Documentation

Letters

-Search for letters
-Search in texts

Manuscripts

Editions

Links

Contact

C18

Link: linnaeus.c18.net/Letter/L0228 • Carl Linnaeus to Albrecht von Haller, 1737 n.s.
Dated . Sent from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Göttingen (Germany). Written in Latin.

Gratias summas ago pro litteris totque variis curiosis gratis novis communicatis. A Domino RenierRenier, Jacob (?-?). German.
Merchant.
habui litteras, quibus me certiorem facit, quod quamprimum plantas a Te liberali manu oblatas recipere queam Amstelodami. Musam Cliffortianam,[1] quam putabam ultimo me misisse, mitto hic, nec non Criticam meam.[2] Ego infelix peregrinus omnia citissime corradere debeo, aliis curam prelii committere, hinc ut sit non mirum. Tu cures modo contenta, nec barbariem linguae, conversatio enim cum Lapponibus, Finnis, Norvegis per aliquot annos me Michelio magis barbarum reddidit. Debui dein Criticam furtim componere et omnia quam citissime, qui et hanc et Floram Lapponicam[3] et Hortum Cliffortianum[4] per hoc tres anni quadrantes omnia conscripsi. Hortus Cliffortianus adhuc sudat, et modo 400 paginae (in folio majori) impressae sunt, ut ante finem anni vix prodierit. Curabo absolute, ut habeas, et cum hac epistola, promitto, pecuniae mihi nimis multae remunerantur, dum Tuam Synopsin mihi reddas.[5] Ego Tibi debeo multa, etiamnum quid praestare non potui. Characteres Domini LudwigiiLudwig, Christian Gottlieb
(1709-1773). German. Physician.
Professor of medicine in Leipzig. One of
Linnaeus’s early opponents.
Correspondent of Linnaeus.
perlegi.[6] Maximam operam impendit. Utinam eius authores classici eum non seducerent! Non omnia Boerhaaviana e tripode dicta sunt. Meos characteres omni die augeo, emendo. Meae nil sunt nisi descriptiones genericae, adeoque differunt a Ludwigii, TournefortiiTournefort de, Joseph Pitton
(1656-1708). French. Botanist and
explorer, professor of botany at Paris.
et ut nomen specificum a descriptione plantae. Ambae necessariae sunt in Botanicis.

Bicapsulares mihi et Tricarpae Tibi forte Synonyma cohaerent et semiflosculosi cum flosculosis Tournef[ortii] per Elephantopum. Connexio catenulata a radiatis ad cichoraceas difficilis; vereor, quod saltus fiat a cichoraceis ad Scabiosas. Novi optime, quod Rosmarinus, Ziziphora, Salvia, Pinguicula, Lentibularia, etc. debuissent conjungi cum didynamiis, sed debui subire leges, alias nulla methodus; hoc agnovi in classe Didynamiae.

Erravi in numero staminum circa Polygalas, qui modo parvas Europae species examinavi, nunc vero Africanas; errorem agnovi in Horto Cliffortiano, p. 353. In Linagrostide stamina sunt 3, in Stellaria 1, in Linosyri 5, in Asaro 12, in Tithymalo plurima, Uva Ursi 10, Persicaria nunquam decem, Fegopyron [sic] 9 habet, Tamaris[c]o alteri 5, altero 10, in Mercuriali 9 vel 12, an unquam plura?; in Xanthio 5. Fumaria offic[inalis] tres apices (antherae) in singulo stamine, si aliter videas, quaeso, me commonefacias. Chamaebuxum, quaeso, ne distinguas genere. Certe non faceres, si quae vidi specimina et Tu videres. In Chamaebuxo est etiam istud labellum fimbriatum, licet magis ab apice remotum. Certissime, si distinguis alia vice, hoc revocabis.

De Belladonna cur haereas, certe non video? Argumentum unicum, si scis, quo Nicotianam et Hyoscyamum referas. Certe et Belladonnam et Mandragoram, quae adeo adfines, ut potius haereres, num genere distingueres? Confer omnes partes fructificationis. In Solanis nescio, quae Tibi sint dubia. Alkekengi, Solanum, Lycopersium, Capsicum nullo modo distingui possunt. An eiusdem generis naturalis? Haec sunt omnia bicapsularia, cur non itaque ad Nicotianae phalangem? Bulbosas cum Lilio convallio, sed certe non cum Aro nec cum Orchidibus. Ari species a Plumierio evolvas. Ego Palmas, Musam, Cannam Indicam, Costum, Kaempferiam, Marantam, etc. Orchides, etc. Irides, Sisyrinchia, classe convenire absolute persuasus sum, et cum hisque Arum, etiam Stratiotes (nobis) palmis valde affinis, vide Musam Cliffortii.

Orobanchem, quaeso, nullo modo distinguas a personatis. Nulla sane Tibi ratio a structura floris. Hypopytidis familia adhuc me latet. Thalictro certe nulla cum Papaverino familia, sed cum Clematidis genere summa est adfinitas. Examines omnes species. Ulmariam, si separes a Spiraea, paradoxon proponis. An genere distingui debet, haereo. Confer Barbam caprae, Filipendulam et Plukenetii species. Has certe omnes ab Isocandriae Polygyniae familia non separare debes. Agrimonia vix adfinis videtur Salicariae, ni fallor. Salicaria aliquid commune habet cum Azederache, Bauhiniis, Cassiis &c. Sed Agrimonia ad Isocandriae Polygyniae familiam pertinet, uti et Alchemilla et Percepier. Confer stylos ad basin germinis insertos et videbis calycem non abire in fructum. Vidistine unquam quas Tu vocas cum Michelio Antheras seu apices in Marsilea, Marchantia, etc. dehiscere et farinam fundere? Vidistine unquam Antheram, quae non farinam dedit? Puto vestras antheras esse farinam.

MuntingiusMunting, Abraham (1626-1683).
Dutch. Botanist and horticulturist,
professor of medicine at Groningen
1658-1683.
potest haberi, sed quid vis cum eo?[7] Ego jam puto, quod nullus magis indignus exstat Botanicus. Eius figurae nitidissime exsculptae sunt, sed ad captum factae; nec vidi adhuc pejores. HermanniHermann, Paul (1646-1695).
German. Botanist, physician at Batavia,
professor of botany at Leiden.
Flora non prodiit, sed semi - impressa periit. RoyeniiRoyen, Adriaan van (1705-1779).
Dutch. Professor of botany, director of
the botanical garden of Leiden.
Correspondent of Linnaeus.
etGronovius, Johan Frederik
(1690-1762). Dutch. Naturalist, senator
of Leiden. Linnaeus’s benefactor and
friend. Published Flora Virginica
(1743, 1762) together with John Clayton.
Correspondent of Linnaeus.
dissertationes curabo, ut habeas. Certe doleo papyram impensam esse in Muntingii opera. Si vis habere illum - sed sat chare venditur, et igne dignissimus est - me certiorem facias. - CaesalpinumCesalpino, Andrea (1519-1603).
Italian. Botanist, professor of medicine
and botany in Pisa and Rome and
physician of Clement VIII. Best known
for his De plantis libri xvi
(1583).
jussi omnes bibliopolas mihi comparare. In officinis non prostat; forte propediem eum habebo. - Moehring[i]Moehring, Paul Heinrich Gerhard
(1710-1792). German. East Frisian
ornithologist, practising physician at
Jever (Oldenburg). Correspondent of
Linnaeus.
hortum utinam viderem! Ubi impressus et quo tempore?

Fagopyra scandentia calyce triphyllo et petalis duobus, dum distinguit, ludit. Asphodelus palustris et a me distinctus est, cum tricapsularis sit; reliqui triloculares. Vide Anthericum! Hyacintho Butomos (horrendo vocabulo) et ego distinxi ab Hyacinthis et connexi cum Hyacinthis tuberosis, cum quibus numeris omnibus conveniunt sub nomine Polyanthes.

Convolvoloides a Convolvulo ob caulem rectum vides. Nunc conficiunt genera nova ob mala nomina prius plantis imposita. Ego nunquam vidi in Botanicis magis fallacia. Dixi in Critica meam de hoc sententiam, pag.34.

Laetor summopere, quod dixeris mihi Saxifragam albam petream esse a tridactylite diversam. Differentiam vidi, quod habeat. Folia saepe quinquefida novi, pro varietate habui. Spero, quod demonstres, quod non sit varietas sufficientibus notis, ne quis de ea dein dubitet vel alius seducatur. Annon rubescat, cum senior evadit, etiam major Alpina?

Veronicas istas Alpinas, quaeso, sufficienter describas, si omnes tres habeas, et notas des, quibus distinguuntur. Certae duae harum varietates sunt, an tertia? Dubito!

Odontiten ab Euphrasia vix adhuc diversam agnoscam, cum unica modo (alias) mihi species Euphrasiae species nota sit. Potest tamen distingui sufficienter.

Sed Teucrium Alpinum inodorum video jam diversi generis esse, et ab Euphrasiis, Pedicularibus et Melampyris diversissimum, sed convenit genere cum Hormino tenui coronopi folio Virginiano Morison[i]Morison, Robert (1620-1683).
British. Botanist and physician.
Physician-in-ordinary to Charles II.
Professor in botany at Oxford.
Histor[iae][8] et Pediculari maritima, folio oblongo serrato, quod in Horto Cliffortiano, pag. 32, notavi et novis meis generibus propediem edendis.

Melampyri istam parvam speciem varietatem tandem agnoscas. Ego novi ambas istas optime, forte et coma violacea specie non distincta sit.

Tubas seu stylos distinguere facilis mihi visa res, nisi solum in Herniariis et Amaranthi affinibus, cum a styli basi seminas numero, et si stylus deficiat, a stigmatibus. Cum Rosa nulla difficultas, modo longitudinaliter disseces calycem, fructus enim seu bacca pericarpium non est, sed calyx coloratus succulentus, adeoque et ipsa germina distinctissima, nuda, adeoque gymnopoellysperma absolute, modo collum calycis parum coloratum ... In Sambucco a stigmatum numero, ubi deficit stylus, numero.

Sitne Diapensia mea eadem cum Authorum, quos allegavi? Certe icones eae et descriptiones obscurae sunt.

Rejeci in Horto Cliffortiano aliquot milia varietatum; eas sub speciebus litteris graecis adscriptas posui.

Quaeso, in Tua Synopsi notes plantas vere Alpinas asterisco vel alia nota, ut possint facilius distingui. Exoptarem tandem Floram Alpinam Europae.

Si habeas florem Francae Michelii, quaeso, dicas mihi numerum staminum. Vereor, quod ipsi 5 modo sint stamina, licet MartynMartyn, John (1699-1768).
British. Physician, professor of botany
at Cambridge.
mihi 30 dixit.

Si Synopsis Tua Helvetica sola circiter mille contineat plantas utique et Flora omnium prima merito dicenda. Tu, qui jam paras tam splendidum opus, qui tanta gaudes collectione ac pauci alii, qui judicii acumine plurimos, si non omnes, superas, qui in observationibus excellis, quique intimam plantarum possides notitiam et synonymorum certitudinem, Tu, quaeso, cures, ut haec Tua Flora alia nobis adportet dona, quam solum elenchum plantarum Helveticarum. Hoc fieri puto, si adderes notam unicam singulae speciei, qua haec species ab omnibus congeneribus distinguitur, cum omnis nostra theoria, omnes descriptiones et figurae eo collimant, ut plantarum species distinguere queamus, easque impositis nominibus indicare. Haec Tibi non adeo difficilis res, aliis omnibus licet difficillima; hic tamen ultimus finis.

Impositis speciebus et redigas varietates omnes ad suas species. Non dubito, quin Tibi idem sapor sit varietatum ac mihi. Vidisti, quot varietates pro speciebus vendidere PontederaPontedera, Giulio (1688-1757).
Italian. Director of the botanical
garden and professor of botany at Padua.
He rejected Linnaeus’s system. Linnaeus
named a family of Narcissoides,
Pontederia, after him.
, Micheli aliique. Et, si minima differentia, minima varietas species novas causet, cur retardor decem millia novas producere species, et quis has non posset indicare? Ego semper potius volui duas distinctas species conjungere pro una, et pro varietatibus habere, quamdiu differentiam non noveram quam apertissime, quam unicam plantam dubiam pro distincta vendere specie.

Est mihi amicus Iussieu. Est et amicus DilleniusDillenius, Johann Jacob
(1684-1747). German/British. Studied at
Giessen. Sherardian professor of botany
at Oxford. Correspondent of Linnaeus.
. VaillantiumVaillant, Sébastien
(1669-1722). French. Botanist and
surgeon. Professor at the Jardin des
plantes. His theory on plant sexuality
influenced Linnaeus who regarded
Vaillant as one of the most important
botanists.
nunquam novi. Vaillantius sui plenus fuit vir. Sibi aperire studuit viam per cladem informatoris sui fidelissimi TournefortiiTournefort de, Joseph Pitton
(1656-1708). French. Botanist and
explorer, professor of botany at Paris.
. Erat solum demonstrator Horti Parisini. In litteris rudis, qui sese opposuit Iussieuvo, semel subsanavit Dillenium. Pauper fuit, etc. Haec nil ad me, quatenus sum Botanicus, quatenus justus et sanus vir. Ego fateor me nullum adhuc legisse, qui Vaillantio accuratior fuit, qui plura nova invenit in Botanicis, qui plus laboravit, qui parcius praemium reportavit. An itaque ille, nebulo, exemplum insaniae, mortalium stupidissimus per secula dicatur ab orbe, eam solam ob causam, quod Botanicen coluerit, aestimaverit, excolere studuerit? Iussieu, ut audivi, per juramentum promisit, nunquam memoriam Vaillantii, dum vivit, florituram. Dillenius non est contentus tot cavillationibus, quibus oneravit Vaillantii manes in Horto Elthamensi.[9] Posito, et quod Vaillantius suos habuerit errores in synonymis et forte aliis, quis in Botanicis unquam caruit errore? Est sapientis viri, bona a malis distinguere, ille felix imperator, qui cum jactura dimidii exercitus superat hostem eumque profligat. Quis meruit magis quam PlukenetiusPlukenet, Leonard (1642-1706).
British. Botanist and physician.
Botanist to Mary II (wife of William
III). Superintendent of Hampton Court.
in exoticis, licet non systematicus. Quis tamen Vaillantio et Plukenetio major nebulo, pejor Haereticus in Botanicis, majus scandalum artis nostrae, si ex Horto Elthamensi sumitur autoritas? Mihi nil cum Vaillantio, nec contra eum. Iustus det iustum judicium viri bene meriti. Si itaque velis justas concedere Vaillantio laudes et Tibi erit justa post fata memoria. Ego non curo in hac parte vel Iussieos vel Dillenios!

Observes, quaeso, absolute, quod Xanthium et Ambrosia gaudeant floribus amentaceis.

Veronica Florae Lapponicae 7., § 7, est Veronica Alpina frutescens, uti a Dillenio et speciminibus Sherardianis didici Oxonii. Nulla tamen pars in nostra fruticat, nisi infimi articuli. An hoc a solo in Lapponia frigidiori?

Quid sit Veronica Alpina, bellidis folio, hirsuta? Nullus mihi dignior BurseroBurser, Joachim (1583-1639).
Danish. Professor of medicine and
botany, Sorö, 1625-1639.
visus est author, qui attentus fuit Botanicus et se hanc Casparo BauhinoBauhin, Caspar (1560-1624).
Swiss. Botanist and physician, Basle.
Bauhin’s Prodromus and Pinax
theatri botanici
(1620, 1623, 1671)
were important works in the field of
botanical nomenclature.
misisse scribit, et a Bursero se accepisse Casparus Bauhinus. Burseri in Herbario Upsaliae asservato ipsissimam nostram, parum magis tamen pubescentem habet.

Si tres sunt distinctae species, utinam et distinguentes notae proponerentur, quae dum deficiunt, nulla distinctio.

Evolvi specimina mea, nec video aliud quam quod Saxifraga tridactylites et alpina sint solae varietates. Sic dictitat fructificatio. In fructificatione plures latent partes, quam in tota alia planta. Plurima vota valent. Dum demonstres his diversas partes, grates agam.

Quaeso, dicas mihi, num in Tuis Alpibus reperiisti plantas, numeris sequentibus in Flora Lapponica notatas, 13. 85. 88. 115. 164. 165. 166. 172. 174. 181. 207. 208. 231. 232. 236. 242. 243. 244. 245. 302. 319. 342. 353. 368. 443.

Quot semina et stamina in Tozzia? Quot in Franca? An in Visco unquam Tibi observatae sunt foeminae et mares tota planta distinctae, et an petala dicenda in foemina, quae flori insident?

Doles justo characterum defectum in historia animalium, uti in Ichthyologia, etc. Hoc tempore typo committo amicissimi mei, dum vixerat, Petri ArtediArtedi, Peter (1705-1735).
Swedish. Ichtyologist. Close friend of
Linnaeus.
opera posthuma, in quibus, ni valde fallor, videbis majorem perfectionem, quam in Botanica post centum annos unquam speranda est. Ille classes condidit naturales, genera naturalia, characteres absolutos, Pinacem universalem, descriptiones incomparabiles, nomina specifica pura.

Si persuasus es, me, quem vidisti nunquam, Te ex animo animare, magnique facere, nec aegre feres, si pauca Tecum loquar de Tua Dissertatione, certe magni laboris opere, ex qua sola visa Te majoris facio, quam Botanicum alium, quem novi ullum, nisi Tecum compararem D[ominum] Dillenium, vir omni laude dignissimus esto, et persuasus, quod quidquid dicam, nullus mortalium praeter Te et me sciturus.

Pag. 7 bene vides, methodum Rajanam naturalissimam illam dictam, vel fuere Botanici coeci, vel ut D[ominus] Dillenius sperarunt Professionem, vel ab Anglorum authoritate coacti summam gloriam Rajo concessere. Quid ille? Certe vir laboriosissimus in colligendo, describendo, etc. at in genericis minus nihilo, in examinandis floribus plane nullus. Quaeso, confer eius primam editionem methodi cum secunda et tertia, ubi a Tournefortio edoctus sumit omnia. Nescio, cur nullus Caesalpini observare potuit inventa, omnia Rajo adscribere stupide. Caesalpinus mihi magnus, quantum erat primam sic condere gentem!

Morisonus vanus fuit et inflatus pro more ..., tamen nunquam non laudandus, qui reviviscere fecit methodum demortuam. Confer genera Tournefortii, et, quid Morisono debuit, facile agnoscas, tantum certe ac Caesalpino Morisonus, licet fidus fuit examinator Tournefortius. Morisonus omnia sua quae bona a Caesalpino habuit, videtur in eo discessisse, ut observaret concatenatam affinitatem naturae magis quam characteres. Tu ab eius periculo sapientior procedas nullus dubito.

RiviniRivinus, August Quirinus
(1652-1723). German. Professor of
medicine and botany at Leipzig.
Constructed a plant classification
system based on petals.
rigidus fuisti censor, sed et mihi eris maximus Apollo, si Tu ipse non incidas sub idem judicium ac ille. Si assumis regulas, debes et secundum eas procedere, alias nulla methodus. Si praetendis classes naturales, eas servare debes. Heu quanta circumspectione, si unicam frangas, naevum committis; si has combinare potes et inter has tutus ire, Tu solus felix. Si modo affinitates quaeris, nullas leges et connexiones, quid tum facis? An methodum promissam? an Morisoni premas vestigia?

An Opuli flores exteriores irregulares sint? Et quae tum definitio regularitatis?

Sanguisorbae semen unicum adsignare - cur non? Tormentillae semina quatuor? Forte tam recte ac octo vel sedecim.

Umbilicato fructu arbores miscere cum non umbilicatis? Cur non? Vereor, quod Tu non bene capias, quid fructus umbilicatus sit! An Rubus a Rosa diversa facis classe? Ac sis hic parum cautus.

Vellem audire Tuos characteres Orchidum et affinium ab alia quam calcaris nota. Evolvas Plukenetii, PetiveriiPetiver, James (c.1663-1718).
British. Apothecary. Collector of
natural history specimens. His herbarium
contained more than 5000 items.
, RajiRay, John (1627-1705).
British. Naturalist and clergyman. One
of the most influential botanists before
Linnaeus.
Americanas, uti ante Vaillantii, etc. Europaeas.

Pag. 8. Non Tournefortianum. Fateor suos errores habere Tournefortium multos, sed tamen nulla magis naturalis ante eum, nulla post eum extiterit. Fateor plures classes mere esse arbitrarias. Utinam Tu omnes ad classes naturales referre posses! Tournefortii Labiatae, Cruciformes, Liliacei, Umbellati, Papilionacei, Compositi valent demtis vel additis in his paucis.

Pag. 9. Pontedera incidit in scopulos, quos evitavit Tornefortius, dum Pontedera hic naturae leges sequi minus amavit. Certe confusionem creavit in Compositis, sed et plurima praestitit, minus tamen Vaillantio. Pontedera fuit fere unicus Botanicus philosophus, licet non subscribam ubique ejus theoriae.

Pag. 9. Knautiana deleta a Dillenio. Cur sic? Certe nullibi magis injustus judex fuit Dillenius, quam in ista apologia de variis methodis. Mirum, quod nullus rescripserit. Certe promeruit. Docte tamen scripsit; doctius promeruit responsum.

Pag. 9. Magnolium. Doleo, quod non plures habeamus methodos non naturales a variis partibus. Si haberemus, ab eis facile esset concludere, in quibus classibus haec pars fructificationis valeret, in quibus non.

Pag. 9. Vaillantiana; ego nullum vidi Vaillantio adhuc in generibus sapientiorem, et quotidie experior. Forte characteres dedit, ubi Tu eos deficere dicis. Quid si Bauhinianas stirpes non adeo accurate determinavit, hoc recte, ubi imperfectae descriptiones, nullae figurae, nulla revelatio. Si ego absurdum nomen constituerim, an indocti omnes, qui me non intelligant?

Pag. 9. Iudicium de methodis BoerhaaviiBoerhaave, 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.
et Raji. Certe ambae in isto puncto falsae sunt classes, an altera praeferenda?

Tu Lychnides et Rapunculos conjungas? Mirum certe mihi!

Arbores et herbas conjungendas esse sequitur et ab inspectione plantarum. Quid enim differt herba ab arbore?

Pag. 10. Annon et herbas habeamus fructu umbilicato, et non umbilicato. Quali arbores?

Annon Cachrys, Simpla nobilis sint arborescentes, tamen gymnodispermae?

Nonne Tournefortia sit Asperifolia, tamen arbor?

Nonne et infinitae frutices in labiatis seu tetragymnospermis.

Quot conyzas non habeamus ex Africa et America arboreas et alias arbores flore composito maximas.

Quid intelligis per duplicem calycem chenopodii, fructu a calyce diverso?

Lichenis. Reperiistine limites intra figuras pyxidum in Lichenibus?

Desumis etiam characteres a copia foliorum in Lichenibus?

Pag. 11. Mirum, quod et a foliorum figura characteres petas Filicum, qui PlumieriPlumier, Charles (1646-1704).
French. Botanist, travelled in Central
America and the Carribean. Linnaeus
generally approved of the descriptions
in his richly illustrated botanical
works.
Filices vidisti?

Certe ego nec Tua vidi, nec Dillenii ante mea genera. Mirum tamen, fere in eandem incidisse sententiam diversos plures eodem tempore, sic et de Unifolii flore, quae pagina in Flora Lapponica erat impressa mense Aprilis praeteriti anni.

Pag. 13. Vaillantium et Dillenium exempla facis, ubi errantes demonstrare velis. Quis caruit errore! Felix, qui pauciores habuit! Nollem, si possem, bonos carpere, possem menda alia et faciliori methodo corrigere.

Pag. 16. In Uva Ursi calycem quadrifidum, et alibi stamina octo dicis, etc. Uva Ursi Flor[ae] Lapp[onicae] t. 6, f. 3, semper nobis, nec unquam, licet nulla planta a teneris mihi notior, decem staminibus et quinquefido calyce obvia fuit, an alia itaque Tibi sub Uvae Ursi nomine species?

Negas et definitiones partium ab usu, qui anatomicus es; reprehendis idcirco Pontederam. Dubito, quod nasum definire poteris in Zoologicis alio modo quam per usum, ut sit adpropriata definitio omnibus animalibus, avibus, piscibus, insectis etc.; certe res est difficilis.

Hoc ipso die plantas benevole mecum communicatas accepi, pro quibus Tibi grates sufficientes nunquam reportare possum. Studebo gratitudine quod potero semper. In iis Aphyllanthes maxime mihi placuit, ex cuius specimine, quae deficiebant in charactere, absolute explere potui.

Anonis Alpina humilior rad[ice] ampl[a] videtur omnino trifolii species, nullo modo vero Anonidis, licet polyspermae sint filiquae!

Androsace Alpina angustifolia, glabra, flore singulo, an deficiebat, quod doleo maxime. Utinam modo florem videre possem, et an mea Diapensia pro certo?

Salix Alp[ina] alni folio rot[undo] glab[ro] est Flor[ae] Lappon[icae] 355.

Alchimillae affinis Alpina videtur Alsinellae species, vel potius Arenariae.

Thoram antea non vidi. Laetor, me et in ista vidisse nectaria, ut jam certior sim.

Cruciata Alpina latifolia laevis; in horto nostro est solus mas, Tua vero missa Hermaphrodyta est. Vidistin unquam marem? An diversa species a rubia quadrifolia et latifolia laevi Casp[ari] Bauhini, Rubia quadrifolia Italica hirsuta Jo[hannis] BauhiniBauhin, Johann (1541-1612).
Swiss. Caspar Bauhin’s brother. Botanist
and physician.
?

Polygoloides et Chamaebuxus solum varietates eiusdem speciei.

Acini pulchra species est Teucrii species, et ad Marum Cortusi proxime accedit, labium superius corollae deest.

Salix Alpina rotundifolia incan[a] est Flor[ae] Lappon[icae] 359, t. 7, f. 2, 1, 2.

Astragalus Alpinus fol[iis] viciae ramosus et procumbens, tenui ... flore glomerato albo caeruleoque est Astragalus Flor[ae] Lapp[onicae] § 267. t. 9, f. 1. Vidi ex specimine altero Astragalum Onobrychis dictum, sat esse facie diversum. An distincta species, Tu certius scias, qui ambas in loco naturali legisti; tum ego in synonymis, suasu Dillenii eiusque fide, erravi.

Veronica Alpina bugulae folio, calyce hirsuto, est Veronica Flor[ae] Lappon[icae] 7, t. 9, f. 4.

Uva Ursi; vide jam quid Tibi sit Uva Ursi, adeoque stamina, calycem et corollam recte numerasti et examinasti, sed haec Tua Uva Ursi non est Uva Ursi, sed meum Vaccinium foliis perennantibus observe ovatis Flor[ae] Lapp[onicae] pag. 110, numero 144, et in hac abit Calyx in fructum polyspermum, in Uva Ursi vero, observante et Tournefortio, abit pistillum in fructum, eius historiam dedi sub nomine Arbuti caulibus procumbentibus, foliis integerrimis Flor[ae] Lapp[onicae] 123, tab. 4, f. 3, in hac stamina decem.

Haec quae concepi, rescribere deberem, sed certe mihi tempus non est. Amicus excusat omnia, scripsi variis temporibus varia verba.

upSUMMARY

Linnaeus received a letter from Jacob Renier in which he writes that Linnaeus will soon receive Albrecht von Haller’s plants in Amsterdam. Linnaeus now sends his Musa Cliffortiana and Critica botanica. He wants Haller to regard the content only and not his language. His conversing with Laplanders, Finlanders and Norwegians has made his language even worse than Pietro Micheli’s. He had to write his Critica in secret and wrote this work, Flora Lapponica and Hortus Cliffortianus within nine months. Hortus Cliffortianus is still being printed. Four hundred pages have been printed and will come out before the end of the year. Linnaeus promises that Haller will have this work. He would like to have Haller’s “Synopsis” in return. He has read Christian Gottlieb Ludwig’s “Characteres” and wishes that he had not been deceived by the classical authors. All Herman Boerhaave’s declarations were not said by an oracle. Linnaeus is enlarging and correcting his characters every day. They are generic decriptions and are different from those of Ludwig and Joseph Pitton de Tournefort.

Perhaps Linnaeus’s Bicapsulares and Haller’s Tricarpae are the same. Tournefort’s Semiflosculi and Flosculi are combined by the Elephantopus. The chain of connection from the Radiati to the Cichoracei is difficult and there is probably a gap between Cichoraei and Scabiosa. He knows that Rosmarinus, Ziziphora, Salvia, Pinguicula, Lentibularia, etc. ought to be combined with the Didynamia, but he had to submit to laws.

He was wrong about the number of stamens in Polygala, since he only examined small European species. Having examined African ones as well he acknowledged his mistake in Hortus Cliffortianus, p. 353. Linagrostis has three stamen, Stellaria one, Linosyris five, Asarum twelve, Tithymalus many. Uva Ursi ten, Persicaria never 10, Fagopyrum has nine, one Tamarix has five, the other ten. In Mercurialis there are nine or twelve, or more? Xanthium has five. Fumaria ofiicinalis has three anthers to each stamen. He wants to know if he is wrong. Linnaeus does not want Haller to make a distinct genus of Chamaebuxus.

Belladonna and Mandragora should be combined with Nicotiana and Hyoscyamus.

Alkekengi, Solanum, Lycopersium and Capsicum cannot be separated. All of them are bicapsular and ought to belong to the Nicotiana group. Bulbosae are related to Lilium Convallium but certainly not to Arum or the Orchides.

Linnaeus asks Haller to examine the species of Arum described by Charles Plumier. He is sure that the Palmae, Musa, Canna Indica, Costus, Kaempferia, Maranta, etc. the Orchides, etc. Iris, Sisyrinchium form one class and Arum belongs to them and so does Stratiotes closely related to the Palms, as can be seen in Musa Cliffortiana.

He does not want Haller to separate Orobanche from the Personatae. He still does not know anything about the family of Hypopytis. Thalictrum has nothing to do with the family of Papaver, but is closely related to Clematis. Haller should not remove Ulmaria from Spiraea and Linnaeus asks him to compare Barba Caprae, Filipendula and the species of Leonard Plukenet. They should not be separated from the Isocandria Polygynia family. The Agrimonia does not seem related to Salicaria, but the latter is related to Azederache, Bauhinia, Cassia, etc. The Agrimonia belongs to Isocandria Polygynia family, just as Alchemilla and Percepier. Linnaeus wants to know if Haller has ever seen the anthers or apices in Marsilea, Marchantia, etc. discharge powder.

He considers Abraham Munting a worthless botanist. His figures are neatly engraved but only to catch the eye. Paul Hermann’s Flora has not come out. Linnaeus will see to that Haller gets Adriaan van Royen’s and Johan Frederik Gronovius’s dissertations. He has tried to buy Andrea Cisalpino but it is not in the shops. He would like to see Paul Heinrich Gerhard Moehring’s Hortus and would like to know where and when it was printed.

He must be joking when he describes the climbing Fagopyra with a three-leaved calyx and two petals. Linnaeus too, has separated the Asphodelus Palustris as it is tricapsular and the rest are trilocular, as can be seen in Anthericum. He has also separated the Hyacinthus Butomus (which is a horrible word) from Hyacinthus and combined it with Hyacinthus Tuberosus by the name of Polyanthes.

Convolvoloides are separated from the Convovulus because of its upright stem. New genera are made because the original one had an incorrect name. Linnaeus’s opinion about it can be found in Critica botanica, p. 34.

He is pleased to hear that the Saxifraga Alba Petrea differs from Tridactylites. He has seen that the leaves are often five-cleft, but he thought that it was a variety. He wants to know if the larger Alpine plant turns red with age and he would like Haller to describe the Alpine Veronicae. Two of them are certainly varieties.

He cannot yet separate Odontites from Euphrasia because he knows only one species of Euphrasia.

Linnaeus has seen that Teucrium Alpinum Indorum differs from Euphrasium, Pediculares and Melampyrum, but agrees in genus with Horminum tenui coronopi folio Virgianum of Robert Morison and Pedicularis maritima, which is mentioned in Hortus Cliffortianus, p. 32. Haller acknowledged the small Melampyrum to be a variety.

Linnaeus finds it easy to separate the tubae or styles except in Herniaria and the Amaranthus family. It is also easy in Rosa, if you cut the calyx longitudinally. In Sambucus the stigmas are counted since the styles are wanting.

He wants to know if his Diapensia is the same as that of the authors he quotes?

In Hortus Cliffortianus he has rejected some thousands of varieties and placed them with Greek letters under their species.

He would like Haller to mark the truly Alpine plants in his “Synopsis” with an asterisk and he would like to have an Alpine Flora of Europe.

If Haller has got a flower of Pietro Micheli’s Franca he would like to know the number of its stamens. Linnaeus considers Haller’s “Synopsis” to be the best of all and he is sure that Haller will not only give a list of Swiss plants, but also give information about each species regarding how it differs from its congeners. This would not be difficult for Haller.

When Haller has fixed the species, he should reduce all varieties to their species. Linnaeus is sure that they have the same opinion of varieties. Giulio Pontedera, Micheli, etc. put forward a lot of varieties as species. Every little difference, every trifling variety, is considered a new species by them. Linnaeus however has always preferred to take two distinct species for one and considered them varieties as long as he was uncertain.

Iussieu and Dillenius are Linnaeus’s friends. He is not acquainted with Sébastien Vaillant. It is said that he wanted to make his way at his teacher Joseph Pitton de Tournefort’s expense. Vaillant was only a demonstrator in the Paris garden and set himself up against Jussieu and Dillenius. He was poor, etc. But Linnaeus confesses that he never read any writer who was more accurate than Vaillant, who discovered more in botany, who worked harder. Linnaeus does not think that Vaillant should be handed down to posterity as a madman or the most stupid man just because he honoured botany. Iusseu has sworn hostility to the memory of Vaillant, but Dillenius is not content with the irony, with which Vaillant was insulted in Hortus Elthamensis. But who was ever free from errors in botany? Who deserved more than Plukenet in exotic plants, although he was not systematic. But who was more of a heretic in botany than Vaillant and Plukenet according to Hortus Elthamensis. Linnaeus does not care about Iusseu’s or Dillenius’s opinion.

Linnaeus wants Haller to note that Xanthium and Ambrosia bear amentaceous flowers.

The Veronica of Flora Lapponica, 7. §7, is Veronica alpina frutescens as Linnaeus learnt from Dillenius and the Sherardian specimens at Oxford but no part sprouts out, except the lowest part. He wonders if this is because of the colder climate of Lapland.

Joachim Burser wrote about Veronica alpina bellidis, Hirsuta and that he sent that plant to Caspar Bauhin. In his herbarium in Uppsala there is hardly such a specimem. If there are three distinct species Linnaeus wishes that their characters were presented separately. Having looked at his specimens he found out that Saxifraga tridactylites and Haller’s Alpine one are only varieties because their fructification is the same.

He wants to know if Haller among his Swiss plants has found the following plants in Linnaeus’s Flora Lapponica: 13, 85, 88, 115, 164, 165, 166, 172, 174, 181, 207, 208, 231, 232, 236, 242, 243, 244, 245, 302, 319, 342, 353, 368, 443.

How many seeds and stamens are there in Tozzia and in Franca? He would like to know if Haller has observed the female and male flowers in Viscum on separate plants and if they are to be called petals in the female which are seated on the flower.

He thinks Haller is right to complain about the lack of characters in the history of animals as in ichthylogy, etc. Linnaeus is now printing his late friend Petrus Artedi’s posthumous works. He established natural classes, natural genera and complete characters, a universal index, etc.

He hopes that Haller will not mind if he writes something about his dissertation, which he considers a work of great labour.

p. 7: Haller realises that when the botanists spoke about the method of John Ray as being perfectly natural, they must have been blind or perhaps hoped for a professorship like Dillenius or compelled by the authority of the English. Ray was a hardworking man in collecting and describing but he did not know anything about generic principles or examination of flowers. Linnaeus wants Haller to compare Ray’s first edition of his method with the second and the third, where he took everything from Tournefort. He wonders why nobody has observed Andrea Cisalpino’s discoveries, who was a great botanist.

Morison was vain, but must be praised for reviving a method, which was expiring. Tournefort owes a lot to Morison, just as Morison owes a lot to Cisalpinus, who wanted to see the chain of natural affinities rather than the characters.

He thinks that Haller has been a severe critic of Rivinus and he hopes that Haller will not be judged in the same way. If rules are assumed they ought to be followed and if he presents natural classes they must be kept, otherwise a fault is committed.

He wants to know if the outermost flowers of Opulus are irregular, how Haller defines regularity, and why one cannot assign a solitary seed to Sanguisorba and four to Tormentilla, just as eight or sixteen.

He is afraid that Haller does not know what an umbilicated fruit is and wants to know if Haller separates Rubus from Rosa.

He would like to see Haller’s characters of Orchis and its affinities. Haller should read Plukenet, Petiver and Ray’s American ones and before that Vaillant’s European ones.

p. 8 Not the Tournefort system. Linnaeus admits that Tournefort has his errors but no system is more natural than his. Tournefort’s Labiata, Cruciformes, Liliacei, Umbellati, Papilionacei and Compositi are all good.

p. 9 Pontedera wanted to a lesser degree to follow the laws of nature. Tournefort created confusion in the Composites but he was useful in many ways although not as much as Vaillant. Pontedera was the only philosophical botanist.

p. 9 Christopher Knaut’s system overthrown by Dillenius. Linnaeus wonders why Dillenius was an unfair judge in his apology for various methods.

p. 9 Pierre Magnol. Linnaeus laments that there are not more artificial methods founded on various parts. If there were, it would be easier to decide in which classes a certain part of the fructification was important and in which it was not.

p. 9 Vaillant. Linnaeus considers him most sagacious in genera. He might not have determined the Bauhin plants accurately enough, but it is difficult to do this correctly without description, figures, etc.

p. 9 The judgement of Boerhaave’s and Ray’s methods. Linnaeus agrees that their classes are false but wants to know if there are any others more preferable.

He finds it strange that Haller combines Lychnis and Rapunculus. Trees and herbs should be combined.

p. 10 There are herbs with an umbilicated fruit and others without, as well as trees. He wants to know if the Cachrys and Simpla nobla are arborescent but gymnodisperma. Is not Tournefortia an Asperifolia, though a tree?

Are there any infinite shrubs among the Labiatae or plants with four naked seeds?

How many arborous species of Conyza are there from Africa and America?

Linnaeus wants to know what Haller knows about the double calyx of Chenopodium.

The Lichens. Linnaeus wonders if Haller has found any limits among the figures of the pyxides in the Lichens and if he derives the charcters from the quantity of their leaves.

p. 11 Linnaeus wonders that Haller looks for the characters of the Ferns in the shape of their leaves, after having seen Plumier’s work on ferns. He did not see Haller’s or Dillenius’s work regarding genera before he wrote his own and finds it strange that they all have the same opinion anyway. It was the same with the flower of Unifolium which was printed in Flora Lapponica in April last year.

p. 13 Haller pointed out Vaillant and Dillenius as examples of errors, but Linnaeus thinks that everybody makes mistakes sometimes.

p. 16 Haller wrote that Uva Ursi has a four-cleft calyx and that it has eight stamens. The Uva Ursi of Flora Lapponica, t. 6, f. 3, has ten stamens and a five-cleft calyx.

Haller reprehended Pontedera because of his definition of parts founded on their use. Linnaeus doubts whether Haller in zoological matters can define the nose otherwise than by its use, so as to give a definition applicable to every kind of animal etc. Today Linnaeus received the plants sent by Haller for which he is very grateful.

He was especially pleased with Aphyllantes. Anonis alpina humilior, radice ampla, seems to be a species of Trifolium. Linnaeus would like to see the Androsace Alpina angustifolia, glabra, flore singulo, to know if it is the same as his Diapensia.

Salix Alpina alni folio rotundo glabro is Flora Lapponica, 355.

Alchimillae affinis Alpina seems to be a species of Alsinella or rather Arenaria.

He has not seen the Thora before and he is pleased to have seen its nectaries.

Cruciata alpina latifolia laevis in his garden is only a male plant and Haller has sent a hermaphrodyte. Linnaeus wants to know if it is different from Caspar Bauhin’s Rubia quadrifolia et latifolia laevis or Johann Bauhin’s Rubia quardifolia italica hirsuta.

Polygoloides and Chamaebuxus are only varieties of the same species.

The beautiful species of Acinos is a species of Teucrium and closely related to Marum Cortusi.

Salix Alpina rotundifolia incana is Flora Lapponica, 359 t. 7, f. 2,1.2.

Astragalus alpinus, foliis viciae, ramosus et procumbens, tenui ... flore glomerato albo caeruleoque is Astragalus of Flora Lapponica §267, t. 9, f. 1.

He has seen that the Astragalus Onobrychis is different.

Veronica alpina bugulae folio calyce hirsuto is the Veronica of Flora Lapponica, 7, t. 9, f. 4.

He has now seen what Uva Ursi is. Haller has correctly determined the number of stamens, the calyx and the corolla.

He proves that Haller’s Uva Ursi is the same as his Vaccinium of Flora Lapponica, p. 110, n. 144. Tournefort too has observed that the pistil becomes the fruit in Uva Ursi. Linnaeus has described it as an Arbutus caulibus procumbentis foliis integerrimis in Flora Lapponica, 123, t. 4, f. 3.

This should be rewritten but he has no time to do it and he hopes his friend will excuse him.

upMANUSCRIPTS

a. (Private collection). [1] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

upEDITIONS

1. Epistolarum ab eruditis viris ad Alb. Hallerum scriptarum I-VI (1773), vol. 1
2. Collectio epistolarum (1792), p. 16-28 .
3. A selection (1821), vol. 2, p. 269-288   p.269  p.270  p.271  p.272  p.273  p.274  p.275  p.276  p.277  p.278  p.279  p.280  p.281  p.282  p.283  p.284  p.285  p.286  p.287  p.288.
4. Vie de Linné (1832), vol. 2, p. 92- .

upEXPLANATORY NOTES

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Linnaeus refers to Ludwig, Definitiones plantarum in usum auditorumLudwig, Christian Gottlieb
Definitiones plantarum in usum
auditorum
(Leipzig 1737).
.
7.
8.
Morison, Plantarum historiae universalis Oxoniensis pars secunda-tertia{bib-Morison_1689-99}.
9.