Title:
Albrecht von Haller to Carl Linnaeus
Type:
Image
Licence:
Contact [email protected]
Repository:
The Linnean Society of London
Collection:
Linnaean Correspondence
Reference number:
LC/6/76
Archival level:
Item
Date:
12 September 1737
Placement:
Volume 6: 157-158
Extent:
157-158
Language:
la
Description:
In return for Linnaeus’s Critica botanica and Musa Cliffortiana Albrecht von Haller has sent his De Pedicularibus and De Veronicis. Sébastien Vaillant’s observation is confirmed in Haller’s Stellaria. Haller is uncertain about Linagrostis. He admits being wrong about Linosyris (his notes mention five stamens). Persicaria has six or seven stamens, just as Linnaeus says, never ten. In Fumaria there are either six or two stamens. August Quirinus Rivinus’s method is impossible because it does not differentiate between a regular and irregular flower. There are the uncertainties of the petals, etc. The statement that Sanguisorba has but one seed is contrary to the observations made by Haller and others. The number of seeds and petals in Tormentilla is uncertain. Tormentilla alpina often has five petals and more than five seeds. The Orchides have two stamens concealed in a hood, either no tube or a very obscure one, and an irregularly formed flower. Furthermore, the Orchides are easily discernible from Helleborine, Neottia (Linnaeus) and related plants, because in these the hoods of the stamens nestle in a little spongy body. Whenever Joseph Pitton de Tournefort has natural classes, he deserts his own method and bears witness against himself. His system has no foundation. He puts unrelated flowers and fruits in the same classes. Does Linnaeus defend Pierre Magnol? Magnol cannot be defended; he hardly takes the calyx into consideration. He bases his highest classes on naked flowers and those with a calyx. When Caspar Bauhin’s synonyms are not supported by sufficient synonyms, they ought to be omitted or marked as doubtful and not taken out of those of Tournefort and applied in a worse way. The characters of the capitate, discoid and dipsaceous flowers in Sébastien Vaillant amount to nothing. Haller admits that he was wrong to combine the genera of Lychnis and Rapunculus. Haller admits there is no line separating herbs from trees. Lichenes are divisable not into genera, but into five sections. Concerning Unifolium Haller never copied Linnaeus, since he drew up his character as early as 1731. Before June 1737 he had only read Linnaeus’s characters of Statice and Limonium. The dotted leaves misled Haller in Uva ursi. He would like to have specimens of Linnaeus’s Uva ursi, Andromedae and Vaccinia, other Lapland plants and Linnaea. When Haller rejects definitions founded on the uses, he means those doubtful ones, which Giulio Pontedera has attributed to the petals and stamens. Haller was wrong about Opulus. He meant sterile flowers. To the Alpine plants he now adds his Diapensia. Alchemillae adfinis never shows any petals. He knows nothing about the sex of Cruciata. Polygaloides is Martin Daniel Johrenius’s name for Tournefort’s Chamaebuxus. The Acinos pulchrior is no Teucrium, but a true Acinos with a helmet (galea). The two Astragali hardly differ. There are four or five of the Veronica alpina. Haller has finished the Polyangiae and is now working with the Siliquosae. He is missing Eruca genevensis. The Orchides differ slightly in natural character from the bulbous plants. But there are systematic distinctions in the stamens, tube and ovary. Arum differs from them both and is apetalous. Haller asks where it should be placed. He will send a Hypopitys. Agrimonia and Salicaria are similar in flower, calyx, stamens and fruit. The anthers of Marsilea burst into four segments. In the centre there is a yellow tomentum close to the Mosses. Paul Heinrich Gerhard Moehring’s Asphodeliris is the Phalangium palustris iridis folio. Convolvuloides (or Convolvulus erectus) is an elegant section or relation to the genus of Convolvulus. Staehelinia is not a genus. Saxifraga alba petraea is taller than an Alpine plant should be, etc. Linnaeus does not want to use geography to distinguish plants; the Swiss Alpine plants are the same as Swedish meadow plants. All the Pediculares are Alpine; they are never found in mountains or in the Jura. Haller believes he has a specimen of Franca. The Fungi, Lichenes, Musci, Diangiae, Triangiae and Polyangiae are finished. In these nothing was altered. He has two Cristae Galli and two Melampyra. Tozzia is closely related to Ageratum. Among Linnaeus’s Lapland plants nrs. 85, 88, 231, 232 and 236, 244, 303, 353 and 443 all can be found in the Swiss Alps.
Sender:
Haller, Albrecht von
Recipient:
Linnaeus, Carl
Transcription:
Experientissimo Viro, Botanico summo, D[omino] D[octori] Carolo Linnaeo, s[alutem] p[lurimam] d[icit] Alb[ertus] Haller. Epistolam Tuam cum Critica & Musa recte adcepi. Mittam vicissim specimina Botanica de Pediculari et Veronica. Fuerunt autem Tuae literae simillimae dissertationis mihi obpositae. Sed id omne ab animo amicissimo profectum esse certus confido neque recuso doceri meliora. Atque primo adde me primis, quibus hic moratus sum, diebus amisisse uxorem omnibus animi & corporis dotibus ornatissimam. Quo in justissimo luctu hoc ipsum Programma coactus sum consignare. Quare Mendas irrepsisse minus videtur Venia indignum. In Stellaria mea observatio Vaillantiana firmatur. In Linagrostide incertus sum. In Linosyride lapsus est meaeque notae habent stamina 5. In Persicaria sex septemve st[amina] neque unquam decem, ut mones. In Fumaria idem est, an sex an duo, statuas. Rivini causam suscipis et quare? Intolerabilem inpossibilemque ob difficillimos floris regularis terminos, ob petalorum incertitudinem in multis & alia nimis Tibi nota. Videris quasi de Instituto contra me sensisse magis quam ex animi sententia. Sanguisorba an monosperma? Hoc contra me et omnes Auctores. Tormentillae semina incerta, petala ipsa incerta & pessime pentaphyllis eximitur. Tormentilla est Alpina, quae radice est maxima, saepe 5 petala habet; semina plerumque quinis plura. Umbilicatus fructus eleganter distinguitur a non umbilicato neque dubius est Character, quod me rectius nosti. Orchides habent duo stamina in cucullo recondita, Tubam nullam aut perobscuram, florem difformem, &c. Sed a helleborine, &c. maxime staminum cucullis discernuntur, cum in helleborine, Neottia Tua, aliisque adfinibus in corpusculo spongioso quasi nidulentur. Tournefortius quoties fere classes naturales habet, methodum suam deseruit et contra se ipsum testatur. Nullum a[utem] constans ipsi est Systematis fundamentum neque flos neque fructus, cum & flores diversissimos fructusque in easdem classes conjiciat. Florum v[ero] figuras pro classibus adsumsit Variabiles, indeterminatas. Non inde, si meliora non fecerim, ego, qui subsidiis & ocio destituor, non inde non erraverunt Tournefortius aut Rivinus. Magnoliana tueris? An forte non legisti? Vix videntur tueri posse. De calyce enim vix agit, sed tantum summas classes constituit florum nudorum et calyce praeditorum. Pessimi, ut vides. Interior omnis distributio juxta florem & fructum est. Quando Bauhini synonyma non sufficientes habent synonymias, debent omitti aut cum dubii nota adponi, non avelli a Tournefortianis & pejus distribui. Character floris capitati, discoidei, Dipsacoidei Vaillantio nullus omnino est, sed caute obruitur lector Charactere vero, a vicinis autem non distincto. Lychnides & Rapunculos me conjungere perinique. Moneo lectorem ex rigore methodi Boerhaavianae Lychnides in monoangias, triangias, Rapunculos in diangios & triangios secedere, uti Alsines ab Alsinellis, Alsinastrum tripetalon a pentapetalo sejungi debet ex rigore Rajanae. Adeo Tu me amas culpare, qui tam multa monueras de ea patientia, quam sibi mutuo praestare debentBotanici. De Herbis & Arboribus consentio aegre, sed limites desunt. In Lichene omnino non quidem genera, sed sectiones fieri debent. Prima Pyxides habet aut cornicula teretia sine scutellis. Altera folia et scutellas. Tertia folia sine scutellis. Quarta scutellas sine foliis. Quinta expansionem meram sine foliis scutellisque. Plumeriana habeo, neque folia tamen negligo. Sunt enim pars in filicinis princeps. Neque videor mihi ineptire, si ab intimo Charactere quaedam sperarem. Praeferrem utique, sed habesne Tu aliqua? De Unifolio tune dubitas, an Te exscripserim, qui anno 1731 Characterem hunc consignavi, qui ante Junium 1737 ne lineam ex Tuis praeter statices limoniique Characterem vidi a Gronovio Gesnero, hinc mihi, missum. Parcius haec objicere viris memento. Nihil enim mihi amarius quam Plagii suspicio. In uva ursi seduxerunt me folia punctata. Uvam certe ursi & Andromedas Tuas Vacciniaque admodum expeto. Alias etiam notabo Laponicas, quas, si supersunt, mitte, Tuam etiam Linnaeam. Quando definitiones ab usu rejicio, usus intelligo incertos Pontederianos, quales petalis, staminibus, &c. adsignavit. Facile est dare nasi definitionem ope tunicae pituitariae structuraeque turbinator[um] ossium sine usu, licet is evidens sit neque controversus. Et id Tu culpas intra sinum. Defendis, ut me refutes. In opulo erravi. Volui steriles dicere. Nunc ad Pl[antas] Alpinas. Addidi Diapensiam, quam omiseram, ut Tibi notam. Alchimillae adfinis nunquam Petala ostendit. Quater omnino repetii experimentum. De sexu Cruciatae non habeo. Polygaloides et Chamaebuxum dudum novi idem esse; illud Johrenii, hoc T[ournefortii] nomen. Cur objicis? Forte duo exemplaria Tibi misi per errorem. Acinos pulchrior minime Teucrium est, sed vera Acinos habetque Galeam. Inquire! Duo Astragali parum differunt. Folia alterius rotundiora, flores varii; alterius acutiora, habitus minor, flores subpurpurei, sed inquiram suo loco. De Veronicis Alpinis 4 aut 5 specimen meum Tibi satis faciet, ut spero. Hortus Cliffortianus, pulcherr[imum] opus, male compensabile mea synopsi. Elaboravi polyangias. Sum in siliquosis, difficili gente, et careo Eruca Genevensi aliisque. Ain Tu solana omnia bicapsularia esse? Orchides a bulbosis parum differunt in Char[actere] naturali, in systemate Staminibus, Tuba, Ovario, Arum ab utroque et est apetalon. Quo? Hypopitydem mittam. Optimus Char[acter] DILL[ENII], in quo nihil muto. Adfinis Orobanchae. Differt tamen in flore & fructu. Agrimonia & salicaria similes flore, calyce, staminibus, imo fere fructu. Antherae Marsillear[um] dehiscantne, quaeras? Millies vidi. Quando prodeunt ex volva, globus est viridis, adultus finditur. Fiunt 4 segmenta inque medio tomentum luteum adfine Muscis. In Muntingio non propero, sed Caesalpino vix possum carere. Moehringii hortus Oldenburgi 1737, 8. Asphodeliris, ut ex literis cognovi, est Phal[angium] pal[ustre] Iridis folio. Convolvuloides (s[ive] erectus convolvulus) elegans est sectio 2. aut affine genus Convolvuli. Ego nova genera condere ejuravi. In Pedicularibus videbis 4 Characteres. Genus determinare nolui. Terruit Staehelinia, quae licet melampyri div[ers]a sit species, genus non est. Non pertinax ero in saxifragia[sic] alba petraea. Sed habitus eximie altior est, qui minor debet esse in Alpina; flos multo major, &c. De Teucrio Alpino videris, an Staeheliniam dicere velis. Gratum feceris namque meretur Vir praeclarus sed nimis modestus. Videbis, quantum effecerit in synopsi mea. Plantas Tu loco non vis distingui. Qua demum ratione ego distinguam? An Thermom[etro] & Barometro? Ea enim est ratio, quare nostrae Alpinae vobis sint pratenses. Conabor tamen. Sic v[erbi] g[ratia] Pediculares fere omnes Alpinae sunt nunquam montanae aut Jurassinae. Francam credo me habere; occurrit aliquando. Synopsis utique non multum intra 3 000 pl[antas] erit. Differentias specificas conabor tradere, sed in conpendio non semper dari queunt. Novis a[utem] me arbores, Uvam Ursi, &c. nondum elaborasse. Quando v[ero] manus ultima erit imposita, spero tunc errores plerosque emansuros. Multis a[utem] praesidiis destituor. Tu posses plures Alpinas communicare. Longe plures habet Dillenius, sed aliquousque progrediar tamen. Verum ocium vix invenio. Absoluti sunt fungi, lichenes, musci, Diangiae, Triangiae & polyangiae omnes. In his nihil muto. Annuo labore reliqua emendabo. Varietates cum nota numerica subjiciam speciei. Sed quoties non una, verum multae partes, eaeque in flore atque non in eadem ratione differunt, toties plantas semoverunt, ut 2 Cristas Galli, 2 Melampyra, &c. Culpas, quod moneam de lapsu Dill[enii] et Vaill[antii]. Et Tu de millenis mones! Nomine omnia mutas. Ego non auserim de musco hiscere? An ideo inviduus? An Dill[enium] non laudavi? An Vaillantio feci injuriam? Nonne licuit ostendere unico verbo me quaedam vidisse, quae tantos viros fugerant? Tozzia est adfinis admodum Agerato & didynamia, sed monangia ex observatione Micheli. Rem examinabo. Ex stirpibus Tuis Alpinae sunt 85, ut vid[etur], 88, ut vid[etur], 231, 232, ut vid[etur], 236 certo (qui Morati nascitur ad lacum, ubi ab Bursero inventus est. Non a[utem] videtur differre a palustri). Observavi 1728; 244 certo, 303, 353 (saltem Scheuchz[eri]), 443 certo. De reliquis alias non liquet. Aliae certo non sunt Alpinae Helv[eticae]. Vale & porro in perficiente Arte Botanica labora atque me amare perge! Neque enim sententiarum diversitas nostros animos debet dividere. Quanto Te faciam ex eo, quod edimus, Diario erudito certius disces. Die XII Sept[embris] 1737. De Critica Tua alias. Mineras quasdam, &c. possideo, quas Tibi offero pro Cliff[ortiano] horto.
Previous reference number:
L0202
Condition note:
frayed and stained edges
