This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Jacques Labillardière is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
A fact from Jacques Labillardière appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 June 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the scientific collections of Jacques Labillardière (1755–1834) were seized by the British in 1793 as spoils of war, but were returned after lobbying by Sir Joseph Banks?
"By this HER Majesty will lose an acquisition to HER herbarium,.... " In 1796? I thought Victoria did'nt become queen til later.
By "her" Banks means "Britain" (which is female when personified, see Britannia). So "her Majesty" means "Britain's king", that is, George III. I agree it's a bit confusing, but it's what he wrote. Do you think it's so confusing it needs a gloss? Gdr 21:29, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)