Peter Forsskål has received Linnaeus’s letter of 9 April [this letter has not come down to us]. He has started collecting seeds of Helleborus, a wild plant around Göttingen. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the right species as the leaves do not match Linnaeus’s description. This one has folia digitata, which can be seen from enclosed leaves and Forsskål gives a reference to Albrecht von Haller’s ”hortus” [i.e. Enumeratio plantarum horti regii et agri Göttingensis]. This is the only available species, wild as well as in the botanical garden, where many of the plants mentioned in the catalogue have now become extinct for want of proper care. According to the gardener and the present professor in charge [Johann Gottfried Zinn], Siberian plants thrive in Göttingen, purchased by Haller annually and procured by a certain Martini [presumably a gardener] in Stuttgart.
Aruncus is a problem, too. The gardener does not know this name, nor its other name Barba caprae , but only Filipendula. There are only two species of Filipendula, one is our Ulmaria , of the second Forsskål is enclosing a leaf and a piece of its stem to be followed by ripe seeds later.
Forsskål mentions plants that are common here but not in the Uppsala region: Bellis, Atropa, Erigeron paniculatum, Thyteuma spicata, Lilium, yellow Reseda, Anemone, Colchicum, Cicorium , Verbena, Dipsacus, Bupleurum perfoliatum, white Caucalis, and Adonis with yellow and red flower grow among the corn. Forsskål refers to Flora Svecica 2nd ed. where Linnaeus says he has never seen the Caucalis flower.
Entomology is a neglected field in Göttingen. Forsskål has started collecting insects together with three colleagues and has inspired Zinn to do the same. The insects are arranged according to the Linnean system. There is little interest in botany, as well. Zinn organizes a weekly excursion but the participants are few and shockingly ignorant. Zinn shows what plants he wants, his servant is carrying them home, and next Monday they are demonstrated at a lecture. There are no lessons at the excursions. Not even half of the students of medicine care about botany. There is a huge difference between Zinn’s excursions and those magnificent ones under Linnaeus’s guidance.
Göttingen has been visited by Benedikt Stähelin from Basel on his way to the Netherlands and France, where he will visit professors and botanical gardens. Georg Christian von Oeder, professor of botany in Copenhagen, will roam Europe collecting seeds for the new botanical garden in Copenhagen.
Christlob Mylius has passed away in England on his way to America, deep in debt. Linnaeus can read by himself in No. 37 of the enclosed journal. He stayed in England for a long time, interpreting smaller scholarly texts, and replied on Haller and Samuel Christian Hollman urging him to hurry up with the intended journey, since one do not have to fear that the sea freezes between England and America. As Mylius was from Germany, the Englishmen thought that the Germans should pay his debts. It was felt that he was skilled, but not studious enough. Forsskål heard about him at the Royal Society of Sciences and Humanities in Göttingen [Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen], which he once had the opportunity to visit. At the same occasion Johann Matthias Gesner read out a letter which he had received from France, and where it was told that the topic of natural history was widespread in Sweden, and that both courtiers and court ladies devoted themselves to this, a piece of information which was admired by everyone.
Haller is in Switzerland, quite pleased with his position on a minor political post, but will probably return as university chancellor. His relationships to the government in Hannover is good, and he maintains his connections with the Royal Society of Sciences and Humanities in Göttingen by only reviewing Swedish items. Recently Haller published a review of Linnaeus’s Species plantarum, if Linnaeus is curious of Haller’s opinion, he can read for himself in the enclosed journal no. 80 [Forsskål refers to the Commentarii Societas Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis]. That Haller is the author, Forsskål has also heard from Zinn, who recently said he was curiously waiting for this review from Haller. The Onopordon which [due to Haller] is said to be missing in Linnaeus’s work, Zinn has also noted is missing, and therefore he would like to send seeds of this plant to Linnaeus, if he only knew that is what he wanted. According to Zinn, Haller is not well liked by his colleagues in Göttingen, as Haller has acted in a despotic way, and wanted to take advantage of the fact that he had reputation and favor with the government in Hannover. Except for Hollman, Johann David Michaëlis and Zinn, all the other professors are not his friends. Some time ago, they all heard through Michaelis, that Haller fallen down the stairs in his house, and broken his arm, and that he longed for new Swedish publications.
Forsskål mentions a new book at the library [in Göttingen] about the metamorphosis of insects or Lepidoptera, with title The English Moths and Butterflies, published in London by Benjamin Wilke [Benjamin Wilkes] with 120 cupper plates. The illustrations resemble those of Eleazar Albin, in his A natural history of birds. Most of these have been painted before, the author [Wilkes] quotes Martin Lister, Albin, Maria Sibylla Merian, René-Antoine Ferchault de Réamur , August Johann Rösel von Rosenhof etc., some of the items are probably not mentioned by other authors. Wilkes has edited the plants in a proper ssytem, and is quoting some special botanists, especially Caspar Bauhin. On the frontpage it says that the prize for the book is 9 Pounds sterling, and a little more than 3 pounds without coloured illustrations. The format is quarto, the same as Albin’s. If a new edition of the fauna [Forsskål means Fauna Svecica] is planned, and if Linnaeus so demands, Forsskål is willing to send him synonyms from Wilkes’s work, as many as he knows for sure. Rösel von Rosenhof’s work is not even available at the library.
In Amsterdam, Louis Rénard has published beautiful fish-illustrations in French in a two-volume work, “Poissons des Indes” from 1781 [Forsskål refers to, Poissons, écrevisses et crabes; the year 1718 is annotated on the work in the library]. In the library someone has written 1718 on it. There are also crabs and other kind of sea animals, everything coloured. Forsskål has also seen the original manuscript or perhaps it is a coloured copy of it at the library. Forsskål says he liked to communicate this to Linnaeus, as Rénard’s work is not mentioned in Linnaeus’s Fauna Svecica, and if this work is not known to Linnaeus.
Hollman has discussed and tried to refute Linnaeus’s theory about “Animalcula seminalia” in Amoenitates Academicae [Forsskål here refers to Linnaeus’s Sponsalia plantarum, also published as no. 12 in
Amoenitates academicae]. Hollman had seen sperm swim like eels in water, and argues that everyone can see that through a good microscope, making the diameter 50 times larger. According to Forsskål, Hollman exemplifies with milt from carps, diluted with water in a tube of glass, on which one blows with a [lit] candle at both ends, and then examines it through the microscope against the lighted candle. Hollman claims that he has observed them alive in lukewarm water for 4 to 5 hours, and argues that Linnaeus has only seen them being dead, or not separated through dilution. He means that the sperm can clearly be seen.
Hollman has also demonstrated the blood circulation in the caudal fin of a living fish, called Stein-smerl by the Germans [Cobites barbatula]. The fish, wound to lie still, was placed on a glass-plate under an English microscope [Forsskål refers to a Culpeper microscope, named after its constructor Edmund Culpeper], with a lit candle in front it, which threw light rays on the “reflector mirror”. Then one could observe blod bullets as large as barleycorn and their circulation from the arteries into the veins.
Furthermore, he has rejected Johan Gottschalk Wallerius’s idea about the transformation of water in the soil. Forsskål says it would be interesting to know, if this can be demonstrated chemically.
Johan Ihre’s Specimen glossarii Ulphilani has been reviewed in Göttingen and attracted great interest. People [in Göttingen] want a continuation as well as of Wulfila’s [Ulfilas’s] illustrations. People here do not believe that the Codex argenteus is Wulfila’s [Ulfilas’s] but a version in old Franconian. It will be up to Ihre to refute these views.
Forsskål congratulates Linnaeus on the birth of a son and a new heir to his illustruos name [Johannes Linnaeus was born on the 7th of April 1754; the birth of his second son was presumably mentioned in the letter we are missing from Linnaeus to Forsskål, dated 9 April 1754].