-Search for letters
-Search in texts






Link: • Nicolaus Joseph, baron von Jacquin to Carl Linnaeus, 4 February 1764 n.s.
Dated 4 die Februarii 1764. Sent from Schemnitz (Germany) to (). Written in Latin.


Jacquin thanks Linnaeus for the letter of 4 January 1764Letter L3366 which had arrived three days earlier. He will answer piece by piece, as usual, and starts by thanking Linnaeus for his congratulations on his new life.

Linnaeus had misunderstood the matter of the Sicilian plants. He never had them, but Jacquin had sent him a description of some of them six months earlier (5 August 1763Letter L3286) with a reference to Silvio-Paolo BocconeBoccone, Silvio-Paolo
(1633-1704). Italian. Botanist at the
court of Ferdinand II of Tuscany,
professor of botany at Padua.
, and he had not received an answer or comment in return. Some of them, however, are in the new edition of Species plantarumLinnaeus, Carl Species
(Stockholm 1762-1763).
Soulsby no. 500.
, others are not, among which is Rhamnus pentaphyllus.

Jacquin has received the lists of answers except for the 114 specimens sent through Laurens Theodor GronoviusGronovius, Laurens Theodor
(1730-1777). Dutch. Naturalist. Senator
of Leiden. Son of Johan Frederik
Gronovius. Correspondent of Linnaeus.
together with some material from Giovanni Antonio ScopoliScopoli, Giovanni Antonio
(1723-1788). Italian. Physician and
naturalist. Correspondent of Linnaeus.
. This material had been in transit for a very long time but Linnaeus has confirmed that he got it three months ago (September 1763Letter L3299, so Jacquin had expected an answer to arrive a month ago. Since two years had passed since Jacquin sent it (3 April 1762Letter L3062, 23 April 1762Letter L3055 and 26 May 1762Letter L3069), he is very eager to hear from Linnaeus on the matter. Linnaeus had admitted that he had already sorted all specimens into his herbarium, so Jacquin mentions that he himself always keeps material sent by friends separately until he has become quite convinced that all open issues connected with that material are closed.

Jacquin identifies Coronilla coronata with his own Coronilla montana. – He can not send a specimen of the lichen that Linnaeus had wondered about since he, in that case, had to send it with a piece of the rock on which it grows. – He is glad that Linnaeus got a living tea bush. – Some other detailed matters are dealt with.

Scopoli’s images of insects are not ready yet, but they are being made.The other work Linnaeus asked about has been published (Jacquin refers to Entomologia CarniolicaScopoli, Giovanni Antonio
Entomologia Carniolica, exhibens
insecta Carniolae [... ] distributa
[...] methodo Linnaeana
), but Jacquin can not send it since there is no post facility available for such packages. A month earlier, there would have been an opportunity, since Jacquin then sent a package to Linnaeus through Christian Friis RottböllRottböll, Christian Friis
(1727-1797). Danish. Botanist and
physician. Professor of medicine at
Copenhagen. Linnaeus’s student.
Correspondent of Linnaeus.
containing among other things pictures from Dioscorides [Jacquin refers to the “Codex Vindobonensis”Dioscorides, Pedanius “Codex
Vindobonensis” (manuscript,
Nationalbibliothek, Vienna).

Jacquin has some critical comments to Linnaeus’s answers on a number of plant names. He sometimes suggests other names or thinks it is a new species.

Jacquin acknowledges having received the letter of 20 July 1763Letter L3276, to which he answered on 18 September 1763Letter L3294. That letter also contained seeds of Austrian plants requested long ago by Linnaeus. Among them is a very rare Polypodium. Jacquin has not yet had an answer to that letter. He supposes it has been lost in the mail, so Linnaeus should send his answer once more.

Jacquin mentions a number of flowers which he will enclose with the present letter. – He asks if Morinda Royoe flowers in Linnaeus’s greenhouse – it does in Chemnitz, all the year round, and is 20 feet tall.

Jacquin remarks on a grave mistake made by Linnaeus on Bontia in the new edition of Species plantarumLinnaeus, Carl Species
(Stockholm 1762-1763).
Soulsby no. 500.
. He does not like being cited as an authority to that mistake. Linnaeus has corrected it in the list of corrections but Jacquin is not satisfied. Jacquin thinks Linnaeus must have read the information Jacquin had sent in a letter (20 February 1760Letter L2682) somewhat carelessly. Linnaeus had managed to keep Bontia and Avicennia apart in Genera plantarum, 5th editionLinnaeus, Carl Genera
plantarum [...] editio quinta ab auctore
reformata et aucta
(Stockholm 1754).
Soulsby no. 301.
, but in Systema naturae, 10th editionLinnaeus, Carl Systema
, 10th edition (Stockholm
1758-1759). Soulsby no. 58.
, the new Bontia is the old Avicennia.

On the whole, Jacquin thinks the new edition of Species plantarumLinnaeus, Carl Species
(Stockholm 1762-1763).
Soulsby no. 500.
is too full of errors, some typographical, others due to undue haste. Linnaeus should have taken another year to prepare the work.

The list of the plants sent through Gronovius is given once more.

On a separate sheet (fol. 266), Jacquin gives a list of comments on a number of specimens sent through Rottböll a few weeks earlier.



a. (LS, VII, 224-225). [1] [2] [3]