Talk:Carl August Dohrn

Untitled

English translation of Scientific Communication Correspondence Diptera of Linnean coll in London Translated from the English by Anna Dohrn

Today I want to try to fulfil my earlier promise to you to write down some information about the Diptera species which are in the Linn. Coll. (now the property of the Linnean Society in London). During a visit to this capital in the winter 1847-1848 I had, through the kind co-operation of the societies officials the opportunity to look through this part of the collection on the spot. I was sorry to notice in the course of this examination that, apart from the lacunae caused by accident or deterioration more than half of the totality is no longer there. No explanation about this situation can be derived from the archives of the society nor from the memory of Mr Bracy Clarke (the only living friend of the late owner Sir James Edward Smith, who still remembers the arrival of the collection, examines them frequently and carefully and has answered my questions in this regard most courteously. The only possible remaining conclusion is that a box with all its contents has been lost or destroyed, either on the way from Sweden or at one of the train changes which the collection inevitably under went when Smith changed his residence from Norwich to London. The remaining part of the Diptera species fills the lesser half of the one box, only containing the genera Oestrus and Tipula and the genus Musca up to no. 73 in the Systema Naturae Ed. X (10) [Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae. Regnum Animale. 10th ed. W. Engelmann, Lipsiae].The species are consistently ordered according to this edition, some of them are identified on labels with numbers from the first of Fauna Suecica. [Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna Suecica sistens animalia Suecicae regni: quadrupedia, aves, amphibia, pisces, insecta, vermes.... Laur. Silvii, Holmiae] Although many are perished and others only fragments, the collection is nevertheless is no worse a condition than might be expected, in so far as no further care was taken of it than to preserve them for such a long time in a cabinet that is usually locked. Some specimens are at least a hundred years old (sic), and originate in the earliest entomological studies of Linnaeus himself. A few species seem to be added after it came into Sir J. E. Smith’s hands. But apart from the differences in the pins these are on the average carefully distinguished by labels which indicate their origin. The Linnean examples are mostly pinned on thick pins whose type also serves to distinguish the species which are older than the lst edition of the Fauna Suecica from the later ones. Many of these are attached near older ones from which they differ in species or indeed genus (according to the newer nomenclature) and with which they only share a superficial similarity. But it seems not improbable that this happened through Linneaus own practise, who, in his different works, varied in the application of his own names and which in the case of some of his uncontested species indicates very varied illustrations (Abbildungen). The labels are mostly in his own hand as established through a comparison with the marginal notes in the amended (written over) copies of the Fauna S. and Systema Naturae in the library of the society; one or two are in the hand of the younger Linnaeus and a few lost labels have been replaced by others in a more modern script but are particularly distinguished by the addition of ex descr. Some species without names or numbers are added at the end of the different genera; they were probably unidentified in the last revision of the collection. This has definitely not been re-arranged after the last (12th edition) of the Syst. Nat.. After these preliminary remarks I proceed to communicate the results of my investigations which because of the often fragmentary condition of the specimens are not in many cases satisfactory. Since some of the Linnean species seem to have been known to famous authors of Linnaeus time or shortly afterwards and these have been later falsely identified I have begun some follow-up investigations with regard to their aspects especially in such cases where it is a question of doubt or long established mistakes. Insofar as Schäffers Icones Vol 1 contain the best coloured illustrations of European insects from all orders which were known at the time; I have noted the remarks which Linnaeus sometimes made about these. In quotations from Geoffroy I have taken his name from the abbreviated edition of his work (AD 1784 entitled Entomologia Parisiensis of which Fourcroy as he clearly stresses was only the editor while the newer species etc., have been added by the author himself. It is known Zetterstadt quite frequently has often been fortunate in the restoration of the 8th application of Linnaeus. For this reason we may more readily allow ourselves to accept his [Zetts] definition in such cases in which the collection no longer gives any explanation. As a Swede by birth he also has in this respect the advantage that the field of this type of research is for mostly is restricted to his own land. As a rule I have been content, to identify species through use of Meigens work as a guide, without going back to the actual author in the case of the known names, whenever there wasn’t a particular reason to depart from this procedure. For each remark I give the exact copy of the label attached to the specimen and indicate the relevant words by the use of inverted commas.