Johan Otto HagströmHagström, Johan Otto
(1716-1792). Swedish. Physician and
naturalist. Linnaeus’s student. Linnaeus
wrote the introduction to his Pan
apum (1768), on bee-pollinated
flowers. He was one of the tutors of
Carl Linnaeus the Younger. Correspondent
of Linnaeus. thanks Linnaeus for having looked through his observations for the previous summer. Hagström will deal with various questions that had arisen when he revises his Pan apumHagström, Johan Otto Pan
apum, eller afhandling om de örter,
af hvilka bien hälst draga deras
honung och vax; ingifven til K.
Vetenskaps academien, såsom svar
på dess fråga,
bi-skötsel(Stockholm, 1768) in 1772 [Hagström refers to the forthcoming Svar på samma fråga med en förbättrad Pan apumHagström, Johan Otto
Svar på samma fråga med
en förbättrad Pan apum
(Stockholm, 1773). . In the meantime he asks Linnaeus to guide him in a number of questions concerning bees. Is it possible, he asks, among numerous other questions, that a certain place is attractive to bees in a warm climate but not when it is cold? Hagström discusses Johann Gottlieb GleditschGleditsch, Johann Gottlieb
(1714-1786). German. Botanist and
sylviculturist in Berlin, disciple of
Anton Wilhelm Platz and Johann Ernst
Hebenstreit, supervisor of Caspar Bose’s
garden 1731-1735, professor at the
Collegium Medico-Chirurgicum in 1746.
Correspondent of Linnaeus. and his observations. Gleditsch says that in Berlin the bees go for Delphinium elatum, which grew in the garden of Carl BorénBorén, Carl (1720-1783).
Swedish. Headmaster in Linköping,
vicar of Hjorthed. . Hagström says that Gleditsch had not studied bees out in the field but had collected a bunch of flowers that he had placed in front of the bees. Hagström comments that these results cannot be reliable and prefers to close his eyes to Gleditsch’s Vermischte physikalisch-botanisch-ökonomische AbhandlungenGleditsch, Johann Gottlieb
Abhandlungen, 3 vol. (Halle,
1765-1777). , where he has only read the second part. It is a tedious reading, as Gleditsch writes very excessively, compared to Linnaeus’s economic way of writing, which Hagström prefers. Hagström has further questions to ask Linnaeus, mainly regarding the behaviour of bees as autumn gets closer and chillier weather prevails.
Hagström reminds Linnaeus that he has promised to devise a “winter argument” or experiment for him to prepare for the the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences [Kungliga Svenska VetenskapsakademienKungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademien,
Swedish. The Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. Founded
in 1739. ].
Hagström again returns to Gleditsch, discussing the prize of the first part of the Vermischte physikalisch-botanisch-ökonomische Abhandlungen, and suggests that Gleditsch could not have read Amoenitates academicaeLinnaeus, Carl Amoenitates
academicae, I-X (Stockholm
1749-1790). Soulsby no. 1280. , from which he would have been able to obtain immense knowledge. Hagström also makes some remarks on arbitrary information in the Flora Svecica 2nd ed.Linnaeus, Carl Flora Svecica
: exhibens plantas per regnum Sveciae
crescentes, systematice cum differentiis
specierum, synonymis autorum, nominibus
incolarum, solo locorum, usu
pharmacopaeorum 2nd ed. (Stockholm
1755). Soulsby no. 409.
and Species plantarumLinnaeus, Carl Species
plantarum (Stockholm 1762-1763).
Soulsby no. 500. . The Dissertatio academica mundum invisibilem breviter delineaturaLinnaeus, Carl Dissertatio
academica mundum invisibilem breviter
delineatura, diss., resp. J. C. Roos
(Uppsala, 1767). Soulsby no. 2348. contains more on two pages, than Gleditsch on 20!
The seeds Hagström had sown last spring did not germinate, probably because of the heavy raining.
P.S. Hagström asks Linnaeus about proof-reading of manuscripts and how to instruct the printers to use the correct fonts. In closing, he wonders whether modus efflorescentiae is good Latin, or how to express that idea in Latin.