Cristofolini, G. (2023). Caspar Bauhin's contribution to a historical herbarium stored in Bologna. Candollea 78: 33–51. In English, English abstract.
A historical herbarium stored in the herbarium of the Bologna University [BOLO], putatively ascribed to the Swiss botanist Caspar Bauhin (1560–1624), was examined with a focus on the information contained in the annotations to the specimens, in particular to the bibliographic references, in order to assess the time of collection of each specimen and to identify its origin. The analysis revealed that the herbarium includes specimens collected between the middle of the 16th century and the first decades of the 17th century, from more than one collector, including at least one learned scholar, and one or more inexperienced botanists. The identification of the authors, however, is hindered by the fact that their original inscriptions were destroyed after having been copied by a scribe. Nevertheless, among a great deal of poorly annotated material, four specimens could be confidently ascribed to Caspar Bauhin, while a further 15 might plausibly come from the same source. The hypothesis that his brother Johann also contributed some specimens, as suggested by previous studies, although not excluded, seems insufficiently supported. There is convincing evidence that the specimens ascribed to Bauhin were collected after 1596, and sent to Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522–1605) in Bologna before 1605. The whole herbarium, however, was not assembled in its present form before 1623. Most likely, it was Bartolomeo Ambrosini (1588–1657), lecturer in botany in Bologna at that time, who gathered a number of exsiccata collected or received during Aldrovandi's lifetime, and then arranged for them to be glued on paper sheets and labelled by a scribe. In doing so, the original labels were lost, and with them the possibility of identifying the authors with certainty.
Submitted on October 10, 2022. Accepted on February 2, 2023. First published online on March 28, 2023.
Introduction
Early herbaria, assembled during the 16th century, have been the subject of an extensive literature (Meyer, 1857; Morton, 1981; MÄgdefrau, 1992). It is well-established that modern herbaria originated in northern Italy around the middle of the 16th century, thanks to the pioneering work and under the leadership of Luca Ghini (1490–1556) in Bologna and, later, in Pisa (De Toni, 1907a). In a few years, starting from c. 1545, the art of composing herbaria developed rapidly; while Luca Ghini was preparing several hundred exsiccata that he used to deliver to his pupils (De Toni, 1905), an anonymous botanist in Tuscany composed a small herbarium, which is presumably the oldest extant from that time (Cristofolini & Nepi, 2021); meanwhile, the English botanist John Falconer, during his stay in Ferrara, composed his celebrated herbarium (Amatus Lusitanus, 1558; Camus, 1895), and Ghini's pupil Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522–1605) in Bologna claimed to be the first in Europe to discover how to dry and preserve living plants (Findlen & Toledano, 2018). In the following decades, the ars herbaria rapidly flourished and spread throughout Europe, so that as many as 15 herbaria of the 16th century are known to survive (Baldini et al., 2022 and references therein).
An intriguing aspect of these 16th century herbaria is that some of them remained, and are still preserved, at the place where they were composed, while others underwent various vicissitudes, that drove them far from their place of origin. Classic examples of the latter case are the so-called “Mendoza herbarium”, assembled in Italy, then transferred to Spain, and presently stored in the Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Spain (Andretta & Pardo-TomÁs, 2019), and the “En Tibi” herbarium, presumed to have been composed in Bologna and presently stored in Leiden, The Netherlands (Stefanaki et al., 2018, 2019).
Indeed, delivering or exchanging specimens of dried plants was a common practice among scholars from the time of Luca Ghini onwards (De Toni, 1907b). Aldrovandi's herbarium, for instance, includes many specimens sent by his correspondents (Soldano, 2000). In fact, exchanging well-preserved dried specimens, supplied with their names, allowed scholars throughout Europe to communicate unambiguously the exact meaning each one of them gave to the name of a particular plant for the first time in history. The importance of this procedure for the development of modern plant science cannot be overemphasized (Egmond, 2018).
A prime example is represented by a historical herbarium presently kept in BOLO, provisionally named “Bauhin at Bologna” (Baldini et al., 2022). Discovered at the beginning of the last century, it was first analyzed by Baldacci (1907) who suggested that it had been composed during the 17th century and, observing that the annotations to the specimens are full of errors and misspellings, concluded that it was the work of an inexperienced botanist. Overlooked in a library, it was eventually rediscovered almost ninety years later by Cristofolini et al. (1993) and re-examined by Mossetti et al. (1993). These authors, in contrast to Baldacci, concluded that the anonymous author had a deep and thorough knowledge of the botanical literature of the 16th century; moreover, two autobiographic references in the notes to Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. and Gossypium herbaceum L. pointed to Caspar (1560–1624) and to Johann Bauhin (1541–1613), respectively. As a result, these authors suggested that this collection came from both Bauhin brothers, and established the year 1592 as the terminus post quem of its composition.
The attribution to J. and C. Bauhin, however, appears scarcely compatible with the scientific inaccuracy of many annotations written on the herbarium, and with the poor identification of some specimens. Moreover, the joint participation of both Bauhin brothers is unlikely since, at the supposed time of compilation of the herbarium, Johann had been appointed as physician to the Duke of Württemberg (Webster, 1970), while Caspar was employed as professor at the University of Basel (Whiteridge, 1970).
As it stands, this herbarium is of interest as one of the few putative 16th century collections with an uncertain origin (given the questionable attribution to the Bauhin brothers). The supposed time of composition (last decade of the 16th century) needs to be corroborated and, if one or both Bauhin brothers were involved; likewise, the time of its transfer to Bologna needs to be established. Discovering the origin of this collection would be instrumental to a better understanding of the complex network of scientific relationships existing across Europe towards the end of that century.
The present research was focused on a critical analysis of all annotations annexed to the herbarium specimens. All authorities cited on the herbarium sheets (mostly in a shortened and/or misspelled form, and sometimes cryptic) have been identified; for each authority, the most likely bibliographic source accessed by the author of the herbarium was traced in order to establish the terminus post quem of the corresponding specimen. In several cases, the annotations also served to identify the presumed author (collector) of individual specimens. In parallel, Baldacci (1907)'s catalogue, and its revision by Mossetti et al. (1993), have been thoroughly reviewed, the species identifications have been checked and emended where necessary and the taxonomy and nomenclature have been updated.
The herbarium
The herbarium presently consists of six folders bound together in a single volume: folder 1, sheets 1–14; folder 2, sheets 15–29; folder 3, sheets 30 – 45; folder 4, sheets 46 – 59; folder 5, sheets 60–74; folder 6, sheets 75–88 (see Appendix 1). Each folder is composed of eight double-folded sheets, that formed originally 16 sheets per folder; the actual sheet number is lower (88 sheets) as a number of sheets have been removed. The binding is obviously much more recent, perhaps of the 18th century or later. The herbarium includes 272 specimens (see Appendix 1) representing 242 species (see Appendix 2). The specimens, between one and six per sheet, are glued on the recto of the sheets, several of them being severely damaged or almost destroyed. The notes are written directly on the sheets and, in spite of the accurate handwriting, they contain many errors and misspellings. A few names are in Italian (“Seme Santo”, 22c; “Aria di Theopasto” [sic], 33a; “Bacara”, 44b; “Fiore della Cornalia Marina”, 59c), some specimens are identified only by a generic name and others are either misidentified (e.g. “Ranunculus montanus Clusii”, 18c) or lack any identification.
Specimen provenance
Most specimens represent plant species that are rather common in northern Italy, which were possibly, but not necessarily, collected in the wild. A few exotic plants (e.g. Cassia senna L., Cinnamomum sp.) are certainly of cultivated origin; the same is presumably true for Origanum dictamnus L., endemic to Crete, known to have been cultivated in Bologna's botanical garden in the 17th century (Ambrosinus, 1657). The alpine flora is represented by some specimens that were presumably collected in the wild, like Diphasiastrum tristachyum (Pursh) Holub, Gentiana clusii E.P. Perrier & Songeon, Nigritella rhellicani Teppner & E. Klein, and Campanula rotundifolia L. The latter is the only case where the collector states the provenance of the specimen (“de Montis Baldi”).
The species' ecology is almost always ignored, as was usual in herbaria of that period. The only exception is a note attached to Thalictrum aquilegiifolium L. (“Thalictrum folia Coriandri habet pinguiora paulo /Nascitur maxime in campestribus”, 53a).
Authorities cited
More than 110 specimens (c. 40 % of the total) are countersigned simply by a name, without any indication of an authority, and 16 more specimens (6 % of the total) are unidentified. In the remaining 54 %, each specimen is identified by at least one polynomial name supported by its author, and often by two or more names, each of them supported by one or more authorities.
Almost all major botanical authorities of the 16th century are cited, besides some references to works published at the beginning of the 17th century. For almost all citations, the bibliographic source has been identified (Appendix 1); only in the case of classical and medieval authors (Avicenna, Crateva, Dioscorides, Galenus, Plinius, Theophrastos) were there no elements to identify the edition accessed by the herbarium compiler.
In a number of cases, the citations are not supported by published works and have been interpreted as follows: (1) “Lugdun.”, cited very often, probably refers to Herbarium Lugdunense (see Bauhin, 1596: Authores); (2) “Monspel.”, obviously refers to the Montpellier botanical school; (3) citations of Ulisse Aldrovandi probably refer to his herbarium; (4) a reference to Andrés Laguna de Segovia (44b) is interpreted as alluding to a personal contact; (5) a citation of Guillaume Rondelet (35a) probably refers to his school, as suggested by C. Bauhin in Pinax, where the name “Rondeletius” is accompanied by the explanatory words: “Rondeletius in sua praxi” (Bauhin, 1623: Explicatio nominum).
Collection date
The most ancient specimen seems to be Stachys sylvatica L. (44b), accompanied by the words: “Bacara da Andrea Lacuna”. The term “Bacara” or “bacchara” is an obsolete Italian name for Stachys sylvatica L. (Mattioli, 1568). The Italian wording suggests that the specimen was sent or given by the Spanish humanist and botanist Andrés Laguna de Segovia (1499–1559), who stayed in Italy from 1545 to 1554, receiving a doctorate from the University of Bologna. If so, this specimen was obtained necessarily before 1559, and probably before 1554. Apart from this case, most citations (about 300) are referred to works published between Virgilius (1523) and Columna (1592), with a preponderance of citations of Matthioli (1565) and Clusius (1576, 1583).
About 50 specimens are named according to works published after 1592, or the annotations include references to subsequent works. Twenty-six (26) specimens are named according to Phytopinax (Bauhin, 1596); 19 according to Rariorum plantarum historia (Clusius, 1601); two according to Ekphrasis (Columna, 1616); and five names are derived from or make reference to Bauhin (1623)'s Pinax.
Analysing the paper and the watermarks, a useful tool in dating historical collections (De Natale & Cellinese, 2009; Offerhaus et al., 2021), failed to provide additional information since two different watermarks present in some sheets (Baldacci, 1907; Mossetti et al., 1993) could not be identified.
Link to Bauhin
The search for the authors was necessarily based only on information provided by those specimens whose annotations are rich in nomenclature or other comments.
The nomenclature of some specimens (“Valeriana”, 21a; “Artemisia echinata”, 30e; “Valeriana vulgaris”, 69a) indicates a connection with the school of Ulisse Aldrovandi, but this does not necessarily apply to the whole collection.
Based on the evidence available, the hypothesis of a link to C. Bauhin (Mossetti et al., 1993) is corroborated by the following elements:
(a) Cerinthe major L. (35a; Fig. 1). The specimen is accompanied by the profuse inscription (“Plumbago et Molibdena plini /Lepidium Antonius Petrisentis /Herba Santi Antoni /Romae Dentelaria /Rondoletii herba ad Dificultatem”), that bears a remarkable similarity with an entry in Phytopinax (Bauhin, 1596: 154 – “Lepidium tertium seu Dentillaria. Herba S. Antonij Romae Gesn in Chamaenerio. Dentaria sive Dentillaria Rondeletij & Narbonensium Advers. pag. 136 /…/Sunt qui Molybdana, id est Plumbaginem Plinij lib. 25. cap. 13. esse velint”). The reference to Guillaume Rondelet (1507–1566) is presumably derived from a personal contact at the Montpellier school, since Rondelet never published on this subject. Bauhin was familiar with the Montpellier school and with the teachings of Rondelet (Whiteridge, 1970), who is cited in the Pinax among the reference authors (Bauhin, 1623: Explicatio nominum).
(b) Teucrium chamaedrys L. (62c; Fig. 2). The annotation is “Camedryum maiorem Repentem cum dodoneo vocamus”. With this wording, the author stated his choice in favour of Dodonaeus' nomenclature, the same as that adopted in Phytopinax (Bauhin, 1596: 473).
(c) Gossypium herbaceum L. (65a). The notation includes the words “in horto Doctoris Zwingeri vidimus /cuius iconem Historia nostra exhibebit”, which indicates that the author, a disciple of Doctor Zwinger, intended to write a “Historia Plantarum”. Based on these words, Cristofolini et al. (1993) proposed that J. Bauhin was involved in the composition of this herbarium. Gossypium L. is described in J. Bauhin's posthumous Historia (Bauhin & Cherler, 1650: 346) with an explicit reference to Zwinger's garden. However, the information stated on this sheet is also compatible with the biography of C. Bauhin, for Theodor Zwinger (Basel, 1533–1588) was professor at the Basel University, and both brothers were his disciples and intended to write a “Historia Botanica”: J. Bauhin spent much of his life in preparing his Historia, which was eventually published posthumously, but Caspar also had the same project, as declared in Phytopinax (Bauhin, 1596: Praefatio: “Universalem quoque historia coepimus”) and reiterated in Animadversiones (Bauhin 1601: 5) with the following words: “... in Historia nostra universalis quam pre manibus habemus et figuris plus quam tribus millibus illustrabimus fusius (Deo clementer vitam ert vires largiente) simus acturi”. There is, therefore, no doubt that this specimen indicates a connection with one of the Bauhin brothers, but it could apply to either of them. While Gossypium is not mentioned in Caspar's works (Bauhin, 1596, 1620, 1658), his contribution to this herbarium seems clear, as shown above, whereas Johann lived far from Basel when this herbarium was compiled (Webster, 1970). In conclusion, the attribution of this specimen to Caspar seems more likely. No specimens of Gossypium are preserved in Herbarium Bauhin-BAS (J. de Vos, pers. comm.); hence, this is presumably the only extant specimen of this genus collected by C. Bauhin.
(d) Capsella bursa-pastoris (78a). The inscription for this specimen reads “Bursa Pastoris Major folio sinuato C.B.”, followed by the citation of a number of authorities and finishing with the annotation “sunt et Bursae aliquot species, ut in Phytopinace monuimus”, which unequivocally connects the specimen with the author of Phytopinax (Bauhin, 1596: 170). One curious detail is the use here (as in several other cases) of the initials “C.B.” ([C]aspar [B]auhin) after the species name. However, it seems that Bauhin himself did never use it on his own herbarium labels, so it seems likely that the initials were added by the scribe. No specimens of Capsella Medik. are present in Herbarium Bauhin-BAS (J. de Vos, pers. comm.), hence this is most likely the only extant specimen of this species collected by C. Bauhin.
Altogether, four specimens can be confidently attributed to C. Bauhin, but how much of the rest of the herbarium can be attributed to him is equivocal, as there are a number of specimens whose attribution to him is possible. An example is Daphne mezereum L. (16b; Fig. 3). Here the annotation highlights the inconsistency of Lobel (1576), who gave two different names to the same species, in the text and in the illustration (“Mezereum germanicum Lobelli /Laurus pusilla eodem in iconibus”). This critical comment matches a characteristic trait of Caspar's personality; he devoted a pamphlet (Bauhin, 1601) to list the inconsistencies in Daléchamps' Historia Plantarum. The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
One can also speculatively attribute to C. Bauhin a number of specimens whose annotations include a rich nomenclature, with the denominations used in Phytopinax reported verbatim. This is the case for Abutilon theophrasti Medik. (73b), Aconitum anthora L. (65c), Aristolochia clematitis L. (62b), Artemisia pontica L. (67b), Datura stramonium L. (34a), Dysphania botrys (L.) Mosyakin & Clemants (60c), Echium vulgare L. (65b), Euphrasia officinalis L. (60b), Geranium dissectum L. (45b), G. robertianum L. (43c), G. sanguineum L. (22b), Origanum vulgare L. (71a), Paris quadrifolia L. (61a), Periploca graeca L. (73a), and Persicaria lapathifolia (L.) Delarbre (73c) (see Appendix 2 for details).
Lastly, a specimen of Campanula rotundifolia (10a – “Campanula minor, alpina rotundioribus imis foliis Clusii /de Montis Baldi.”) collected in Monte Baldo (northeastern Italy) is a puzzling case. The same species was collected by C. Bauhin, during his Italian visit in 1577, when he climbed Monte Baldo (“Campanula rotundifolia minima [....] Hanc in Rhoeticis montibus, cum Italiam Anno 1577 peteremus, Septembri mense adhuc floribus onustam, inter saxa copiosissimam vidimus”; Bauhin, 1596: 140). However, despite having the same reported collection locality, attributing this specimen to C. Bauhin is doubtful for nomenclatural reasons. Campanula rotundifolia was first described by Clusius (1583: 688) as “III. – Campanula minor alpina”, later renamed “Campanula minor alpina rotundioribus imis foliis” (Clusius, 1601: clxxiii), the latter being the name given to this herbarium specimen. The description and the image provided by Clusius match Bauhin's “Campanula VII – Campanula rotundifolia minima” (Bauhin, 1596: 140), later renamed “Campanula V – Campanula alpina rotundifolia minor” (Bauhin, 1620: 34), and eventually “Campanula XXII – Campanula minor rotundifolia alpina” (bauhin, 1623: 93). Evidently, Bauhin never adopted or cited the name given by Clusius, making it unlikely that this specimen came from Bauhin. No mention of Campanula rotundifolia or related species in Monte Baldo is found in the classical floristic works by Calzolari (1566) and Pona (1601), and this exsiccatum cannot be part of Aldrovandi's collections, as all plants collected by Aldrovandi in his field trip to Monte Baldo are contained in the eighth volume of his herbarium (Soldano, 2003). In conclusion, the collector of this important specimen remains unknown. This specimen represents the earliest record of this species in Monte Baldo preceding by at least one century all other known specimens from such locality (Prosser et al., 2009: 767).
Fig. 1.
Herbarium sheet with a specimen of Cerinthe major L. (in the middle) and the inscription: “Plumbago et Molibdena plini /Lepidium Antonius Petrisentis /Herba Santi Antoni /Romae Dentelaria /Rondoletii herba ad Dificultatem”.
Datation
Dating the individual specimens suggests that: (a) one specimen seems to be the remnant of a collection dating back to the time of Laguna's stay in Italy (c. 1550); (b) most of the specimens were presumably collected during the second half of the 16th century; (c) about 50 specimens were collected during the first decades of the 17th century; (d) at least five specimens were prepared after 1623.
This herbarium probably includes specimens collected over approximately seventy years, from the middle of the 16th to the early 17th century. The uniformity of the handwriting and the homogeneous structure of the volume indicates that its final composition was synchronous and, therefore, subsequent to the most recent collection, that is after 1623. This finding post-dates the herbarium with respect to previous estimates (Mossetti et al., 1993; Baldini et al., 2022) that dated it to the last decade of the 16th century.
Discussion
The present research is focused on the analysis and interpretation of the annotations accompanying the herbarium specimens. While the contents of some annotations show their author's deep botanical knowledge, many others are strewn with orthographic errors and inaccurate names. It seems reasonable to assume that the author(s) of the original inscriptions (now lost) was/were not the same person who wrote them on the sheets that we now have at hand; the task of transcribing them were entrusted to a scribe (customary in Bologna from the time of Ulisse Aldrovandi onwards).
In contrast to the formal uniformity of the collection, its scientific quality is quite heterogeneous. Many specimens are endowed with a rich apparatus criticus on the plant species and on the authors that described them, while others are identified by a bare name, sometimes in Italian only or even misidentified. In consideration of this scientific heterogeneity, the “single author hypothesis” should be refuted as untenable; consequently, we assume that at least two (and possibly more) authors were involved. Unfortunately, in this case, the scribe was unfamiliar of Latin and botany and, as a consequence, some inscriptions are so full of mistakes as to be unintelligible.
There is enough evidence to think that Caspar Bauhin took part in the herbarium composition (Mossetti et al., 1993). Bauhin certainly prepared his specimens contained in the herbarium after 1596, the year of publication of Phytopinax, since this work is cited in several cases. Thus, the composition of this collection must have taken place after Bauhin's stay in Italy in 1577–1578 (Bauhin, 1596; Whiteridge, 1970). The exsiccata were, therefore, probably sent to Bologna from Basel at a later time, and it is likely that the recipient was Ulisse Aldrovandi, C. Bauhin's teacher and friend.
It seems unlikely that the specimens were delivered after Aldrovandi's death, since C. Bauhin appears not to have had any personal contact with Aldrovandi's successors. Cornelius Uterverius (Jan Cornelis Wterwer), his immediate successor, held the position of professor of botany from 1605 to 1619; he arrived from Delft in 1592 and never left Bologna thereafter (Fantuzzi, 1774). He was followed by Bartolomeo Ambrosini, in charge from 1619 to 1657, who also never left Bologna during his lifetime (Monti, 1724). Consequently, neither of them could have met C. Bauhin or is recorded in his list of correspondents (Bauhin, 1596, 1623).
After Aldrovandi's death, his successors were explicitly entrusted with caring for his heritage (Monti, 1724; Fantuzzi, 1790). If this herbarium was assembled in its present form after 1623, we can conclude that the task was fulfilled by Bartolomeo Ambrosini. Apparently, he gathered a number of heterogeneous exsiccata collected or received during Aldrovandi's lifetime, mixing together valuable material and specimens of low value, and then proceeded to glue them on paper sheets, labelled by a scribe, and bound in a volume. In doing so, the original labels were lost, and with them the possibility of identifying the authors with any certainty.
In conclusion, the historical herbarium that was, in the past, putatively attributed to C. Bauhin is an assemblage of specimens collected between the second half of the 16th century and the first decades of the 17th century.The bulk of the herbarium was collected by more than one botanist, whose identities remain unknown. However, intermixed with a quantity of anonymous material, there is a core of specimens, whose number cannot be quantified exactly, that can legitimately be ascribed to Caspar Bauhin.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the editors and the referees for their valuable contribution to improve the manuscript. Special thanks are due to Dr. Charlie Jarvis (BM) for thoroughly reviewing the text and providing valuable comments. The author is also indebted to Dr. Jurriaan M. de Vos (BAS) for useful comments and information on Herbarium Bauhin, to Prof. Stefania Biondi (University of Bologna) for linguistic revision, and to Dr. Fabrizio Buldrini (University of Bologna) for assistance with herbarium work. The herbarium specimens stored in BOLO are reproduced by kind permission of SMA-University Museum Network, University of Bologna.
© CONSERVATOIRE ET JARDIN BOTANIQUES DE GENÈVE 2023
References
Appendices
Appendix 1
The herbarium sheet is followed by the original inscription and identification according to the current taxonomy in boldface.
1a. Pseudocostus Matthioli → Heracleum sphondylium L.
Note. – One leaf, severely damaged. See Matthioli (1565: 54).
2a. Melissa Moldavica Matthioli → Dracocephalum moldavica L.
Note. – The reference seems inappropriate, since the name “Melissa Moldavica” was never mentioned by Matthioli (1565, 1568).
2b. Chamaepitis Prior Matthioli → Ajuga chamaepitys (L.) Schreb.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 940).
2c. Alsine repens Major Clusii → Silene baccifera (L.) Durande
Note. – See Clusius (1576: 413).
3a. Carum minus → Viburnum tinus L.
Note. – A trace of a leaf.
3b. Osyris austriaca Clusii /Chisocome → Galatella linosyris (L.) Rchb. f.
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 110).
3c. Apocinum syriacum forte → Asclepias syriaca L. [?]
Note. – A trace of a leaf.
4a. Ruta sativa Clusii → Ruta graveolens L.
Note. – The name “Ruta sativa” was commonly used by apothecaries, but never adopted by Clusius (1576, 1583, 1601) or by other major authors (see Bauhin, 1623: 336).
5a. Pimpinella vulgaris → Poterium sanguisorba L.
5b. Amarantus tricolor /Simphonia Plinii Dalechampii → Amaranthus tricolor L.
Note. – See Daléchamps (1586: 540).
5c. Dripis → Carduus sp.
Note. – One leaf.
6a. Agrimonium → Agrimonia eupatoria L.
6b. Tanacetum vulgare /Atanasia → Tanacetum vulgare L.
6c. Tanacetum anglicum foglio crispo → Tanacetum vulgare L.
7a. Thujae Genus tertium /Arbor nittens gallis → Thuja orientalis L.
Note. – “Arbor nitens” means shiny tree.
8a. Abutilon Avicennae /Althaea altera Mattioli → Abutilon theophrasti Medik.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 926).
9a. Thithimalus Charaias → Euphorbia characias L.
9b. Genistra Tintorea /Tinctorius flos sive Genistra humilis → Genista tinctoria L.
9c. Onobrichis Clusii → Onobrychis sativa L.
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 751).
10a. Campanula minor, alpina rotundioribus imis foliis Clusii /de Montis Baldi → Campanula rotundifolia L.
Note. – This is the only case where the author explicitly mentions the locality of a collection made in the wild (Monte Baldo, near Verona, northeastern Italy). See Clusius (1601: clxxiii).
10b. Peucedanum officinae /Plerenque hunc et vulgo feniculum porcinum appellant → Peucedanum officinale L.
10c. Genciana v. Gencianella major verna Clusii (the words “Auricula Clusii” are deleted) → Gentiana clusii E.P. Perrier & Songeon
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 284–285; 1601: 314).
11a. Amaranthus luteus → Helichrysum luteoalbum (L.) Rchb.
11b. Gnefaphalium Plinii → Filago arvensis L.
11c. Ruta canina → Scrophularia canina L.
11d. Titimalus Alipias → Euphorbia exigua L. [?]
Note. – A small, damaged sterile shoot.
11e. Delphinium elatius simplici flore /Consolida regalis → Delphinium ajacis L.
12a. Testiculus morionis mas → Anacamptis morio (L.) R.M. Bateman et al.
12b. Helitropium maius → Heliotropium europaeum L.
12c. Testiculus morionis femina → Neotinea ustulata (L.) R.M. Bateman et al.
13a. Jucca sive Hiurca americae in Historia Plantarum → Yucca sp.
Note. – Here and elsewhere the citation “Historia Plantarum”, often abbreviated “Hist. Pl.”, refers to Daléchamps' Historia generalis plantarum, published as anonymous (Daléchamps, 1586: 1908).
13b. Ammi → Ammi majus L.
13c. Malabatrum foglium indicum officinarum → Cinnamomum sp.
Note. – A leaf trace only.
14a. Cicerbita affinis [two illegible words] → Prenanthes purpurea L.
14b. Canforata hispanica → Helichrysum stoechas (L.) Moench.
14c. Sumach et Rhus Matthioli → Rhus coriaria L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 215).
14d. Fumaria in officinis fumusterrae appellatur vero → Fumaria officinalis L.
14e. Solanum vescicarium /Vesicaria sive halicacabum Repens Mattioli → Cardiospermum halicacabum L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1074).
15a. Original annotation missing → Centaurea sp.
15b. Rhaus sive Sumac Matt. → Rhus coriaria L.
Note. – Only a leaf (see also1 4c).
15c. Caryophylleus silvestris Clusii → Petrorhagia prolifera (L.) P.W. Ball & Heywood
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 317).
16a. Nerion alpinum /ledum Balsamum → Rhododendron ferrugineum L.
16b. Daphenoides Matth. /Camalea sive Melarada Tragi /Camelea germanica Dodonei /Mezereum germanicum Lobelli /Laurus pusilla eodem in iconibus → Daphne mezereum L. Note. – This complete annotation relates this specimen to C. Bauhin (see section “Link to Bauhin”).
16c. Jacea folio centauri → Centaurea sp.
16d. Lagopus maior → Trifolium rubens L.
17a. Matricaria → Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch. Bip.
17b. Phylliria → Phillyrea latifolia L.
17c. Polipodium → Polypodium vulgare L.
17d. Geranium batrachiodes → Geranium sanguineum L.
Note. – The same species as in 45c.
17e. Pseudocytisus Prior → Cytisus hirsutus L.
Note. – Only the trace of a small shoot. The identification is problematic. The name “Pseudocytisus prior Dod. Ger.)” is mentioned in Bauhin (1623: 390) as a synonym of “Cytisus XII”.
18a. Elleborine Recentiorum Clusii → Epipactis sp.
Note. – See Clusius (1601: 271).
18b. Cicoreum stelatum → Rhagadiolus stellatus (L.) Gaertn.
18c. Ranunculus montanus Clusii → Pulsatilla alpina (L.) Delarbre
Notes. – The name seems to be derived from Clusius (1601: 234–236). This specimen, however, is misidentified, since Clusius (1576, 1583, 1601) never used the name “Ranunculus montanus” for any species of Pulsatilla Mill.
18d. Felice florida /filicis Maioris Tragi → Osmunda regalis L.
Note. – See “Der zweit Gross Farn” in Bock (1546: ccvi).
19a,b. Citonium /Citonium ibidem → Cydonia oblonga Mill.
Note. – Two leaves, labeled separately.
19c. Pilosera Fabii Columnae → Hieracium sp.
Note. – Only a basal leaf. A plant identifiable as Hieracium umbellatum L. is described and illustrated under the name “Pilosella major” in Columna (1616: 248–249).
19d. Potentila → Potentilla anserina L.
Note. – Only one leaf.
19e. Cianus maximus → Centaurea sp.
Note. – A trace of a leaf.
20a. Ornitopodium Dod. → Coronilla vaginalis Lam.
Note. – Not mentioned in Dodonaeus (1583).
20b. Mentastrum Plinio auctore appellatur /Mintastri → Mentha longifolia (L.) L.
20c. Alsine spuria altera → Veronica polita Fr.
Note. – The polynomial “Alsine spuria altera” is found in Dodonaeus (1583: 31) and in Bauhin (1623: 250) as a synonym of “Alsine. III. Alsine chamaedryfolia flosculis pediculis oblongis insidentibus”.
21a. Valeriana → Thalictrum lucidum L.
Note. – Applying the name “Valeriana” to various species of Thalictrum L. seems to be a peculiarity of Aldrovandi's school (see Herb. Aldrovandianum, vol. 4, fol. 266), not accepted by most authorities of the 16th century (Cristofolini, 2021).
21b. Aster aticus Dod. → Pallenis spinosa (L.) Cass.
Note. – See Dodonaeus (1553: 38).
21c. Flor elebori albi → Veratrum album L.
22a. Agrimonia flos → Agrimonia eupatoria L.
22b. Geranium tuberosum Majus Casprus Bauhinus /Geranium subrotunda radice Dioscoridis /Geranium Bulbosum Lob. /Geranium tuberosum Dod → Geranium sanguineum L.
Note. – “Geranium tuberosum Majus” = “Geranium XI” in Bauhin (1596: 637). See also Lobelius (1576: 377) and Dodonaeus (1583: 61). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
22c. Secca Arabum sive Seme Santo /vulgo sementina → Santolina chamaecyparissus L.
Note. – The Italian vernacular names “Seme Santo” and “sementina” are attested by Penzig (1924). The author is likely an Italian.
23a. Sanicula femina montana Clusii → Helleborus viridis L.
Note. – The specimen is a single basal leaf. The adjective “femina” has been added, by the same hand, in a second time. The citation of Clusius in this case is inappropriate since Sanicula montana sensu Clusius (1583) is Corthusa matthioli L. Indeed, the name “sanicula” is an ambiguous one, as documented in Phytopinax. Here the author seems to adhere to Fuchs (1549: 638).
23b. Parietaria sylvestris quorundam → Melampyrum arvense L.
23c. Scordion → Teucrium scordium L.
23d. Driupteris alba → Cystopteris fragilis (L.) Bernh.
24a. Polium pannonicum VII cum semine → Teucrium montanum L.
Note. – The name “Polium pannonicum VII” was first mentionned by Clusius (1601: 363).
24b. Orobanche → Orobanche sp.
Note. – A severely damaged specimen.
24c. Pseudodictamum → Pseudodictamnus mediterraneus Salmaki & Siadati
25a. Flore Anthilis leguminosa → Anthyllis vulneraria L.
25b. Ranunculus Grumosa Radice 4 Clusii → Ranunculus illyricus L.
Note. – The peculiarity of the root thickness (“grumosa radice”) is not mentioned in Clusius' diagnosis, but it is clearly represented in the figure (Clusius, 1583: 369–370).
25c. Centaurium minus → Centaurium erythraea Rafn.
26a. Millefolium rubro colore → Achillea roseoalba Ehrend.
26b. Caltha palustris pleno flore Clusii → Caltha palustris L.
Note. – See Clusius (1601: cxiii).
27a. Valeriana tuberosa → Valeriana dioica L.
27b. Melanthium damascenum pleno flore → Nigella damascena L.
27c. Gramen species → Carex sylvatica L. [?]
Note. – We accept here the identification proposed by Baldacci (1907), although the specific characters are not evident.
28a. Tetrait /Betonica Aquatilis sive Clymenos mollis → Stachys recta L.
28b. Garyophyllata Montana Matthioli → Geum rivale L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 985).
28c. Belis speces → Bellis perennis L.
29a. Cistus → Cytisus hirsutus subsp. polytrichus (M. Bieb.) Hayek
29b. Pistacea Germanica C.B. /Nux vesicaria Tragi /Staphilodendron Plinii Dodonaei → Staphylea pinnata L.
Note. – The name “Pistacea germanica” is erroneously atributed to Caspar Bauhin. The name accepted by Bauhin (1623: 401) is “Pistacia sylvestris”. In the same context, the name “Pistacia germanica Lon.” is cited as a synonym, along with “Nux vesicaria Tragi” and “Staphilodendron Plinii”. See also Dodonaeus (1583: 806). This specimen was prepared presumably after 1623, but certainly not by C. Bauhin.
29c. Arniaria → Herniaria hirsuta L.
29d. Petasites odorato flore Clusii → Petasites pyrenaicus (L.) G. López
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 502).
30a. Original annotation missing → Euphorbia exigua L. [?]
Note. – A tiny flowering stem in bad conditions; possibly the same species as 11d.
30b. Fumaria Bulbosa Radix Cava Herbariorum Clusii → Corydalis cava (L.) Schweigg. & Körte
Note. – This name was presumably used by apothecaries but is not mentioned by Clusius (1576, 1583, 1601).
30c. Sena vera solutiva → Cassia senna L.
Note. – A fragmented leaf.
30d. Lismachia syliquosa → Epilobium hirsutum L.
30e. Artemisia ecchinata Ulisis Aldrovandi /Ranunculus arvensis Fuch. → Ranunculus arvensis L.
Note. – Aldrovandi never published this name in printed works. In Herb. Aldrovandianum (vol. 4, fol. 166, 168) the name “Ranunculus echinatus” is attributed to Ranunculus arvensis L. The generic name “Artemisia”, however, is presumably due to a mistake by the scribe, since no author of the 16th century used it for any species of Ranunculus L.
31a. Poligala cerulea → Polygala alpestris Rchb.
31b. Orminum Alpinum → Salvia verticillata L.
31c. Cicoreum sylvestre → Lapsana communis L.
32a. Vecis species → Linum corymbulosum Rchb.
32b. Rubia levis → Asperula taurina L.
32c. Clematis repens → Clematis viicella L.
33a. Aria di Theopasto → Sorbus aria (L.) Crantz.
Note. – The author was obviously an Italian.
33b,c. Pseudo-Aconitum Pardalianches Matthioli (a leaf) /ibidem cum flore (a flowering stem) → Doronicum pardalianches L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1084).
34a. Solanum fetidum pomo spinoso semine nigro /vel stramonia fetida /vocant maxima pars medicorum in iis regionibus legitimam nucem Mathel → Datura stramonium L.
Note. – “Solanum fetidum pomo spinoso semine nigro” is the polynomial used by Bauhin (1596: 299). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
34b. Sisaron altera species → Genista radiata (L.) Scop.
Note. – The name “Sisaron” is obviously misapplied here. Perhaps a mistake by the scribe.
34c. Ribes fructum Rubrum → Ribes rubrum L.
35a. Plumbago et Molibdena Plini /Lepidium Antonius Petrisentis /Herba Sancti Antoni Romae /Dentelaria Rondoletii /herba ad Dificultatem → Cerinthe major L.
Note. – The annotation connects this specimen to Bauhin (see section “Link to Bauhin”).
35b. Asperula odorato flore Clusii → Asperula odorata L.
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 686).
35c. Lotus urbana et lotus sativa → Melilotus italicus (L.) Lam.
36a. Vincetoxicum volgo dicitur /Asclepias albo flore Casparus Bauhinus /Vincetoxici altera species /Asclepias altera flore nigro lobelii /Vincetoxicum Matthioli → Vincetoxicum hirundinaria Medik.
Note. – See “Asclepias albo flore” in Bauhin (1596: 303). See also Matthioli (1565: 810), Lobel (1576: 356).
36b. Vulvaria a Trago → Chenopodium vulvaria L.
Note. – The name “vulvaria” is not cited by Bock (1546, 1550, 1552).
36c. Pistolochia altera Clusii → Aristolochia sempervirens L.
Note. – See Clusius (1601: lxxii).
37a. Satyrium Basilicum angustifolium C. B. /Palma Christi Maior Matth /Palma Christi alia /Plama Christi femina /Satyrium /Basilicum → Nigritella rhellicani Teppner & E. Klein
Note. – See “Palma Christi Maior” (Matthioli, 1565: 885), “Satyrium Basilicum angustifolium” (Bauhin, 1596: 125). This is one of the few specimens certainly collected in the Alps.
37b. Dentaria /Dentaria pentaphillos /Dentaria Minor Matth. /Pentaphillos Clusii → Cardamine pentaphyllos (L.) Crantz
Note. – See Mattioli (1568: 1014) and Clusius (1583: 423).
37c. Orobanche non Ramusa Matth. → Orobanche sp.
Note. – A specimen very damaged; see Matthioli (1565: 535–536).
37d. Geranium nodosum quintum Clusii → Geranium nodosum L.
Note. – See Clusius (1601: c).
38a. Fraxinus verus → Fraxinus ornus L.
38b. Lentiscus peruviana → Schinus molle L.
38c. Galium flore rubro Clusii → Asperula purpurea (L.) Ehrend.
Note. – See Clusius (1601: 175).
38d. Barba capri → Aruncus dioicus (Walter) Fernald
38e. Geranium Bulbosum maius C. B. /Geranium subrotunda radice Diosc. /Geranium folio Malvae seu alterum Dioscoridis → Geranium tuberosum L.
Note. – The correct name (Bauhin, 1596: 639) is “Geranium tuberosum majus”, a name maintained also in Bauhin (1623: 318).
39a. Tripolium Dodonei → Galatella tripolium (L.) Galasso et al.
Note. – See Dodonaeus (1583: 375).
39b. Sabina non bacifera Matth. → Juniperus sabina L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 122).
39c. Actea Plini /Napelus racemosus Dodonei /Aconitum baciferum Cristofreana Clusii → Actaea spicata L.
Note. – This species is described in Clusius (1601: lxxxvi) under name “Christophoriana”, with the additional notation that somebody calls it “Aconitum bacciferum”. The reference to Dodonaeus is an error since Napellus racemosus sensu Dodonaeus (1583: 439) corresponds to Aconitum napellus L.
40a. Aconitum quartum Matth. /Aconitum Lycoctonum flore ceruleo Dalecampi → Delphinium fissum Waldst. & Kit.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1088), Daléchamps (1586: 1741).
40b. Christamum quartum Matth. /Critamus agrestis Trago /Eryngium montannum recentiorum /Alterum Lobeli /Eringium quartum Dod. fol. /Ammi corundam Dalecampi lugdunensi → Falcaria vulgaris Bernh.
Note. – See Bock (1552: 663), Matthioli (1568: 521), and Dodonaeus (1583: 720).
40c. Papaver corniculatum flavo flore → Glaucium flavum Crantz
41a. Thitimalus leptophilos Matth. /Thitimalus minimus tab. /Esula exigua Tragi /Esula minima → Euphorbia falcata L.
Note. – See Bock (1550: 140a; 1552: 296), Matthioli (1565: 1256), and Tabernaemontanus (1590: 595).
41b. Ulmaria Clusii → Filipendula ulmaria (L.) Maxim
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 700).
41c. Lysimachia siliquosa terciam Chemaenerion Gesneri → Epilobium parviflorum Schreb.
Note. – Lysimachia is dealt with by Gessner (1541: 141; 1561: 266), but not with this nomenclature.
42a. Eleborine Recentiorum tertior Clusii → Epipactis sp. [?]
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 275).
42b. Flos Guadi → Isatis tinctoria L.
42c. Geranium acutifolio C. B. /Geranium tertium Matth. /Geranium supinum Dodonei /Geranium tertium Plinii → Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér.
Note. – See “Geranium cicutae folio” (Bauhin, 1596: 638); presumably a mistake by the copyist (see also Matthioli, 1565: 856; Dodonaeus, 1583: 63).
42d. Steselinum → Peucedanum palustre (L.) Moench
43a. Holostium Ruelii /Gramen floridum → Heliosperma alpestre (Jacq.) Griseb.
Note. – See Ruel (1537: 27).
43b. Testiculus Hirconis → Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. [?]
Note. – This identification was proposed by Baldacci (1907), but the diagnostic characters are not evident.
43c. Geranium Robertianum Primus Casprus B. /Geranium tertium Matth. /Geranium Robertianum Lob. Dod. /Geranium secundum Dioscoridis /Geranium hortensis cui et Gratiadei → Geranium robertianum L.
Note. – “Geranium Robertianum primum” in Bauhin (1596: 638). See also Matthioli (1565: 856), Lobelius (1576: 375), Dodonaeus (1583: 62). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
44a. Aconitum quartum Matthioli /Aconitum liconytum flore delphinii Coerulei → Delphinium fissum Waldst. & Kit.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1087).
44b. Bacara da Andrea Lacuna → Stachys sylvatica L.
Note. – The annotation connects this specimen to Laguna (1563: 297) (see section “Collection date”).
44c. Lunaria odorata et Viola latifolia Clusii → Lunaria rediviva L.
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 337).
45a. Geranium alpinum → Geranium macrorrhizum L.
45b. Geranium battriochiodes C. B. /Geranium quartum Matth. /quibusdam Fuchsi (?) /Geraniom batrachiodes Dod. /Geranium sanguinarium Tab. /Balsamina vulgo /Geranium Balsaminum Cesalpino → Geranium dissectum L.
Note. – “Geranium batrachiodes” in Bauhin (1596: 636). See also Matthioli (1565: 857), Caesalpinus (1583: 559), Dodoens (1583: 63), Tabernaemontanus (1590: 478). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
45c. Geranium aliud secundum Matthioli → Geranium rotundifolium L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 855).
46a. Original annotation missing → Quercus robur L.
46b. Lotus → A fragment not identifiable.
46c. Cianus Maximus latifolius Clusii /Scianus ex Dodonei → Centaurea sp.
Note. – “Cyanus maior” in Dodonaeus (1583: 250).
46d. Thlaspi incanum Machlinense Clusii → Berteroa incana (L.) DC.
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 470); see also Linnaeus (1753: 651).
46e Alcea americana Clusii → Hibiscus sabdariffa L.
Note. – See Clusius (1601: xxvi); see also Linnaeus (1753: 695).
46f. Epimedium in Historia plantarum → Epimedium alpinum L.
Note. – See Daléchamps (1586: 1094).
47a. Valeriana silvestris Clusii → Valeriana officinalis L.
Note. – See Clusius (1601: lv).
47b. Nummularia Matthioli /Soldanela Montana Pene /Bolbonac Dodonei → Lysimachia nummularia L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1013). For the name “Soldanella montana”, see Pena & Lobel (1576: 262); for the name “Bolbonac”, see Dodonaeus (1553: 188 – “Viola latifolia. Herbariis Bolbonac appellatur”).
47c. Gariophilata alpina Clusii → Geum montanum L.
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 435).
48a. Jucca sive Hiurca Americae in Historia Plantarum → Yucca sp.
Note. – See Daléchamps (1586: 1908).
48b. Cynoglossum verum /lingua Canis Matth. /a.C. 6.55 → Cynoglossum officinale L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1189). The notation “a.C. 6.55” is unclear.
48c. Ulmaria Clusii → Spiraea ulmaria L.
Note. – See Clusius (1601: cxcviii).
49a. Flos Noctis /Fior di Notte → Convolvulus sepium L.
49b. Coronopus repens Dod./Coronopus silvestris repens Nasturtifolio Bauhini /Cornus Cervi alterum vulgi /Herba Cavra iidem /Ambrosia prior Matth. → Lepidium coronopus (L.) Al-Shehbaz
Note. – “Coronopus silvestris repens nasturtij folio” (Bauhin, 1596: 353); see also Matthioli (1565: 850–851), Dodonaeus (1583: 110).
49c. Geranium alpinum → Geranium argenteum L.
49d. Original annotation missing → Cornus sanguinea L. [?]
Note. – The specimen consists of a single leaf. This identification, proposed by Baldacci (1907), is uncertain.
49e. Semphitum petreum C.B. → Prunella laciniata (L.) L.
Note. – The attribution of this name to C. Bauhin is improper. Bauhin (1596: 503) mentioned “Symphytum petraeum Lobel.” as a synonym of “Brunella minor folio laciniato”.
49f. Original annotation missing → Silene sp.
50a. Clematis recta Clusii /Clematis Coerulea Pannonica → Clematis integrifolia L.
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 293).
50b. Phyteuma Matthiolo /Campanula persicifolia nostras Lob. /Campanula Angustifolia Taber. /Medion flore albo → Campanula persicifolia L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1191–1192), Tabernaemontanus (1590: 317). In Lobelius (1576: 177), a fine illustration of this species is headed by the words “Campanula persicifolia nostras Advers. pag.139 /Phyteuma Matth.”.
50c. Succisa recentiorum /Morsus Diabuli Matth. → Succisa pratensis Moench.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 623).
50d. Gentiana Gentianella major verna Clusii → Gentiana clusii E.P. Perrier & Songeon
Note. – See 10c.
50e Gentiana species → Gentianella campestris (L.) Börner
51a. Eupatorium → Achillea ageratum L.
51b. Saxssifragia Aurea → Saxfraga rotundifolia L.
51c. Achillea Matthioli /Achillea Sideritis lugd. /Millefolium nobile et stratiotes vera /Panacetum minus Dod. /Stratiotes milefolium Matthiolo /Regia Plinii /Dalechampi in Plinium → Achillea millefolium L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1141). Here and alsewhere, the citation “Lugd.” or “Lugdunensis” refers to Herbarium Lugdunense (see Bauhin, 1596: Authores). The attribution of the name “Panacetum minus” to Dodonaeus is erroneous, since Dodonaeus (1583: 99) used the name “Achillea”.
51d. Alectorolofos Plinii /Pedicularis Campestris → Rhinanthus minor L.
52a. Laudanum segetum Plinii /Tetrahit angustifolia /Sideritis species → Galeopsis tetrahit L.
52b. Acacia altera Dodonei /Acacia altera Dioscoridis /Aspalathus secundus Maranthae /G. H. Asphaltus Caes. /Camerario /Acacia altera Matth. → Cytisus spinosus (L.) Lam.
Note. – Here and elsewhere, the acronym G.H. indicates Gessner (1561)'s Horti Germaniae liber. See also Maranta (1559: 155), Gessner (1561: 249), Matthioli (1565: 194), Caesalpinus (1583: 116), Dodonaeus (1583: 740), Camerarius (1588: 23–24).
52c. Scorpioides ob siliquas ad similitudinem Cudei scorpionis reflexus /(..) potest scorpioides Matth. Dodo. /Lunaria G. h. /Thelpinum Anglicum Cesalpino cui et Herba muris → Coronilla scorpioides (L.) W.D.J. Koch
Note. – See Gessner (1561: 266) and Matthioli (1565: 1304–1305); “Telephium vulgo, a nostris herba Amoris vocatur” in Caesalpinus (1583: 250).
52d. Casida Fabii Columnae /Scutellaria Aldrovandi /Ormini species → Scutellaria columnae All.
Note. – “Cassida” was first described by Columna (1616: 187–189). The citation of Aldrovandi is supported by a specimen in Herb. Aldrovandianum (vol. 6, fol. 38).
53a. Thalictrum folia Coriandri habet Pinguiora Paulo /Nascitur maxime in Campestribus → Thalictrum aquilegiifolium L.
Note. – This is the only case where the species ecology is mentioned.
53b. Alyssum Dodonei → Fibigia clypeata (L.) Medik.
Note. – See Dodonaeus (1583: 90).
53c. Pseudodyctamum Mattioli → Pseudodictamnus mediterraneus Salmaki & Siadati
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 706).
53d. Verbenaca recta /Herba sacra /sacra Herba Mattioli → Jacobaea erucifolia (L.) G. Gaertn. et al.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1052).
53e. Orobus et Antillis → Lathyrus niger (L.) Bernh.
Note. – Only the trace of a leafy stem.
54a. Lagopus Angustifolius Hispanicus /lagopus Alter /Pianta Clusii → Trifolium angustifolium L.
Note. – A description and a fine illustration of “Lagopus Angustifolius Hispanicus” is in Clusius (1601, IV: 146–147).
54b. Verbenacea Recta Mattioli → Jacobaea erucifolia (L.) G. Gaertn. et al.
Note. – A duplicate of 53d.
54c. Pentaphollon Clusii /Tormentilla candida Dalecampi /Pentaphilon Alpinum Angustis foliis → Alchemilla alpina L.
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 424), Daléchamps (1586: 1175).
54d. Isopus → Artemisia sp.
55a. Trachelium → Campanula trachelium L.
55b. Flos Costantinopolitanus → Lychnis chalcedonica L.
Note. – See Bauhin (1596: 381).
55c. Pseudostac. → Stachys germanica L.
55d. Pes asini Pendetario /Aliaria dicta /Aliaria Trago /Thaspidium Cornutum Matth. Fuc. Dod. /Aliastrum vel Alliaris → Alliaria petiolata (M. Bieb.) Cavara & Grande
Note. – The name Pes asini Pendetario [Pandectario Pes asininus] was cited in Dodonaeus (1553: 187) and in Bauhin (1623: 110). The name “Alliaria” was adopted by Fuchs (1542: 103), Bock (1550: 64c, 1552: 85–86), and Matthioli (1565: 843–844). The source of the name “Thaspidium cornutum” is unknown.
55e. Alisum Plinii Corundam → Cruciata laevipes Opiz
56a. Policarpum in Historia Plantarum → Scleranthus annuus L.
Note. – See Daléchamps (1586: 444).
56b. Husciamus Ispanicus → Hyosciamus albus L.
56c. Dictamum creticum cum flore Mattioli → Origanum dictamnus L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 707). The species is endemic to Crete; this specimen was presumably obtained from a plant under cultivation.
56d. Gentiana Sexta /Gentianella minor verna → Gentiana utriculosa L.
Note. – The denomination is derived verbatim from Clusius (1583: 287).
57a. Epimedium → Circaea lutetiana L.
57b. Pyrola volgata rotundifolia Casparus Bauhinus /Pyrola Matth. /Pyrola vulgaris Clusii Hist. Pann. /Pyrola minor Tab. /Limonium silvestre Trago /Limonium Fuchsii /Limonium Dioscoridis → Pyrola rotundifolia L.
Note. – See “Pyrola vulgata rotundifolia” in Bauhin (1596: 358). See also Fuchs (1549: 457), Bock (1552: 707), Matthioli (1565: 982), Clusius (1583: 504–506). The reference to Tabernaemontanus is inappropriate since the plant represented in Tabernaemontanus (1590: 431) under the name “Limonium II. Pyrola” is clearly a species of Limonium, probably L. bellidifolium (Gouan) Dumort.
57c. Althaea frutex 2 Clusii → Hibiscus syriacus L.
Note. – See Clusius (1601: xxiv–xxv).
57d. Herba Solanum sive Bella Dona /Majus Mattioli /Solanum nigrum hortense Trago /Solanum sumniferum Fuchsii → Atropa belladonna L.
Note. – See Fuchs (1549: 653), Bock (1550: 231b), Matthioli (1565: 1073; 1568: 1131).
57e Bistorta minor Camerario in (...) Matth. et talio /Limonii species minor Ges. de hortis → Polygonum bistorta L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 948) and Camerarius (1588: 28). “Limonium, hoc est Bistorta” is described in Gessner (1561: 265). The name “talio” refers to the rarely cited Sylva Hercynia (Thalius, 1588: 19).
58a. Cianus maximus latifolia Clusii → Centaurea montana L.
Note. – Apparently a wrong citation; this polynomial was never used by Clusius (1576, 1583,1601).
58b. Stelaria → Alchemilla vulgaris L.
Note. – It only consists in a leaf.
58c. Saponaria levis quod saponis vicem prebeat ad purgandos panos /Saponaria Trago Mattiolo /Ges hortensis Lac. Lob. Dod. fol. Ces. Tab Cam → Saponaria officinalis L.
Note. – The name “Saponaria” was uniformly used by all authorities, as shown by the long list of references.
58d. Genista Angulosa /Genista tinctoria vulgaris → Genista germanica L.
58e Epatica alba Cordi → Parnassia palustris L.
Note. – See Cordus (1561: 253).
59a. Eritrodanum Radix robra est quia tinguntur lanae → Rubia tinctorum L.
59b. Lotus nobilis → Dorycnium rectum (L.) Ser.
59c. Fiore della Cornalia Marina → Ceratonia siliqua L.
Note. – “Cornalia marina” is an antiquated Italian name for this tree. As in other similar cases, this specimen was presumably collected by an inexpert Italian botanist.
59d. Dorichnium Matth. → Dorycnium hirsutum (L.) Ser.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1075).
60a. Muschus in forma sabine. Selago Plinii quibusdam → Diphasiastrum tristachyum (Pursh) Holub
60b. Euphrasia dicta eo quod oculos eorum Caliginem discutiendo delected officinarum Casparus Bauchinus /Euphrasia Matthioli /Euphrasia vulgo /Caesal. → Euphrasia officinalis L.
Note. – “Euphrasiam sunt qui velint olim dictam eo quod oculos eorum caliginem discutiendo delected” corresponds to the beginning of the diagnosis of the genus Euphrasia in Bauhin (1596: 442). See also Matthioli (1565: 1021), Caesalpinus (1583: 339). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
60c. Botris ambrosioides Casparus Bauchinus /Botris Trago Matth. /Botrys altera ambrosiae species cuius semen amomum officinarum quibusdam /Cordo in Dioscoridem → Dysphania botrys (L.) Mosyakin & Clemants
Note. – See “Botrys ambrosioides” in Bauhin (1596: 233). See also Bock (1550: 255d, 1552: 857), Cordus (1561: 106), Matthioli (1565: 852). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
60d. Original annotation missing → Tanacetum cinerariifolium (Trevir.) Sch. Bip.
60e Tanacetum crispum folium → Tanacetum vulgare L
61a. Solanum quadrifolium baciferum Casparus Bauchinus /Herba paris Matthioli /Aconitum salutiferum Taber. /Aconitum seu Pardalianches monococcum Cordo in historia /aconitum pardalianches thelipho non theophrasti Cordo in Dioscoridis → Paris quadrifolia L.
Note. – “Solanum quadrifolium bacciferum” in Bauhin (1596: 298). See also Matthioli (1565: 1093), Tabernaemontanus (1590: 159), Cordus (1561: 67b). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
61b. Driuptheris niger → Asplenium adiantum-nigrum L.
61c. Maracot sice Granatilia. Fiore della Pasione → Passiflora coerulea L.
62a. Melancium /Nigela → Nigella damascena L.
62b. Aristolochia Rotunda Flore Ex Purpurea Nigro Casparus Bauchinus /Aristololochia Rotunda Mattioli /Aristololochia Rotunda Vera Trag. Lon. → Aristolochia clematitis L.
Note. – See Bauhin (1596: 613), Matthioli (1565: 647), Bock (1550: 56d), Lonicerus (1551: 134). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
62c. Camedryum maiorem Repentem cum dodoneo vocamus /Camedryos vera Tragi: /Trixago sive camedryos Mattiolo /Trixago Lac. Cast. /Camedrus Maior Clusii Historia Plan → Teucrium chamaedrys L.
Note. – The abbreviation “Cast.” indicates Castore Durante (see Bauhin, 1623: Authorum nomina). The words “cum dodoneo vocamus” refer to the polynomial “Chamaedrys major repens” (the same as adopted in Bauhin, 1596: 473). The author of the annotation followed Dodonaeus' nomenclature. See Bock (1550: 243a, 1552: 204–205), Laguna (1563: 335), Matthioli (1565: 818), Dodonaeus (1583: 43), Durante (1585: 107), Clusius (1601: 351). See also section “Link to Bauhin”.
63a. Eringium campestre vulgare Casparus Bauhinus /Eringium primum Tragi: Lon: /Eringium Fuc. /Eringium vulgare Dodonei Gal. Cam. /Eringium montanum Mattioli lugd. /Eringium mediterraneum Ges. hort. /Eringium campestre mediterraneum lobelli /Eringion et Centum capita Plinio → Eryngium campestre L.
Note. – “Eringium campestre vulgare” is here erroneously attributed to C. Bauhin. The correct attribution is to Clusius (1601: clvii) as attested by Bauhin (1623: 386) himself. See also Fuchs (1549: 294), Bock (1550: 261b; 1552: 871), Lonicerus (1551: 72), Gessner (1561: 258), Matthioli (1565: 678), Lobelius (1576: 490), Dodonaeus (1583: 718), Camerarius (1588: 57), Plinius (1985: lib. 22, cap. 9: “Ex his [varietatibus] candidam nostri centum capita vocant”).
63b. Eringium Maritimum quod eum a Acano Plinii lib. 22 cap. 9 non male convenit Casparus B. /Dicitur Eringium marinum Mattioli /Eringium folio Apii in litoribus maris Plinii /Eringium Maritimum Ges. hort. /Glycyrrhiza spinosa et Glycyrrhiza Cratevae Lacunae → Eryngium maritimum L.
Note. – The compiler here reminded that the correspondence of “Eryngium maritimum” with “Acanos” described by Plinius (1985: lib. 22, cap. 10): “Sunt qui et acanum eryngio adscibant, spinosam brevemque et latam herbam spinisque latioribus”) was stated by Bauhin (1623: 386). The words “non male convenit Casparus B.” obviously excluded C. Bauhin as the author. See also, Gessner (1561: 258), Laguna (1563: 267), Matthioli (1565: 679).
64a. Ricinus Mattioli Fuch /Ricinus vulgo Trago cui et Palma Christi et Phaseolus Romanus Thuscis/Marcello Virgilio Cici /Gesneri Hortensis /Cataputia Maior /Erichio (?) Cordo in suo Botanologio → Ricinus communis L.
Note. – See Fuchs (1549: 333–334), Bock (1550: 228b), Gessner (1561: 253), Cordus (1561: 141). Remarkable is the citation of the very rare Virgilius (1523: 272)'s Dioscorides.
65a. Xylon sive Gossipium /Gossipium duplex novimus alterum vulgatum alterum arboreum quod in horto Doctoris Zwingeri vidimus cuius iconem Historia nostra exhibebit et de vulgato quod Coto et Bombax Sarapionis dicitur. Xylon Fuchs. Matth. Gossipium Matthioli → Gossypium herbaceum L.
Note. – The annotation connects this specimen to Bauhin (see section “Link to Bauhin”).
65b. Echium vulgare Casprus B. /Echium Matth. Ges. hortensis. /Echium sive Alchibiacum /Echium floribus purpurantibus rubellis lobelli /Bugolosum silvestre /Ancusa silv. /Ancusa maior Caes. → Echium vulgare L.
Note. – “Echium vulgare” in Bauhin (1596: 489); see also Gessner (1561: 257), Matthioli (1565: 995), Caesalpinus (1583: 436). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
65c. Aconitum salutiferum seu Anthora Casprus B. /Tedoaria ed Napellus Aloysio Avicenae cui et Algiednar. /Antora Matth. Ges. hortensis → Aconitum anthora L.
Note. – “Aconitum salutiferum seu Anthora” in Bauhin (1596: 335). See also Gessner (1561: 244) and Matthioli (1565: 1095). The words “Napellus Aloysio” clearly refer to Luigi Anguillara (Bauhin, 1623: Authorum nomina), although in Anguillara (1561) there is no mention of this name. It is possibly that the author referred here to a personal communication as suggested by the sentence “Aloysius Anguillara .... de plantis suam sententiam diversis communicavit” (Bauhin, 1623: Authorum nomina). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
66a. Mirtus tarentina → Myrtus tarentina (L.) Mill.
66b. Antirrinum 4 quartum a Mathiolo /Antirrinum album parum a secundo varians → Anthirrhinum majus L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1197).
67a. Mollii montani folium Clusii → Allium sp.
Note. – A leafy sprout, difficult to identify. See Clusius (1583: 211).
67b. Absinth. ponticum tenuifolium incanum C.B. /Abrotanum minus Trago /Abrotanum femina Fuch. /Absinth. Ponticum Fuch. in icon. /Matth. /Absintium Pontificum vulgare Clusii hist. Pann. → Artemisia pontica L.
Note. – “Absinth. ponticum tenuifolium incanum” in Bauhin (1596: 235). See also Fuchs (1549: 2), Bock (1552: 340), Matthioli (1565: 687), Clusius (1583: 552). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
67c. Mollii montani quatuor species Clusii → Allium longispathum Redouté
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 211).
68a. Ptarmica vulgaris pleno flore → Achillea ptarmica L.
69a. Valeriana vulgaris cum flore → Thalictrum lucidum L.
Note. – For the use of the name “Valeriana” see 21a. The author was presumably a disciple of Ulisse Aldrovandi.
70a. Ptarmica Austria /Ptarma Austriaca Prior Clusii → Xeranthemum cylindraceum Sm.
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 547). The additional name “jacea”, with a different handwriting, appears to have been added in a second time.
70b. Spina alba sylvestris Casprus Bauchinus /Acanthium Matth. /Acanthius sive Acantha /Brancha ursina officinis dicitur → Onopordon acanthium L.
Note. – The reference is to “Spina alba tomentosa latifolia sylvestris “in Bauhin (1623: 382); the diagnostic phrase, however, is reported only partially. Hence, the attribution is doubtful. See also Matthioli (1565: 672).
70c. Original annotation missing → Anthemis tinctoria L.
Note. – The name “Crispola”, presumably an obsolete vernacular name, is written with the same handwriting than “jacea” in 70a.
71a. Origanum silvestre Casprus B. /Origanum silvastris Cord. in Diosc. /Origanum vulgare Tragi Matth. /Origanum Italicum Caesal. cui et Tragoriganum Dioscoridis /Cunila et Bubula Plinio → Origanum vulgare L.
Note. – See Bauhin (1596: 420). See also Bock (1552: 35–36), Cordus (1561: 52), Matthioli (1565: 701), Caesalpinus (1583: 463). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
71b. Panaces Heracleum → Heracleum sphondylium L.
71c. Securidacae II Altera species Clusii → Securigera varia (L.) Lassen
Note. – See Clusius (1583: 749).
72a. Original annotation missing → Lythrum salicaria L.
72b. Litospermon Maius Matth. /lacun Castor lugdunensi /Milium solis fabium → Lithospermum purpureo-coeruleum L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 916), Laguna (1566: 365), Durante (1585: 263). The name “fabium” should indicate Fabio Colonna. The name “Milium solis”, however, does not appear in his works (Columna, 1592, 1616).
72c. Anonis spinosa purpurea C.B. /Resta bovis Tragi /Anonis sive Ononis Matth. /Ononis Fuch. Dod → Ononis spinosa subsp. antiquorum (L.) Arcang.
Note. – “Anonis spinosa flore purpureo” in Bauhin (1623: 389). See also Fuchs (1549: 59–60), Bock (1552: 869), MATTHIOLIaMatthioli (1565: 674), Dodonaeus (1583: 731).
73a. Apocynum repens purpuroscente flore Casprus Bauhinus /Apocinum repens Mattioli /Apocinum secundum Clus. hist. Hisph. /Peripolaca altera Dodonei folio → Periploca graeca L.
Note. – See “Apocynum repens purpurascente flore” (Bauhin, 1596: 600). See also Matthioli (1565: 1100), Clusius (1576: 223–224). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
73b. Althea Theufrasti flore luteo Casprus Bauch. /Althea altera Mattioli /Altha lutis floribus lob. /Abutilon Avicene Gesnerio htensis → Abutilon theophrasti Medik.
Note. – “Althea Theofrasti flore luteo” in Bauhin (1596: 632). See also Gessner (1561: 245), Matthioli (1565: 924). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
73c. Persicaria Mittis Maculosa Casprus B. /Persicaria femina /Persicaria Altera Matth. /Britannica apud Dioscoridem /Peresicaria Fuc. Dodonei → Persicaria lapathifolia (L.) Delarbre
Note. – “Persicaria mitis maculosa” in Bauhin (1596: 157). See also Fuchs (1549: 602), Matthioli (1565: 584), Dodonaeus (1583: 597). The attribution of this specimen to C. Bauhin is possible.
74a. Malum spinosum /Solanum (...) alterum Dioscoridis /Nux Matel Avicene Cesalpino /Primum Solanum Pomo spinoso semine albo C. B. /Stramonia seu Pomum SpinosumTragi /Stramonia Dodo. cui et Nux Mathel /Stramonium Peregrinum. /Lycopersicum Galeni /Hyosciamus Peruvianus Cordo Historia /Solanum spinosum./Nux Mathel Avicene /Solanum Romanum Monspellii /Solani pomiferi genus tertium G.h. /Nux Mathel sive Stramonio Alpino → Datura stramonium L.
Note. – “Solanum Pomo spinoso semine albo” in Bauhin (1596: 299). See also Bock (1552: 896), Gessner (1561: 268–269), Caesalpinus (1583: 212), Dodonaeus (1583: 456–457), Alpinus (1592: 52).
75a. Crespinus Matthioli /Oxyacantha Dioscoridis, /Arabum est Amirberis /fructu lungo acido non autem rotundo unde de officinis dicitur /Berberis /Spina santa Corundam → Berberis vulgaris L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 878).
76a. Agrimonium → Agrimonia eupatoria L.
76b. Carduus D. Mariae Benedictus /Benedicti urens /Carduus Benedictus Bronf. Trag. Matth. /Cnicus sylvestris alter Theof. /Cnicus supinus Cordo /Carduus Sanctus Cesalpino → Carthamus lanatus L.
Note. – See Brunfels (1532, Appendix: 157), Bock (1552: 862), Cordus (1561: 166), Matthioli (1565: 812), Caesalpinus (1583: 534).
76c. Camepitis spuria → Polycnemum majus A. Braun
77a. Althea Matthioli → Althaea officinalis L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 924).
78a. Bursa Pastoris Major folio sinuato C.B. /Bursa Pastoris Brunf. Trag. Ges. hor. Thlaspi Taber. Bursa Fuch. Dod. /gali et folio sunt et Bursae aliquot species, ut in Phytopinace monuimus → Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik.
Note. – “Bursa Pastoris Major folio sinuato” in Bauhin (1596: 170). This name was accepted by all authorities (e.g. Fuchs, 1549: 583; Bock, 1552: 215; Tabernaemontanus, 1590: 198). The annotation connects this specimen to Bauhin (see section “Link to Bauhin”).
79a. Aster Aticus secundus /Primus Matthiolo → Pentanema britannica (L.) D. Gut. Larr. et al.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 1174).
79b. Regalis consolida → Delphinium consolida L.
79c. Abrotanum Mas → Artemisia abrotanum L.
80a. Cardus benedictus → Centaurea benedicta (L.) L.
80b. Abrotanum Mas → Artemisia abrotanum L.
Note. – This is a duplicate of 79c.
81a. Psillium → Plantago sempervirens Crantz
81b. Galega → Galega officinalis L.
81.c Original annotation missing → Melissa officinalis L.
82a. Rubia silvestris /Aparine → Galium aparine L.
83a. Original annotation missing → Lythrum salicaria L.
83b. Original annotation missing → Arctium sp.
83.c Original annotation missing → Lysimachia nummularia L.
84a. Linaria lutea → Linaria vulgaris Mill.
84b. Rubia → Rubia peregrina L.
84c. Vulvaria → Chenopodium vulvaria L.
85a. Scabiosa Hispanica → Cephalaria leucantha (L.) Roem. & Schult.
85b. Abrotanum mas Matth. → Artemisia abrotanum L.
Note. – See Matthioli (1565: 690).
86a. Caparus → Capparis orientalis Veill.
86b. Poligala cerulea → Polygala vulgaris L.
86e. Alcea arbor → Hyosciamus albus L.
Note. – The original identification by the author is obviously erroneous, possibly because of a specimen mismatch.
87a. Original annotation missing → Cephalanthera longifolia (L.) Fritsch
87b. Original annotation missing → Silene coronaria (L.) Clairv.
87e. Original annotation missing → Melilotus officinalis Lam.
Note. – Specimen destroyed; only a trace on the sheet.
88a. Original annotation missing → Erysimum cheiranthoides L. [?]
Note. – Only a fragment.
88b. Original annotation missing
Note. – Only a trace, impossible to identify.
88c Alsine Maior Clusii → Silene baccifera (L.) Durande
Note. – “Alsine repens major” in Clusius (1601: clxxxiii).
