Documentation

Letters

-Search for letters
-Search in texts

Manuscripts

Editions

Links

Contact

C18

Link: linnaeus.c18.net/Letter/L0191 • Carl Linnaeus to Christian Gottlieb Ludwig, 28 July 1737 n.s.
Dated 1737 Jul: 28. Sent from Hartecamp (Netherlands) to Leipzig (Germany). Written in Latin.

Viro Clarissimo Celeberrimoque,
M[onsieur] Chr[istiano] Gottlieb Ludwig,
Medico, Doctore, [a][a] : MS1 [read] Doctori
In Acad[emia] Lipsiensi publico Docenti,
Botanico[b][b] : MS1 <Botanice> Botanico Egregio,
S[alutem]
C[arolus] Linnaeus

A longo retro tempore Tuas ultimas per D[ominum] AndryAndrew, John (1710-1772).
British. Student and Linnaeus’s friend
in Leiden, doctor of medicine at Oxford,
physician at Exeter. Correspondent of
Linnaeus.
habui. Exspectavi D[ominum] KesselringKesselting, Johann Heinrich
(1713-1741). German. Professor of
medicine, Königsberg.
, qui non adhuc nobis innotuit. Exspectavi Tuum Donum in hunc diem frustra. Vellem prius videre Tua Genera,[1] antequam responsum darem. Nuper tandem ea apud Bibliopolas Amstelodamenses obtinui; ea perlegi sollicite. Doleo me non accepisse Tuas literas quas cum Kesselring mittebas, in quibus Te multa scripsisse dicis.

Cum Lugduni eram, apud D[ominum] Andry tua vidi cogitata de meis characteribus, quos nullo modo extollo, sed optime et melius quam alius ullus novi meos defectos. Hos omni die emendo, augeo, polio. Volui potius eos tum qualescumque edere quam incertis futuris temporibus, quae collegeram, studiose committere.[2]

1. Scrupulosior notarum determinatio. Mei characteres nil sunt nisi descriptiones genericae. Descriptio speciei, quo plures notas & proprietates includat, eo perfectior est; affectavi hoc in genericis. Scribant alii definitiones genericas secundum suas ideas, ego modo descriptiones, qualescumque potero, sistam. Novi, quod in speciebus solo nomine; si differentia alias selecta, eoque bene determinare licet speciem. Tamen descriptiones non rejicio.

2. Situm neglexit non raro. Utinam hoc mihi ostenderes! Situm naturalissimum dedi in fundamentis meis.[3] Istum praesupposui, ut ambages evitarem. Sic solent et Zoologi, cum describant animalia. Ipsis superfluum videtur describere oculorum situm in capite, nasum intra oculos, dentes in maxillis, vide F[undamenta] b[otanica] 97.[4]

3. Notae plures memoriam confundunt. Volui dare omnes quas vidi notas, ut certiora evaderent genera. Alias dum plura in novo orbe vel antiquo reperiantur genera, confundentur cum meis, cum ego mea genera ab istis non notis aliis distingue[re] non potuissem.

4. Mutatio nominum usitat[or]um erat dissuadenda. Forte! Ego aliter concepi. Rationes meas dedi in critica.[5] Dum dissentiant homines, elucescit veritas![6]

5. Nomina Botanicorum non adhibenda. Sic Tu putas! Rationes Tuas non audivi, meas dixi.[7]

6. Varietatem staminum & pistillorum. Ego ubicumque varietates in his observavi, fide notavi, nec reticui umquam. Methodum assumsi a staminibus, nec adhuc eam inferiorem agnoscam, tamen nullo modo naturalem. Videbis proxime methodos omnes collatas et exinde earum praestantiam.

5. Multa signa oculum armatum fugiunt. Hoc Tu dicis! An Tu absque signis?

Sed transeant haecce! A nostris nulla conclusio. Nos tantummodo observationes colligiamus [sic] in usum futurorum Botanicorum, qui alium videbunt solem.

Tui characteres egregii sunt et ex iis Tibi immortalem gloriam comparasti.[8] Docent isti abunde summam Tuam in Botanicis doctrinam summumque studium.[9]

D[ominus] HallerusHaller, Albrecht von
(1708-1777). Swiss. Naturalist and
poet, professor of medicine, botany,
anatomy and surgery at Göttingen
1736-1753. Correspondent of Linnaeus.
detinetur nimium, ut vereor, a fructu. Alias est ille certe Magnus Botanicus.

Tu non vidisti multos meos errores. Videbis longe plures in Horto Cliffortiano,[10] ubi omni speciei novum imposui nomen.

Ludwigiam dixi. Doleo, quod Tibi displiceat.[11] Si erravi, studio erravi. Et Tu errasti dum me accuses, quod discipulum confundam cum Botanicis perfectioribus contra mea principia.[12] Tuae definitiones! Mea sunt contra Te argumenta!

Salutes meis verbis magnum Virum D[ominum] HeucherumHeucher, Johann Heinrich von
(1677-1747). German. Botanist and
physician, professor of botany at
Wittenberg in 1709, later at Dresden.
Physician-in-ordinary to August II of
Poland-Sachsen.
. Si quid peccaveram contra eum, dolerem. Nesciebam certe eum in vivis esse. Scripsi, ut mihi videbatur, juste.

Quaero, num accepisti meam Floram Lapponicam a me, quam misi eodem tempore, quo ad Hallerum et alios misi cum curru publico.

Hortum Cliffortianum jam ego absolvi, opus certe dirum et durissimum. Tantum paginae 420 sunt impressae in magno folio. Reliqua omnia restant. Hoc anno vix videbis opus istud. Hoc detinuit me a correspondentia mea non parum. Habemus, ni fallor, bene multa quae D[omino] WaltheroWalther, Augustin Friederich
(1688-1746). German. Physican and
botanist, professor of anatomy and
surgery at Leipzig.
deficiunt. Sed non minimus est mihi labor, quae mittere possem, mittere, primum Amstelodamum, tum ad currum publicum, deinde viae difficultas pro plantis vivis.

Signa[13] quae urges mea, quae ad omnes species adplicari non possunt, pauca attulisti.[14] De Myosotide, Ceraso, Grossularia, Acere argumenta laevia sunt et forte sese in his res bene habeat.[15]

Rhinantum seu Elephantem numquam confundebat TournefortiusTournefort de, Joseph Pitton
(1656-1708). French. Botanist and
explorer, professor of botany at Paris.
cum pedicularibus. Crista galli est Rhinanthi species, a pediculari distinctissima.[16]

Quod semper monuisti signa mea nimis stricta esse nec ad omnes species applicari[c][c] : MS1 <adplicari> applicari posse,[17] doleo. Emendo omni die. Tandem si vixero, erint quae deficiunt. Absit, quod ullo modo quid a Tuis detraham. Sed si jubeas, ego hoc idem ostendam in Tuis, et quidem in omni genere nullo excepto. Curas [sic] Tu Tua genera! Erint Tibi adhuc sat onerosa per decennium. Ego mea emendabo qua potero diligentia. Tu numquam errasti, nisi seductus a Tuis Authoribus classicis.

In Epimedio calycem non vidisti. Petala calycem vocas & nectaria petala, quod et inter observationes in mea genera recenses.[18] Aperies florem vix explicatum et dein dijudices.

Melianthi infidum characterem praestiti.[19] Dabo jam alium. Accedens Amstelodamum vidi florituram plantam 1735, quam hyems destruxit ante flores explicatos; hinc quid pro quo sumsi, calicem pro corolla, &c.

Grates Tibi persolvo summas, quod Tua argumenta mecum communicare velis tam fide & privatim. Tibi et omnia, quae fidus amicus reddere queat, numquam intermittam reddere.

Musa Cliffortiana numquam venalis prostitit, nec umquam divenditur Exemplar.[20] D[ominus] Cliffortianam[d][d] : MS1 [read] Cliffortianam istam ut Hortum suum propriis edidit sumptibus eamque inter[e][e] : MS1 [added above the line] amicos modo distribuit. Mittam Tibi exemplar, sed vereor durum Tuum judicium de Tractatu, tam multa scilicet compilare de una planta.

D[ominus] SiegesbeckSiegesbeck, Johann Georg
(1686-1755). German. Prussian botanist,
doctor of medicine at Wittenberg in
1716, physician and director of the
botanical garden at St Petersburg
1735-1747. One of the most bitter
opponents of Linnaeus’s sexual system.
Correspondent of Linnaeus.
mihi promisit per duos annos suum catalogum,[21] quem ob causas certas aveo summopere videre. Hic venalis non est, nec ab Authore eum obtinui.

Nomina nova non perfers, Tu tamen, qui vides quot mendis adhuc commaculata est scientia. Quo usque tandem Botanici, si quilibet tam absurda introducat nomina defendatque erronea mala, nec assumant numquam regulas? Ego nescio! Credo, quod D[ominus] Siegesbeck non omnia ponderavit in libra docimastica.[22]

Lipsiam Vestram prae alias omnes Academias [sic] in Germania videre flagro.[23] Iam cum abitum paro, resistunt omnes. BoerhaaviusBoerhaave, Herman (1668-1738).
Dutch. Professor of medicine, botany and
chemistry at Leiden. One of the most
influential professors of medicine of
the eighteenth century. Linnaeus visited
him during his stay in Holland.
Correspondent of Linnaeus.
jubet manere. CliffordClifford, George (1685-1760).
Dutch. Banker and merchant in Amsterdam,
Linnaeus’s benefactor. Owner of
Hartecamp and its botanical garden
outside Haarlem. Correspondent of
Linnaeus.
crumenam aperit aurumque ostendit. Botanici hic omnes et singuli me ad se vocant. Debeo tamen abire. Si non diu nimis detineor, v[olente] D[eo] Te et vestros Botanicos videbo, vobiscum loquar.

Gratias Tibi infinitas pro authoribus communicatis. Communicarunt jam mecum plus quam 200 libros, quos ante non noveram, Botanici per Europam varii. Si poteris pro me emere Heucheri Diss[ertationem] de magis,[24] rem mihi faceres gratissimam. Debeo forte aliquando et ego ex professo Magum age[r]e, ad minimum dare Magiam Lapponicam, adeo per orbem famosam, nulli vero claram.[25] Si scias alium scriptorem qui verus fuit magus, me certiorem facias. Ego novi nullum nisi KaempferumKämpfer, Engelbert
(1651-1716). German. Physician,
botanist and explorer. Travelled in
Asia. Known for his works on Japan and
Japanese natural history.
.[26] Magia, ut a me sumitur, est physica experimentalis quae ex principiis physicis demonstrari nequit.

BoseiBose, Caspar (1686-1733).
German. Professor of botany at Leipzig.
de motu pl[antarum] sensus aemulo numquam vidi.[27] Si istud argumentum sit rite elaboratum, certe maximi ponderis esset. Utinam & hanc pro me emere posses, ut eam ad meum accessum obtinerem. Solvam mox quidquid constet.[28]

Si umquam videas Tribuloidem, quaeso, examines, quot pistilla & stamina habeat, &c.

Ego nil novi habeo. Quae in Botanicis observavi, hac aestate videbis in Horto Cliffortiano. Libros novos nullos vidi.

Melocactus major nobis duplex est, sed alter aegrotans. Tenellos nullos habemus.

Quaeso, ubinam videbo methodum Rivinianam? Classes istas irregularium monopetalorum, tetrapetalorum, pentapetalorum habemus in Ordinibus ejus in folio,[29] sed ubi reliquas? Discedit enim ab eo et Heucherus & KnautiusKnaut, Christopher (1638-1694).
German. Botanist, Halle.
et RuppiusRuppe, Heinrich Bernhard
(1688-1719). German. Student of
medicine, botanist, author of the
Flora Jenensis (1718).
[f][f] : MS1 <Ruppe> Ruppius & HebenstreitiusHebenstreit, Johann Ernst
(1703-1757). German. Anatomist and
explorer. Professor in Leipzig in 1729.
Travelled in North Africa 1731-1735.
Correspondent of Linnaeus.
& GemeinhartGemeinhart, Johann Caspar
(17??-17??). German. Physician.
& WelschiusWelsch, Christian Ludwig
(1669-1719). German. Professor of
medicine, Leipzig.
& Tu. Ego modo quaererem recensionem nominum genericorum sub classibus secundum omnes ejus classes. Si hic permansero per mensem unum alterumve, dabo omnes methodos connexas et inde conclusiones. Proin, si haec mihi comparare posses, Tibi grates publicas et privatas agerem. Habeo tum omnes et universales & partiales methodos.

Quaeso, meo nomine salutes optimos Viros D[omi]n[o]s Waltherum & Hebenstreitium.

Dab[am] ex Musaeo Cliffort[iano] 1737. Jul[ii] 28.

Quo anno accessit Leonhardus UrsinusUrsin, Leonhard (1618-1664).
German. Professor of botany in 1652, and
of physiology in 1656, at Leipzig.
ad Hortum Lipsiensem?

An RivinusRivinus, August Quirinus
(1652-1723). German. Professor of
medicine and botany at Leipzig.
Constructed a plant classification
system based on petals.
f[u]erit AmmanniAmman, Paulus (1634-1691).
German. Physiologist, professor of
botany at Leipzig.
successor, quique Rivini successor in Horto Lipsiensi sit?

Utinam & posses mihi dare Historiam Horti Wittenbergensis, quod facis, nullus dubito, cum certo certius poteris.

Utinam & aliorum Hortorum Germaniae Hortos cum suis historiis communicare posses.[30]

upSUMMARY

Linnaeus has received Christian Gottlieb Ludwig’s last letter through John Andrew. Linnaeus has studied Ludwig’s Genera, which he obtained at the bookseller’s in Amsterdam.

When Linnaeus was in Leiden at Andrew’s he saw Ludwig’s opinions of his own (botanical) characters. Linnaeus knows the characters are deficient. He comments on Ludwig’s criticisms:

1. A too scrupulous determination of the criteria. Linnaeus points out that his characters are only generic descriptions. The more criteria and characters included the better the description of the species. This was aimed at in the generic descriptions. It is possible to determine the species by the name alone.

2. Often Linnaeus neglected the position. Linnaeus objects that he gave the most natural position in Fundamenta botanica. It was presupposed in the interest of brevity, which is also the habit of the zoologists. They find it superfluous to describe the position of the eyes in the head, etc. (Fundamenta botanica 97).

3. More criteria confuse the memory. Linnaeus gave all the criteria that he observed, so that the genera could be determined in a reliable way. Otherwise, when more genera were found in the new world or the old one, these would be confused with Linnaeus’s.

4. The changing of well-established names should have been discouraged. Linnaeus came to a different conclusion and gave his reasons in Critica botanica.

5. The names of the botanists should not be used. Linnaeus has given his reasons.

6. The variety of stamens and pistils. Whenever Linnaeus found varieties, he conscientiously recorded them. He chose the stamens as the basis of his method. He still would not consider it inferior but it is in no way a natural one. Ludwig will soon see all methods compared, which will show their relative merits.

5. Many signs escape an eye provided with a lens or magnifying glass. Linnaeus wonders if Ludwig has found any signs.

Linnaeus draws no conclusions but only collects observations for future botanists.

Ludwig’s characters are excellent.

Albrecht von Haller is too occupied with the fruit.

Ludwig will see many errors in Linnaeus’s Hortus Cliffortianus, in which a new name was imposed on every species.

Linnaeus has called a plant Ludwigia, which has displeased Ludwig. Ludwig is wrong when he says that Linnaeus confuses the disciple with more learned botanists contrary to his principles.

Linnaeus sends his regards to Johann Heinrich von Heucher.

Linnaeus wonders whether Ludwig has received his Flora Lapponica.

Linnaeus has now finished Hortus Cliffortianus. Only 420 pages have been printed. Linnaeus has quite a lot, which Augustin Friederich Walther has not got in his possession. But it is difficult to send it.

Ludwig criticises Linnaeus’s signs, which cannot be applied to all species. But Ludwig has contributed only little himself. His arguments are insignificant regarding Myosotis, Cerasus, Grossularia and Acer.

Joseph Pitton de Tournefort never confused Rhinantus or Elephas with Pedicularis. Crista galli belongs to Rhinantus species, completely separated from Pedicularis.

Ludwig has often remarked that Linnaeus’s signs are too strict and cannot be applied to all species. Linnaeus says some will always be deficient.

In Epimedium, Ludwig has not observed the calyx. He calls the calyx “petals” and the petals “nectaries”.

Linnaeus gave a misleading characterisation of Melianthus. He will now give another. On his way to Amsterdam in 1735 he saw a budding flower, destroyed by the winter. Calyx for corolla was gathered, etc.

Linnaeus is very grateful to Ludwig for wanting to communicate his arguments.

Linnaeus’s Musa Cliffortiana was never for sale. His employer published it at his own expense and only distributed it among his friends. A copy will be sent to Ludwig.

For two years Johann Georg Siegesbeck has promised Linnaeus his catalogue.

Ludwig cannot endure new names. Linnaeus wonders where the botanists are heading if everyone can introduce absurd names, defend grave errors, but not adopt any rules.

Linnaeus is very eager to visit Leipzig before all other academies in Germany. Now when he prepares to go everyone objects. Herman Boerhaave asks him to stay. George Clifford opens his purse and shows Linnaeus his gold. All the same he must go.

Linnaeus thanks Ludwig for the books he received. Various botanists from the whole of Europe have sent more than 200 books. Linnaeus would like to have Heucher’s dissertation De magis. Linnaeus will perhaps some time play the part of a magician, at least perform the Lapp magic, which is so famous throughout the world, though intelligible to no one. If Ludwig should know of any other author who was a true magician except Engelbert Kämpfer, he should tell Linnaeus. Magic, according to Linnaeus, is experimental physics, which cannot be demonstrated by the principles of physics.

Linnaeus has never seen Caspar Bose’s De motu plantarum sensus aemulo. He would like to have a copy.

If Ludwig should ever see a Tribuloides, he should examine how many stamens and pistils it has, etc.

This summer Ludwig will see Linnaeus’s observations in botany in Hortus Cliffortianus. He has seen no new books.

Linnaeus has two specimens of Melocactus majori, one of which is diseased. They have no shoots.

Linnaeus would like to know where August Quirinus Rivinus’s method can be found. The classes of irregular monopetalous, tetrapetalous and pentapetalous flowers appear in Ordines. Johann Heinrich von Heucher, Christopher Knaut, Heinrich Bernhard Rupp, Johann Ernst Hebenstreit, Johann Caspar Gemeinhart, Christian Ludwig Welsch and Ludwig himself differ from Rivinus. Linnaeus would only like to examine the classification of the generic names subordinated to the classes in all his classes. If Linnaeus stays for one or two months, he will report on all the methods involved and his conclusions. Then he will have all the methods, both universal and partial ones.

Linnaeus sends his regards to Walther and Hebenstreit.

P.S. Linnaeus asks in which year Leonhard Ursin came to the Leipzig garden.

Now that Rivinus has succeeded Paulus Amman, Linnaeus wants to know who is Rivinus’s successor in the Leipzig garden?

He would like to have Historia Horti Wittenbergensis and the other German Horti with their descriptions.

upMANUSCRIPTS

a. original holograph (UUB, G152a). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

upTEXTUAL NOTES

a.
MS1 [read] Doctori
b.
MS1 <Botanice> Botanico
c.
MS1 <adplicari> applicari
d.
MS1 [read] Cliffortianam
e.
MS1 [added above the line]
f.
MS1 <Ruppe> Ruppius

upEXPLANATORY NOTES

1.
2.
The background is the following: Linnaeus’s Genera plantarumLinnaeus, Carl Genera
plantarum eorumque characteres naturales
secundum numerum, figuram, situm &
proportionem omnium fructificationis
partium
(Leiden 1737). Soulsby no.
284.
was published at the beginning of 1737. Here Linnaeus reformed the nominal system. Ludwig received a copy of this work from Linnaeus, studied it in detail and found a number of points to criticise. On 8 April 1737 n.s. he writes a letter to his friend John Andrew and summarises his criticism in five points (which are later divided into six by Linnaeus). Andrew in his turn informs Linnaeus himself. Linnaeus then makes a summary of Ludwig’s criticisms and writes the present letter to refute them. Ludwig replied on 14 August 1737 n.s.Letter L0206. For an edition of Linnaeus’s draft, see Ludwig to Linnaeus, 14 January 1737 n.s.Letter L0135, n. 8.
3.
4.
5.
6.
See Ludwig’s answer of 14 August 1737 n.s.Letter L0206.
7.
Ludwig noted “Critica” in the margin. In his Critica botanicaLinnaeus, Carl Critica
botanica, in qua nomina plantarum
generica, specifica & variantia
examini subjiciuntur, selectiora
confirmantur, indigna rejiciuntur;
simulque doctrina circa denominationem
plantarum traditur. Seu Fundamentorum
botanicorum pars IV. Accedit J.
Browallii De necessitate historiae
naturalis discursus
(Leiden 1737).
, 79-80, Linnaeus asserted that there should be a link between the flower and the botanist after whom it is named: for example, Magnolia has handsome flowers which recall the splendid botanist Magnol (“Magnolia arbor foliis & floribus speciosissimis, a splendissimo Botanico”), but Dorstenia has insignificant flowers, faded and past their prime, as the works of Dorsten (“Dorstenia, cuius flores minus spectabiles, quasi obsoleti vel antiqui, ut Dorstenii opus.”). See below, n. 22.
8.
9.
Ludwig added “in Gottenhof” after the word “studium”.
See Ludwig’s letters to Linnaeus, 24 May 1737 n.s.Letter L0171 and 6 December 1737 n.s.Letter L0227 respectively.
See Ludwig’s letter to Linnaeus, 14 January 1737 n.s.Letter L0135, n. 8.
Ludwig placed a question mark in the margin against “Signa”.
Cf. Horace, Ep., 1, 6, 68-69: si quid novisti rectius istis, candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum (“If you can write anything better yourself, do so. Otherwise concur!”).
For this discussion and the following one about Rhinantus, Epimedium and Melianthus, see Ludwig’s letter to Linnaeus, 24 May 1737 n.s.Letter L0171.
See Ludwig’s letters to Linnaeus, 10 December 1736 n.s.Letter L0121, 30 April 1737 n.s.Letter L0161 and 24 May 1737 n.s.Letter L0171.
Linnaeus, Musa CliffortianaLinnaeus, Carl Musa
Cliffortiana florens Hartecampi 1736
prope Harlemum
(Leiden 1736).
. No copy of this work was ever sold: see George Clifford to Linnaeus, 2 February 1739 n.s.Letter L0273. The work deals with the banana plant, which flowered for the first time at Hartecamp in January 1736 according to a letter to Albrecht von Haller, 1 May 1737 n.s.. See Bref och skrifvelserLinnaeus, Carl Bref och
skrifvelser af och till Carl von
Linné
. Utgifna och med
upplysande noter försedda af Th. M.
Fries, J. M. Hulth & A. Hj. Uggla.
Afdelning I:1-8, Afdelning II:1-2
(Stockholm 1907-1943).
, I:4, 352 and n. 2, I:5, 252-253 and n. 4; Uggla, “Linné och bananen”Uggla, Arvid Hjalmar
“Linné och bananen”,
SLÅ 42 (1959), 79-88.
, 79-88, and Broberg, “Linnaeus and genesis”Broberg, Gunnar “Linnaeus and
genesis. A preliminary survey”,
SLÅ (1978), 30-42.
, 37-38.
See Ludwig to Linnaeus, 2 January 1738 n.s.Letter L0242, where he is very condescending about the scientific research of Siegesbeck and suspects that the latter is intending to criticise Linnaeus: “Siegesbeckius Heisteri vestigiis insistit (non dicam simia est). Haec sufficiunt ad ideam de hoc viro formandam [...] O pessima tempora, si illi qui nova genera formant, methodi leges nesciunt [...] Nescio adhuc, an ille contra te quaedam moliatur. Si vero aliquid susciperet, certe persuasus sum merita tua suis objectionibus magis dilucidari.” See Siegesbeck’s Epicrisis added to Botanosophiae verioris brevis sciagraphiaSiegesbeck, Johann Georg
Botanosophiae verioris brevis
sciagraphia in usum discentium adornata.
Accedit ob argumenti analogiam,
Epicrisis in clar. Linnaei nuperrime
evulgatum systema plantarum sexuale, et
huic superstructam methodum
botanicam
(St Petersburg 1737).
, where he tries to refute Linnaeus’s sexual system. Linnaeus says himself in a letter to Haller in March 1738 n.s. that after Siegesbeck’s criticism Linnaeus was the laughing stock of the whole world. But Linnaeus would take his revenge: a little stinking weed was named Siegesbeckia. See above, n. 7.
Linnaeus left Hartecamp for Paris in May 1738. He could not, however, afford to go to Germany. After a month in Paris he returned to Sweden.
Linnaeus realised the importance of cultivating his image and therefore often talked of his adventurous journey among the Lapps. See Broberg, “Olof Rudbecks föregångare”Broberg, Gunnar “Olof Rudbecks
föregångare”, in O. Rudbeck
the Younger, Iter Lapponicum
(Stockholm 1987).
, 11-21; Magnus, Historia de gentibus septentrionalibusMagnus, Olaus Historia de
gentibus septentrionalibus
, III
(Rome 1555).
, III:17; and Scheffer, LapponiaSchefferus, Johannes
Lapponia (Frankfurt 1673).
.
Ludwig added “Lipsiae s.l. et a v vitam eius” after “constet”.
Linnaeus aimed to obtain those plants which Hartecamp lacked.