The physician, anatomist and man-midwife, Dr William Hunter (1718-1783) and the gentleman-scientist, Sir Joseph Banks (1743-1820) shared similar objectives for the advancement of the natural sciences in the second half of the eighteenth century. Both men were naturalists, engaged in personal and organisational pursuit of collecting and disseminating various forms of early scientific information. While Hunter concentrated on developing anatomy as a form of useful knowledge, Banks's efforts centred on botany, a field of natural history crucial to Enlightenment ideas of improvement, of 'knowledge and social utility combined'. 1 This essay describes their interconnected associations, affiliations and dealings, as patrons and collectors, and principal advisors in these emergent disciplines. Together, both Banks and Hunter contributed to Enlightenment views of public discourse surrounding the production of useful knowledge, in gathering and distributing the visual and material artefacts of exploration, forensic investigation, collation, and categorisation. Importantly, in their professional and personal activities both men highlighted developing forms of artistic practice and nascent theories of visual arts and how these would enhance and increase the circulation of natural knowledge. There is no doubt that Banks and Hunter exercised comparable approaches, supporting the integration of written descriptions and images, and how this aided comprehension but, as this essay suggests, their opinions often diverged on the methods and purposes of the visual arts, within a more generalised cultural sphere amongst members of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Arts, during the period.From Soho Square to Great Windmill Street As for many eighteenth-century collectors, Banks and Hunter prioritised finding individual houses in London where they could establish their museums. These Two 'centres of calculation' were situated within a short walking distance of each other, in the city of Westminster. 2 (fig. 1 and fig. 2). The sites of both houses were located within the major developments taking place in London at this time, and typical of these re-designs of the city are John Gwynn's London and Westminster Improved, 1766, incorporating: 'new royal parks and palaces, open quays along the Thames with a new bridge, a grid of squares and thoroughfares, and the meticulously detailed straightening of the crooked streets and alleys of the old metropolis.' 3 Gwynn's plans sought to articulate a response in urban design to the collaborative nature of economic and social conservativism, characteristic of both Banks's and Hunter's sense of Enlightenment improvement. 4 Among the newly-paved, clean and well-lit streets of Westminster, Joseph Banks's house, 32 Soho Square, and William Hunter's home, 16 Great Windmill Street, dominated the corresponding cultural landscapes of natural history and anatomy, supplying a burgeoning early scientific community access to an increasingly dynamic range of resources. The homes of both men included impr...