Jonas Theodor Fagraeus to Carl Linnaeus,
10 February 1770 n.s.
L4345. Jonas Theodor FagraeusJonas Theodor Fagraeus (1729-1797).
Jonas Theodor FagraeusFagraeus, Jonas Theodor
Fagraeus now humbly wishes to ask a favour of Linnaeus not to discard this attempt. Fagraeus knows not whether Giovanni Antonio ScopoliScopoli, Giovanni Antonio
Fagraeus would be delighted if Linnaeus could, as a result of these innocent attempts, himself devote some thought to the key to “ord. Naturales”. Fagraeus at least hopes that there would be some pearls in Ennii’sEnnius, Quintus (c. 239
Fagraeus’s entire classification with “characters generum” amounts to more than 14 pages but if Linnaeus has time to think about it, and desired it, Fagraeus would be pleased to send him a copy. Fagraeus foremost asks how to distinguish the cryptogams from the other herbs, but wishes even more to hear what Linnaeus thinks about his efforts. Fagraeus apologises for the four pages of the letter that have certainly perplexed Linnaeus, adding that he should have avoided including the fifth. Alingsås is not Uppsala, where Fagraeus has received so many oral tutorials.
Then follows a list of Fagraeus’s classifications: “Animalia”, “Vegetabilia”, and “Fossilia ”, with sub-orders in “Animalia” being “ Theria”, “Dermes”, “ Insecta ” and “ Vermes ”, and of “ Fossilia” being “ Mineralia ”, “ Lapides”, “ Terrae ” and “ Aquae ”.
This list is followed by a postscript where Fagraeus states that he included the classifications intentionally in order for Linnaeus to see how “Regnum Fossile” has given him reason to include both “Regnum Vegetabili” and “Animali”. Dividing “ Fossilia ” into more groups than is common, reminded Fagraeus of their medical and economic use, preferably since, he, together with Johan Gottschalk WalleriusWallerius, Johan Gottschalk