In ultimis chartis ad paragraphum 241 in fine Scribis te duplicem Elenchum mittere a Graecorum, b Latinorum.[2] Haec bene se habent.
Sed in fine § 242 scribis “Schema sisto antiquorum nominum, metamorphosin quae admiserunt; ex quo, quot modis hunc sonum conservare adgressus sum, cuique constabit. Singulo antiquo nomini numerum addidi ex Fundamentis Botanicis desumtum, qui collatus cum consimili paragrapho, tradit rationem cur exclusum fuerit antiquum.”[3]
Dein addis chartulam discissam quae inscribitur pejora — meliora, continensque literas a, b, g, d, e, z, h.[4] Nullam autem chartam reperio cum numeris ex Fundamentis tuis Botanicis.
An quid deficiat vel non, ignoro.[5]
Dein ad paragraphum 244 pertinet Charta quae tenet a |Nova Efficta| haecque inchoant cum Anthospermum et desinunt cum uniola. Sed tamen ita scribis quod non intelligo, sc[ilicet]
Theobroma.
Trigonella.
Tubipora.
uniola.
et a Viris dicta § 237
et 238.
Quid sibi volunt hae duae ultimae regulae.[6]
Quod autem in num[ero] 238 scribis detruncanda esse nomina nimis longa ne sesquipedalia evadant, ut Gundelsheimeria in Gundelia, bene est.[7] Non tamen hoc procedit in Richardsonia, nam Richardson est longe alius vir quam Richard, et sunt adhuc familiae quae vocantur Richardson et aliae quae Richard.[8]
Ibidem scribis assumenda eorum nomina &c; ubi in exemplis tam intricate scribis ut vix possim legere, e[xempli] g[ratia]
{div-table}
Persistant
| Excludantur
|
Cortusa Matth. a ejusdem nominis
| Pl. Thalia *
|
Quaeso dicas quid sibi velit illud quod debet stare inter Matth. et ejusdem.[9]
Unde constat quod Camellius [sic] sit Anglus.[10]
..... quod ab Hugone insignia artis sint speranda ornamenta.[11] A te et Tuis verbis.[a]
Quaeso cogites de Epistola Scheuchzeri[12], ac de praecipitatione mineralium.[13]
Respondeas quaeso quam primum.
Vale
Lugd[uni] Bat[avorum] die Mercurij 1737 April[is].
{div-signature}Joh[annes] Fred[ericus] Gronovius.
{div-address}[address] Mijn Heer / Mijn Heer Carolus Linnaeus Med[icinae] D[octor] / op de Hartecamp / Met de schuyt van half een.
TEXTUAL NOTES
a. The colour of the ink proves that the sentence “a Te et Tuis verbis” was later added tot the letter by Gronovius.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
1. The letter has previously been dated on 12 April 1737 for reasons that are not altogether clear. In fact, the letter does not contain any specific date. It is only stated in the letter that it was written on a Wednesday (die Mercurij). However, in the year 1737, 12 April was a Friday rather than a Wednesday. This dating is based on the fact that in 1737 Easter (always a Sunday) was celebrated on 21 April. See Strubbe & Voet, Chronologie, 134.
2. Critica botanica, p. 100-111.
3. Critica botanica, p. 113.
4. Critica botanica, p. 113-114.
5. In the printed version of Critica botanica no separate numbers were added to the ancient nomina generica that were changed by Linnaeus.
6. Critica botanica, p. 118-119. The printed text is identical to the hand-written notes sent to Gronovius by Linnaeus.
7. Critica botanica, p. 88, no. 5. The printed version reads Gundelsheimera rather than Gundelsheimeria.
8. In the printed version of Critica botanica, Richardsonia is no longer given as a typical example of a nomen genericum that should be replaced by a shorter one. Linnaeus followed Gronovius’s suggestion in this particular case.
9. The printed version of Critica botanica (p. 89, no. 8) reads as follows: “Cortusa Matth. al. ejusdem nominis.”
10. Critica botanica, § 238, lit. a, p. 91-96 (Memoria clarorum botanicorum), p. 92: “Camellus Joh. Anglus, inclaruit 1731.”
11. See Critica botanica, § 238, lit. b, p. 95: “Viventium, e quibus insignia artis ornamenta maxime speranda. [...] Hugonia.”
12. See Gronovius’s lettter to Linnaeus of 5 February 1737 n.s..
13. Linnaeus answered Gronovius’s question about the precipitation of minerals in his next letter, as can be inferred from Gronovius’s letter to Linnaeus of 15 April 1737 n.s..