p. (c' 5 >'> 
Roll, Tiiaotheus von (cont.) 
^onig, I.C., also mentions tiie editor»s use of this name. Altho 
it looks quite as genuine as the real one, the latter is found in 
other connections that prove its authenticity, altho the snellings 
are far from uniform. 
As no copy of ’»Der Schweitzerische hotanicus" has been located 
in the United States up to the present time, it has not been per¬ 
sonally examined. It is mentioned as "nothing but a garden book" 
by Emmanuel von Haller, Bib. Schweiz. Gesch. 1:505 (1785), where 
he treats it as anonjrmous, and remarks that it needs no comment, 
that is, in a bibliography of botanical works. That it was pub¬ 
lished, with a different editor, in the same year as the "Neues 
blumen-biichlin" seemed rather suspicious. This raised a question 
whether it might not actually be another edition of the same book, 
a suspicion greatly strengthened by the following discoveries. 
In an examination of "Der Curieuse pfropff- und oculir-meister" 
(Hannover und Wolffenbiittel, 1695), pt.2 was found to contain ref¬ 
erences to Timotheus von Roll, with mention of the dates 1669 and 
1687. This suggested that pt.£ might be based upon one of Roll»s 
books. Some of the material could be recognized in the "Neues blu- 
men-biichlin" of 1687, but the phraseology was quite different, and 
the latter book contained little or none of the lore on the influ¬ 
ence of the planets and signs of the Zodiac that appeared in "Der 
Curieuse pfropff- und oculir-meister". Finding that the Stadtbib- 
liothek of Zurich owned a copy of the 1713 edition of the "Botani- 
cus", as well as other books that were involved, we sent a number 
of extracts from !'Der Curieuse pfropff- und oculir-meister" to be 
compared there. Dr. Hans Barth of that library discovered that the 
2d part of this work had been reprinted almost verbatim from "Der 
Schweitzerische botanicus". (Hans Barth to J'FW, May 31, 1921). 
Seguier, Bib. Bot., p.391, lists the "Schweitzerischer botani¬ 
cus" with imprint: "Zug, Franz Carl Ross, 1682", and while it is 
likely that the printer's name is correct, the date is not given 
by other authorities; and in viev? of the fact that 1687 is cited 
in part 2 of "Der Curieuse pfropff- und oculir-meister", it does 
not seem probable that the "Botanicus" could have been issued as 
early as 1682. However, Seguier credits his entry to "B. R." or 
Bibliothdque Royale, that is, the present Bibliothfeque Nationale, 
so that it should be possible to check this imprint date. 
