148 
THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
EHRHART AND THE ‘ SUPPLEMENTUM PLANTARUM.’ 
By James Britten, E.L.S. 
♦ 
At tlie end of the paper on “ Ehrhart and his Exsiccata? ”—pub¬ 
lished in this Journal for 1922 (pp. 318-827), but by some curious 
oversight omitted from the index to the volume—a further com- 
u t 
munication was promised concerning Ehrhart’s connexion with the 
Supplementurn Plantarum published by the younger Linnaeus in 
1781 ; that promise 1 now propose to fulfil. 
Ehrhart’s relation to the work, which was printed at an orphanage 
in Brunswick in 1781 is thus stated by Linn. fil. in a note under 
Ehrharta , a genus established by Thunherg in 1779 :—“ In memoriam 
clarissimi Frederici Ehrhart, Helveti, observatoris diligentissimi et 
acuti, cui plura debeo, et qui ob pristinam amicitiam curam typo- 
graphicum lnijus opusculi in se suscepit.” This appears on p. 29; 
but as the work progressed Linnaeus took a somewhat different view 
of Ehrhart’s cooperation. According to Smith (in Rees Cyclop, 
xii. s.v. “Ehrharta,” 1809, Ehrhart took too much upon himself; 
“being employed to superintend the printing of the Supplementum 
Plantarum, he introduced some of his own genera of mosses, with new, 
affected, and unauthorised terms, which gave so much displeasure to 
Linnaeus that the sheet was cancelled.” Smith bases his statement 
upon a letter (undated) addressed by Linnaeus to Johann Philipp du 
Roi, of which the following translation was subsequently (1821) 
published by him in the Correspondence of Linnaeus, ii. 572 :— 
“ Being uncertain of the address of Mr. Ehrhart, I have thought 
it safest to communicate with you, Sir, on the subject of the Supple¬ 
ment um Plantarum, he having entrusted to you the superinten¬ 
dence of the printing of that work in his absence. 
“What principally displease me are pages 69-74, containing the 
following genera of Mosses— Hedivigia , Pottia, Georgia , Grimmia , 
Weber a, Catharinea , Weissia, and Andrecea —with which I have no 
sort of concern. Everybody will think me mad, if these should come 
forth under my authority; especially as I have, this very year, in an 
academical dissertation already published, reformed the genera of 
Mosses, according to principles of whose solidity I am convinced ; 
and have also, in the same work, given names to several of them. 1 
would therefore have the above pages, containing these genera, 
cancelled ; or the whole sheet may be reprinted. An interval in the 
paging would be of no consequence. If Mr. Ehrhart is desirous that 
the genera in question should be published in this work, they may 
form an appendix: but in his name, not in mine. Nothing could he 
more unexpected on my part. No explanation can ever convince me 
of the propriety of allowing these genera to remain as they are, if 
the work is in any respect to be attributed to me.” 
Du Roi sent a copy of this letter to Ehrhart, who in turn quoted 
it in a letter to Linn. fil. (dated April 20, 1783), which is in the 
Linneean correspondence at the Linnean Society. Of this Dr. Jack- 
son kindly gives me an abstract: it contains no trace of resent¬ 
ment, but, after congratulating Linnaeus on the extent of his work, 
