354 
LINN/EUS 
If thus both Acrel and Thunberg must be 
acquitted from the accusations levelled against them, 
what were the causes which brought about this 
deplorable transaction? There are two which seem 
to be the most important. 
The first must be sought in the then prevalent 
defective appreciation of the value of such collections, 
which increases with the passing of years—an 
ignorance which then prevailed, not only with the 
general public, but even with eminent naturalists. It 
was much later that experience showed the great 
value of original specimens such as the type-specimens 
of Linne or of other distinguished men, especially 
when more complete and better preserved examples 
were obtained. The sale of these collections was 
regarded as something praiseworthy, and it was even 
reckoned as being meritorious in Acrel, that before 
they left the country he put the collections in order 
and catalogued them. When the Consistory voted 
upon the question of a successor to the younger Linne, 
Acrel obtained eleven votes and Thunberg twelve; so 
the latter was subsequently appointed by the King. 
The other and probably more important reason 
for the unhappy scientific loss was the King’s absence 
in Italy and France, whence he returned to Stockholm 
on the 2nd August, 1784. It has never been known 
whether any intimation of the negotiations ever 
reached him during his absence. He remained in 
Stockholm till the 28th September, when he started on 
a journey to the southern provinces of the kingdom, 
returning on the 10th October to his palace of 
Gripsholm. How much the King during this journey 
learned of what had taken place is uncertain, but it is 
probable that it was from C. Alstromer at Gothenburg 
—or after his return, from Dahl’s petition, that he 
became informed as to these transactions. It is 
certain that the Chancellor, then at Gripsholm, on the 
nth October (the day following the arrival of the 
King), sent a letter to Acrel with a request for an 
