188 



preserving his " supposed " types. As to this question I wish the 

 author had read some works by Fries, Hartman and several 

 others, in which an account has been given of Linnaeus' herbarium, 

 together with his method of collecting, of citing, etc. It is, indeed, 

 a very risky matter to undertake the study of an old herbarium 

 without previously having looked into its history, and without 

 being more than even a little familiar with the works of the 

 master. And noboby can expect to get any insight into botani- 

 cal science as taught by Linnaeus by simply using his " Species 

 Plantarum, 1753, as the starting ' Catalogue ' of botanical nomen- 

 clature," and ignoring all the rest of his writings. Now in regard 

 to the statement in the article, that " Linnaeus' herbarium is of 

 comparatively little value for the determination of his types " (p. 

 148), it is necessary to call attention to the well-known fact that 

 Linnaeus did not work with types. When, furthermore, the 

 author declares " that the types of Linnaeus must very largely 

 depend on the plates and descriptions of the early writers from 

 which he quoted," I wish to refer to Linnaeus' own words (Mant. 

 2) that the synonyms are of little importance in the determina- 

 tion of his species ; moreover that the figures which he cites, 

 were not intended to give any exact illustration of his species, but 

 only some idea of their general habit or aspect. 



Finally I desire to correct the statement about Osmunda 

 Lunaria (p. 149), that Botrychiiun matricariac is the only plant 

 preserved as this species. The Linnaean specimen is not, as the 

 author states, labeled Osmunda Lunaria, but, and in Linnaeus' 

 own handwriting: " Osmunda Lunaria ft" and this letter ft refers 

 to the variety in Species Plantarum, which later became Botrychium 

 matricariae Schrank, thus the specimen preserved in this case well 

 " matches the name and diagnosis." 



Tmeo. Holm. 

 Brookland, D. C, 



November 1 1, 1903. 



