murray and Darling and on the Snakes of Sydney'' the two papers had been read before he Philosophical Society of New South Wales.
The pamphlet also included a third paper on the Aborigines of the Lower Murray and Darling (i.e., Krefft, 2 August 1865).
* 1869: ''The Snakes of Australia'' was published, which was the first definitive work on this group of Australian animals.
Unable to find a publisher, Krefft eventually financed the publication himself, and it was published by the Government Printer. Krefft and his publication were praised at the Sydney Intercolonial Exhibition of 1870 and the sisters, Helena Scott (a.k.a. Helena Forde) and Harriet Scott, received a Very High Commendation for the striking artwork that accompanied Krefft's text.
* 1870: he published the first scientific description of the Queensland lungfish (Krefft, 1870a, 1870b, 1870c, 1870d) and, by announcing his discovery in the pages of the ''Sydney Morning Herald'' (1870a), rather than in some "learned British journal ... Krefft was not only claiming the lungfish, utwas also staking a claim for Australian scientific independence".
**In November 1889, Norman Lockyer, the founding Editor of ''Nature'', noted that Krefft's discovery of "the Dipnoous iz., 'having both gills and lungs'fish-like creature ''Ceratodus'' of the Queensland rivers" was " neof the more striking zoological discoveries which come within our irsttwenty years f publication.
* 1871: he published ''The Mammals of Australia'', which also included plates by the Scott sisters.
* 1872: Krefft was one of the few scientists supporting Darwinism in Australia during 1870s; and, as of May 1872, became a correspondent of Charles Darwin see, for instance, Darwin's acknowledgement, in ''The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms {{R from other capitalisation ...