Gardens’ Bulletin Singapore 71(Suppl. 2):87-107.

2019 87
doi: 10.26492/gbs71(suppl. 2).2019-08

Georg Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense (1741–1750) as

a source of information on Indonesian plants
for Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778)

C.E. Jarvis

Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.
c.jarvis@nhm.ac.uk

ABSTRACT. The Herbarium Amboinense (1741–1750) and the supplementary Herbarii

Amboinensis Auctuarium (1755) of Georg Eberhard Rumpf (Rumphius) (1627–1702) provided
detailed descriptions and illustrations of the plants of the island of Ambon, then a Dutch colony
in the Maluku Islands (Moluccas) of Indonesia. The initial work, published in six volumes,
contained a great deal of new botanical, medicinal and ethnographical information from a part
of the world then little-known. Published in the Netherlands long after Rumphius’ death by
the Director of the Amsterdam Botanic Garden, Johannes Burman, the work appeared prior to
Carl Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum (1753) in which the consistent use of binomial names was
introduced. However, in that work, Linnaeus referred to only a handful of Rumphius’ species
accounts. More detailed studies by Linnaeus of Rumphius’ work soon followed, notably in
the dissertation Herbarium Amboinense (May 1754; November 1759). In all, only about 100
of the nearly 700 taxa illustrated by Rumphius were referred to by Linnaeus in his various
publications, though many of those that were cited serve as nomenclatural types for their
corresponding Linnaean binomials. The reasons for Linnaeus’ apparent neglect of such an
important source of novel information are explored.

Keywords. Ambon, Carl Linnaeus, Georg Rumpf, nomenclatural types, Species Plantarum

Introduction

In 2002, on the 300th anniversary of the death of Georg Everhard Rumpf (or Rumphius),
the botanist Jan-Frits Veldkamp described him as “the undisputed patriarch of Malesian
botany, zoology and geology. No-one has had such a wide and integrated knowledge of
these sciences and he was also well-versed in pharmaceutical, architectural, judicial,
ethnological, linguistic, historical and religious matters, including astrology and
magic”. Veldkamp (2002) provided a highly readable review of Rumphius’ life and
work based on extensive bibliographical research and detailed botanical knowledge of
the flora of Indonesia, subsequently complemented by the masterwork on Rumphius’
Herbarium Amboinense by Beekman (2011).
Born in Germany in 1627 but with a Dutch family background, Rumphius left
Europe aboard a ship of the Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC; United East
India Company) in 1652, calling at the Cape of Good Hope (where he collected plants),
and by the following year was established in Amboina, one of the Spice Islands,
at a VOC trading post. Although initially employed as a military engineer, he soon
88 Gard. Bull. Singapore 71 (Suppl. 2) 2019

switched to a civilian role and, by 1662, held an extremely lucrative position as Senior
Merchant. He had broad interests in natural history and medicine and the following
year started work on the Herbarium Amboinense, partly with the aim of improving
knowledge of local cures for diseases, and established a Physic Garden. However, a
succession of personal disasters were to affect him. In 1670, he fell blind, and four
years later lost his wife and two of his daughters in an earthquake. With the help of his
son and assistants from the VOC, Rumphius had continued working but, in 1687, fire
destroyed the town of Amboina and with it his library and most of his manuscripts. A
significant part of the manuscript and drawings of Herbarium Amboinense, however,
survived. The initial part of the work was sent to Batavia in 1690 where a meticulous
copy was made, a decision that proved both fortunate and prescient because the
original manuscript was lost when the ship carrying it to the Netherlands was sunk by
the French in 1692. Rumphius continued to prepare additional material for the book,
the final part of the manuscript reaching the Netherlands safely in August 1697. In it
were described and illustrated some 1200 species, most of them of some practical,
medicinal or economic use.
Once in its hands, however, the VOC was initially reluctant to see it published,
presumably out of fear that rival colonial powers, learning more about the valuable
natural products of the area, might try to supplant the Dutch. Five years later, in 1702
(and at about the same time that Rumphius died), the Company relented but their terms
for permitting publication were onerous (there could be no cost to the Company) and
it would be 1736 before Johannes Burman, the youthful Director of the Amsterdam
Botanic Garden, took on the task of making Rumphius’ work available to a wider
audience.

Linnaeus in the Netherlands

At this point, the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus enters the picture. He had left Sweden,
accompanied by his friend Claes Sohlberg, for the Netherlands in early June 1735,
primarily to obtain a medical degree. During a four-day stay in Amsterdam, they visited
the Botanic Garden and briefly met Burman. Linnaeus and Sohlberg then sailed to the
small Dutch town of Harderwijk where Linnaeus registered at the University, handed
in a thesis, submitted an exposition on two of Hippocrates’ Aphorisms, diagnosed a
case of jaundice and was accepted as a medical candidate. His thesis was then sent for
printing and, three days later, Linnaeus defended it at a public examination and was
awarded the degree of doctor, all within a week.
In July, Linnaeus paid a return visit to Burman in Amsterdam. The two men took
a liking to one another and Linnaeus accepted an invitation to stay in Burman’s house
and to assist him with the preparation of the latter’s Thesaurus zeylanicus (Burman,
1737b), an account of the plants of Sri Lanka. In turn, Burman helped Linnaeus with
the latter’s manuscripts of Bibliotheca Botanica (Linnaeus, 1736a) and Fundamenta
botanica (Linnaeus, 1736b) that he had brought with him from Sweden, and Linnaeus
was given free access to Burman’s fine library and collections. However, despite the
Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus 89

attractions of Burman’s house and hospitality, Linnaeus was severely short of money
and, in September 1735, he accepted the offer of a generous salary from the Anglo-
Dutch banker (and a Director of the VOC), George Clifford, and moved out to live on
his large estate, the Hartekamp, near Haarlem, as Clifford’s personal physician, and
Superintendent of his stunning gardens and hothouses.

Publishing Rumphius’ manuscripts

At the time that Linnaeus left Amsterdam, Burman was attempting to persuade the VOC
to allow him to edit and publish Rumphius’ manuscripts but it was only a year later,
in August 1736, that Burman was finally able to lay hands on them. Burman’s letters
to the Swede give a commentary on his progress in preparing the work for publication
(which involved providing a parallel Latin text alongside the original Dutch, as well as
commissioning engravings from Rumphius’ original coloured drawings).
On 26 September, Burman (1736) wrote to congratulate Linnaeus on the latter’s
return to the Netherlands from his short visit to England, and informed him that if the
printing of his own Thesaurus Zeylanicus could be completed in the following year,
he would then think about starting to edit Rumphius’ manuscript. From subsequent
letters, it seems that Burman did not begin work on them until 1737 at the earliest
(and probably later). Around 5 April, Burman (1737a) wrote that he had found four
booksellers interested in printing the Herbarium Amboinense, as well as four engravers
“but these scoundrels are so expensive and have so high opinion of themselves, that
they demand 25 florins for each plate. So, with the whole work consisting of more than
800 plates, the plates alone would cost more than 20,000 florins”. Burman wrote that
he intended to try to get the printing started in a more economical way.
Linnaeus and Burman continued to keep in close contact, with Burman evidently
a regular visitor to the Hartekamp. However, Linnaeus’ visits to Amsterdam seem to
have been less frequent and it is clear that Clifford was keeping his employee hard at
work, chiefly in preparing the Hortus Cliffortianus (Linnaeus, 1738), an account of the
plants growing in Clifford’s garden accompanied by fine copperplates executed by the
artist Georg Dionysius Ehret. After its completion, Linnaeus spent the winter of 1737–
1738 in Leiden, working on a new systematic arrangement for the Botanic Garden
with its Director, Adriaan van Royen, and also helped the botanist Johan Gronovius
with a study of a collection of plants from Virginia made earlier by the British-born
Clerk of Gloucester County, John Clayton (see Gronovius, 1739–1743; Jarvis, 2007:
134, 182–183, 198–199). In May 1738, Linnaeus finally left the Netherlands for home.
After Linnaeus’ arrival in Sweden, Burman (1738) wrote to him indicating that
the printing of his own Rariorum Africanarum Plantarum (Burman, 1738–1739) was
well-advanced. Once completed, he hoped to start with the Herbarium Amboinense
and, the following spring, Burman (1739) wrote that he had made an agreement with
a bookseller to print Rumphius’ book by subscription.
There follows a long hiatus of some 15 years in the correspondence between
Burman and Linnaeus. It is clear that Burman was angry with the Swede, particularly
90 Gard. Bull. Singapore 71 (Suppl. 2) 2019

because Linnaeus had failed to give him a long-promised set of specimens that Linnaeus
had collected in Lapland in 1732 (see Jarvis, 2007: 65–67, 176–177). Linnaeus’
great friend Abraham Bäck, President of the Swedish Collegium, met Burman in the
Netherlands in 1742 and reported that Burman was unhappy with Linnaeus, from
whom Burman felt he had deserved better treatment after having provided him with
free accommodation in his house for so long. In comparison with Adriaan van Royen
and Johan Gronovius, Burman felt he had been treated by Linnaeus in an unfriendly
and ungenerous way. No further exchange of letters between Burman and Linnaeus is
known until 1754.

Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum

In the meantime, Burman arranged for the publication of Rumphius’ book in six
volumes which appeared at intervals between 1741 and 1750 (vols 1 and 2 in 1741;
3 and 4 in 1743; 5 in 1747 and 6 in 1750). However, Linnaeus was apparently unable
to see or acquire copies of them until 1753, the year in which the Swede’s ground-
breaking Species Plantarum (Linnaeus, 1753a) was published. Linnaeus was desperate
to be able to include Rumphius’ new species in an Appendix to it and, in an effort to
procure the book, he sent three letters in a single week to Abraham Bäck. On 25 May
(Linnaeus, 1753b) asked Bäck to send him a copy “well-packed, by a ship bound for
Uppsala if you have no faster possibility”. Four days later, Linnaeus (1753c) repeated
his request, stressing the urgency of his request. However, the six volumes evidently
failed to arrive because, three days later, Linnaeus (1753d) wrote again, this time in
an exasperated tone, pointing out that as Lars Salvius would soon have completed the
printing of the Species Plantarum, there would shortly be no possibility of including
any information in it from Rumphius’ book. Linnaeus also proposed asking Count Carl
Gustaf Tessin to help him obtain it.
This last letter seems finally to have done the trick for, in a letter dated 5 August,
Linnaeus (1753f) thanked Tessin for his gift of the six volumes of Rumphius’ work,
which had been delivered by Bäck. Linnaeus had read the books and was impressed
by the author’s descriptions of locations, qualities and nature.
Species Plantarum comprised two volumes, the first appearing on 1 May 1753,
prior to receipt of the six Rumphius volumes. By the time they arrived, printing of the
second volume (pp. 561–1189, with an Appendix (pp. 1190–1199) and Addenda (p.
1200), published in August 1753) was well advanced as the 15 included Rumphius
references are all near the end. A Rumphian fern (‘Millefolium aquaticum’) was listed
(p. 1070) by Linnaeus as a synonym of his Acrostichum siliquosum (a species he
believed he had already seen in Paul Hermann’s Ceylonese collections), and accounts
of six of Rumphius’ palms are cited (pp. 1187–1189), but only as additional synonyms
for species which Linnaeus believed he already knew from other published sources,
notably Hermann (1698, 1717) and Rheede (1678–1693). Seven of the remaining
references to Rumphius appear in the Appendix and, while three are cited as synonyms,
four Linnaean binomials (Convolvulus peltatus (p. 1194), Croton variegatus
Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus 91

(“variegatum”), Quercus molucca (both p. 1199) and Rubus moluccanus (p. 1197)
were based solely on Rumphius’ accounts, as was that of Hibiscus surattensis in the
Addenda. Appended to the account of Croton variegatus is a statement confirming that
Linnaeus did not obtain a copy of Herbarium Amboinense until after the printing of
Species Plantarum had been completed (‘Opus eximium beati Rumfii... ad me accessit
primum absolute a typographo opera, cujus itaque synonyma alibi seorsim tradere
animus est.’). Also in the Appendix, Linnaeus coined Rumphia amboinensis (p. 1193)
in honour of Rumphius (unfortunately a name based on a description and plate of
Rheede that has caused great difficulties of interpretation to later botanists).
An intriguing aspect, however, concerns volume one of Species Plantarum. As
noted by Merrill (1917) and Veldkamp (2002), although published before Linnaeus
acquired his copy of Herbarium Amboinense, the protologues of five species contain
explicit references (page and plate numbers) to the first volume (1741) of Rumphius’
book, raising the question as to how Linnaeus could have obtained this information.
The protologue of Garcinia mangostana (Linnaeus, 1753a: 443–444) offers no clues;
in an earlier account of this species (Linnaeus, 1738: 182), there is no mention of
Rumphius. However, two of the other names, Cynometra cauliflora and C. ramiflora
(Linnaeus, 1753a: 382), contain reference to earlier accounts in Linnaeus’ Decem
Plantarum nova Genera (Linnaeus, 1741: 78–79) and Flora Zeylanica (Linnaeus,
1747: 74, nos 166, 167) in both of which the corresponding Rumphius figures are cited.
The 1747 descriptions are accompanied by a statement indicating that Linnaeus had
seen images of both species among the drawings of Paul Hermann’s Ceylon collections
(four volumes of specimens and one of drawings had been borrowed by Linnaeus and
formed the basis for this publication — see Jarvis, 2007: 87, 181–182, 211). Further,
he indicates that these were copied from Rumphius drawings (“pulchre etiam delineata
a Rumpfio” and “itidem a Rumpfio tradita”). Comparison of the Hermann drawings
consulted by Linnaeus (now at the Natural History Museum in London) and Rumphius’
published plates, however, show little evidence of linkage. Perhaps examination of
Rumphius’ original drawings (in various archives in the Netherlands) would shed
some light on this question. Van Andel et al. (2018) have recently demonstrated strong
links between Rumphius’ drawings and specimens and Paul Hermann’s collections so
it seems likely that the key to the puzzle lies here somewhere (though it is still unclear
how the page and plate numbers could have been known to Linnaeus).

Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus’ post-1753 publications

Although only 19 of the ca. 5,900 species names that appeared in Species Plantarum
made any reference to Rumphius’ work, Linnaeus was clearly impressed with it and soon
made a more methodical study of the plants it described and depicted. This appeared in
the form of a dissertation, entitled Herbarium Amboinense (Linnaeus, 1754), written
by Linnaeus and defended on 11 May 1754 by his student, Olaf Stickman. The work
has a twin-column format with Rumphius’ plates listed in sequence in the left-hand
column and, in the right-hand column, observations by Linnaeus (Fig. 1). These
92 Gard. Bull. Singapore 71 (Suppl. 2) 2019

Fig. 1. A page from the Linnaean dissertation Herbarium Amboinense (1754: 21) showing the
twin-column format with the plate number (from volume 5) and Rumphian name to the left,
and the corresponding Linnaean binomial to the right. Although most of the listed binomials
had been published a year earlier, Bromelia comosa L., Capsicum fruticosum L. and Aloë
vivipara L. appear here for the first time. (Reproduced with kind permission of the Linnean
Society of London).
Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus 93

sometimes take the form of references to publications by other authors (particularly

Rheede), but well over 300 of Rumphius’ plants are allocated a Linnaean binomial
name. Although most of these binomials had already been published the previous year
in Species Plantarum (understandably without any reference to Rumphius), thirty
binomials were newly published in this dissertation, validated by the references to
Rumphius’ descriptions and illustrations. Fig. 1 shows the place of original publication
of three binomials, Bromelia comosa L., Capsicum fruticosum L. and Aloë vivipara L.;
the Rumphius plate on which the first of these is based is shown in Fig. 2.
Shortly after the dissertation appeared, the correspondence between Burman
and Linnaeus resumed, with the Dutchman reporting (Burman, 1754) that he was now
working on a supplementary volume of Rumphius’ work, the Auctuarium, which he
hoped would be published shortly. Linnaeus responded by sending Burman a copy
of his recent Herbarium Amboinensis dissertation and Burman (1755) subsequently
responds that he has sent, as a gift, a copy of the Auctuarium (Rumphius, 1755).
This included a further 30 descriptions and plates, accompanied by an index to the
names featured in both it and the previous six volumes of Rumphius’ publication (and
incorporating most of Linnaeus’ identifications — see Fig. 3).
In a revised version of the original 1754 dissertation (Linnaeus, 1759b),
Linnaeus added identifications for some of the plates of the Auctuarium, as well as
revising and correcting some of the determinations he had published previously for
species featured in the initial six volumes. Seven new binomials were published here,
including Canarium indicum L., Casuarina equisetifolia L., Phaseolus cylindricus
L. and Lagerstroemia chinensis L. Linnaeus also added a list of Rumphius’ plants
organised following the Linnaean sexual system.
A further 35 new binomials, based at least partly on Rumphius plates, were
published in other Linnaean publications. They include, for example, Dolichos sinensis
(Linnaeus, 1756), Epidendrum terrestre (Linnaeus, 1759a), Menispermum crispum
(Linnaeus, 1763), Chalcas paniculata (Linnaeus, 1767) and Xylophylla longifolia
(Linnaeus, 1771), so it seems clear that Linnaeus continued to consult Rumphius’
work over an extended period. Further evidence for this is provided by an unpublished
draft, in Linnaeus’ hand, of a treatment of Zalacca, a new palm genus containing six
species (Linnaeus, undated; Fig. 4). Both the generic name and the specific epithets of
each of the species, are taken from Rumphius (1747, vol. 5). All of these ‘new’ species
had been treated as unnamed varieties of Calamus rotang L. by Linnaeus (1762: 463)
suggesting that this page represents a later reappraisal by Linnaeus of these palms with
the conclusion that they were both specifically and generically distinct. ‘Zalacca’ was
subsequently validated by Reinwardt (1830).

Annotated publications in Linnaeus’ library

Linnaeus’ own copy of Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense survives in his Library

at the Linnean Society of London, as does a copy of Linnaeus’ 1754 dissertation,
both of which carry some annotations by him. Rumphius’ plates often bear binomial
94 Gard. Bull. Singapore 71 (Suppl. 2) 2019

Fig. 2. ‘Anassa domestica’ from Herbarium Amboinensis (5: t. 81. 1747), the basis (and the
nomenclatural type) of Bromelia comosa L., now Ananas comosus (L.) Merr., the pineapple, an
early introduction from the New World. (From the collections of the Natural History Museum,
London and here licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC-BY)).
Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus 95

Fig. 3. Johannes Burman’s 1755 Index to the names in both Herbarium Amboinense (1741–
1750) and Auctuarium Herbarii Amboinensis (1755) correlated with (right hand column)
binomials coined by Linnaeus (‘L’) and himself (‘B’). This is the earliest instance of the
adoption of Linnaean binomials by an author other than Linnaeus. (Reproduced with kind
permission of the Linnean Society of London).
96 Gard. Bull. Singapore 71 (Suppl. 2) 2019

Fig. 4. Manuscript fragment in Linnaeus’ hand of an unpublished draft for a new palm genus
‘Zalacca’ and its six species, all based on species described and figured by Rumphius. (LM/LP/
BOT 6/8, reproduced with kind permission of the Linnean Society of London).
Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus 97

names added in a tiny script at the base of the plates, these identifications generally
matching those published in the 1754 dissertation and its 1759 successor. However,
some binomials that first appeared in later Linnaean works are also present, e.g.
Stipa spinifex L. (Linnaeus, 1767). There are some additions and discrepancies, and
evidence of some accidentally introduced errors. For example, based on Rumphius’
‘Cepa silvestris’ (6: 160, t. 70. f. 1. 1750), Linnaeus (1754: 28) published the new
binomial Pancratium narbonense, his choice of specific epithet, however, a seemingly
inappropriate one for a plant from the Moluccas. A year earlier (Linnaeus, 1753a: 291),
Linnaeus had published the name Pancratium amboinense based on a description of
material in cultivation in Amsterdam (Commelin, 1697: 77, t. 39). In Linnaeus’ own
copy of Rumphius’ book (Fig. 5 & 6), t. 60, f. 1 is annotated as P. amboinense, not
P. narbonense, while in his copy of the 1754 dissertation, Linnaeus has crossed out
‘narbonense’ and replaced it with ‘amboinense’ (Fig. 7). It therefore seems clear
that the use of ‘narbonense’ arose accidentally, perhaps as a result of a misreading of
Linnaeus’ handwriting by the printer.

Rumphius specimens

Although it is unclear whether Rumphius had his own herbarium, no such specimens
appear to have survived (Baas & Veldkamp, 2014). However, in 1682, Rumphius sent
from Amboina to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Cosimo III, six large wooden boxes,
well fastened with strong iron bands containing “rare things from afar” which included
shells, corals, minerals, fishes, exotic woods and artificial fruit models “fit to satisfy
the grand-ducal scientific curiosity” (Martelli, 1903). Three of these terracotta fruit
models, apparently of Chinese origin, survive (see Baldini, 2009: 229–230, fig. 1–3) in
Florence, along with some plant specimens. The latter are difficult to identify having
lost their original labels but two palm fruit collections survive (Chiara Nepi, pers.
comm.), one of them identifiable as the species for which Linnaeus was intending to
propose the name ‘Zalappa calapparius’, a species which still bears Rumphius’ epithet
as Daemonorops calapparia (Mart.) Blume.

Other sources of information on southern Asian plants

Linnaeus’ perception of the importance of Rumphius’ publication would inevitably

have been influenced by how the plant descriptions and illustrations it contained related
to the information he already possessed from other sources, both from herbarium
specimens and publications.

The Ceylon specimens of Paul Hermann (1646–1695)

Paul Hermann made one of the earliest scientific collections of plant specimens
from Ceylon (Sri Lanka), where he was Medical Officer to the VOC between 1672
and 1677. Although largely restricted to plants from the area around Colombo, and
98 Gard. Bull. Singapore 71 (Suppl. 2) 2019

including a number of foreign introductions in gardens, the collection is nevertheless

of great scientific importance. After his return to Europe, Hermann took up the Chair
of Botany at the University of Leiden in 1679 where he spent the rest of his life.
Specimens survive in the Netherlands but a separate collection (now at the Natural
History Museum in London), comprising four bound volumes containing pressed
plants and a volume of drawings, was loaned to Linnaeus (see Jarvis, 2007: 181–182,
211) who set about describing and identifying the many new plants they contained,
and the result was his Flora Zeylanica (Linnaeus, 1747).

Jacobus Bontius, Historia Plantarum (1658)

The earliest significant publication on Indonesian plants is that of the Dutchman
Jacobus Bontius (1592–1631) who in 1626 was appointed physician, apothecary and
supervisor of surgeons at the VOC’s new Javan capital, Batavia. During his time there
he produced a number of commentaries on medicinal and biological matters. One on
plants, describing 70 species, was subsequently published in 1658, long after Bontius’
death, by the physician Willem Piso (1611–1678). The multi-authored publication
in which Bontius’ account appears has been deservedly described by Beekman
(2011) as “one of those omnibus volumes which are the despair of bibliographical
scholars”. Bontius, the first natural historian to write about Indonesian plants, included
descriptions of plants from Java accompanied by a small number of woodcuts. Linnaeus
cited descriptions and illustrations from it, e.g. in the protologue of Piper siriboa L.
(Linnaeus, 1753a: 29) where Bontius’ figure is cited, with the species epithet ‘siriboa’
taken from it. Bontius was commemorated by Linnaeus in the generic name Bontia,
for a shrub of coastal thickets occurring in the Antilles.

Hendrik Adriaan van Rheede tot Draakenstein, Hortus Malabaricus (1678–1693)

A far more significant publication for Linnaeus was that of Hendrik Adriaan van
Rheede tot Draakenstein (ca. 1636–1690). A detailed, highly illustrated account in
Latin of the plants of the Malabar Coast of India, Van Rheede’s 12-volume work
contains extensive descriptions, notes on practical uses of the species concerned, and
vernacular names in several languages, as well as 794 copperplates (see Nicolson et al.,
1988; Manilal, 2003). These species accounts were cited extensively by Linnaeus in
his own publications and about 100 of them serve at nomenclatural types for Linnaean
binomials.
Apart from publications dedicated to plants from South Asia, accounts of species
native to the area also appeared in publications with a slightly different focus (e.g.
plants cultivated in botanic gardens). The Dutch were understandably in the forefront
of these activities with plants from their colonies being brought into cultivation. Many
exotics from the Old World were in cultivation in the Amsterdam garden, some of
them featuring in the Horti medici Amstelodamensis (Commelin, 1697).
Paradisus Batavus (Hermann, 1698), an account of plants growing in the
botanic garden at Leiden, similarly included numerous South Asian plants. For
instance, an illustrated description of an orchid named ‘Orchis amboinensis, floribus
albis fimbriatis’ is Rumphius’ celebrated “Flos susannae”, the orchid Rumphius named
Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus 99

Fig. 5. ‘Cepa sylvestris’ from Herbarium Amboinensis (6: t. 160, f. 1. 1750, left hand figure)
from Linnaeus’ own copy of the book, with his annotation ‘Pancratium amboinense’ in tiny
lettering at the base. (Reproduced with kind permission of the Linnean Society of London).
100 Gard. Bull. Singapore 71 (Suppl. 2) 2019

Fig. 6. Detail of Figure 5 showing Linnaeus’ annotation ‘Pancratium amboinense’. (Reproduced

with kind permission of the Linnean Society of London).

for his late wife. Hermann noted that as the plant had not yet flowered in the garden,
the figure he published had been taken from Rumphius’ illustration. Comparison of the
Hermann plate with the engraving commissioned by Johannes Burman shows some
differences. In publishing the binomial Orchis susannae L., Linnaeus evidently drew
his information from Hermann’s account rather than that of Rumphius.

Collectors in Britain

Aside from the information obtained directly or indirectly from Rumphian sources,
there were people other than the Dutch who were interested in the natural curiosities
of Asia. The British collectors, Hans Sloane, Leonard Plukenet and James Petiver,
were all assiduous in developing their contacts among traders, surgeons, ships’ officers
and other travellers to augment their collections. James Petiver, a London apothecary,
was particularly single-minded and acquired numerous plant specimens (and, in some
cases, drawings of plants) from places such as Madras, Vietnam, islands in the South
China Sea such as Pulo Condore, Chusan and Amoy, and the Philippines.
For example, material came to England from Georg Joseph Kamel (1661–1706),
a Moravian-born lay brother who travelled to the Philippines in 1688 where he took up
the study of natural history and medicine. A correspondent of both John Ray and James
Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus 101

Fig. 7. Linnaeus’ annotated copy of his dissertation Herbarium Amboinense (1754: 28) showing
various corrections including, under t. 70, f. 1, the deletion of the epithet ‘Narbonense’ and its
replacement with ‘amboinense’. (Reproduced with kind permission of the Linnean Society of
London).
102 Gard. Bull. Singapore 71 (Suppl. 2) 2019

Petiver, he sent them large numbers of specimens and descriptions (particularly of

plants and insects), and also hundreds of well-executed drawings. Although Linnaeus
never saw this material, John Ray (1704) published detailed descriptions of a large
number of Kamel’s species, and Petiver published figures based on the material.
Interestingly, Linnaeus annotated the Kamel entries in his own copy of Ray’s book
with cross-references to the corresponding figures in Petiver’s publications, suggesting
that they were a valuable source of information to the Swede. Certainly he cited many
of them; Adiantum philippense L. (Linnaeus, 1753a: 1094), for example, is based on
material collected by Kamel and described and illustrated by Petiver (1702: 8, t. 4, f.
4).

Discussion

What can we conclude about the use made by Linnaeus of Rumphius’ descriptions of
plants? Given that they included members of a rich tropical flora from a comparatively
remote region little-known or understood by Linnaeus, rather fewer of them than
might be anticipated seem to have been cited by Linnaeus. This appears to have been
due to three main factors.
Firstly, Linnaeus did not have time to make a detailed assessment of the names
ahead of the publication of Species Plantarum. Had he not fallen out with Johannes
Burman on leaving the Netherlands in 1738, Linnaeus would have had the Rumphius
volumes in his hands years earlier and would have had plenty of time to assess the
descriptions and plates, almost certainly resulting in the inclusion of a much greater
number in 1753. As it was, Linnaeus did assess them for his 1754 dissertation, though
this exercise, too, resulted in the recognition of only 30 new species (though additional
binomials that were based at least in part on Rumphius’ plants were published in
various Linnaean works over the next 15 years or so).
Secondly, many of Rumphius’ illustrations and descriptions, though detailed,
lacked specific information on the floral structure, features that, for Linnaeus, were
absolutely fundamental in placing new species within his sexual system. If such
details were missing for a given species, however unusual, it would be impossible
to place it in the correct Class and Order, so Linnaeus was forced to disregard it until
further information became available. In his Introduction to the first two volumes of
Rumphius’ work, Johannes Burman explained some of the reasons for the lack of such
information [quoted from the translation by Beekman (2011)]:

“I must admit that our Rumphius did not always carefully consider the parts of the
flowers and fruit that serve for generation, and put together those that were the same in
this, and separated those that differed, and put them in a particular order in accordance
to what the Herbalists considered a genus or a family, but the gentle Reader should
remember that, as the Author himself confesses, his parents did not raise him to that
end, nor was he tutored by a master in the same, and therefore was not a Botanist”.
Burman adds: “I will also admit that not every illustration depicts a plant with all its
Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus 103

parts completely, but the kind Reader should impartially consider and allow that such
was completely beyond the powers of the Author because, first of all, one will find
many rare plants in this Herbal that were seen only once, and which were brought
from the remotest of Islands, tallest mountains, nearly inaccessible rocks and beaches,
even from howling wildernesses and the densest of forests, and at a time when they did
not always show their flowers or fruits, and one should also consider that some trees
spread out so far and wide, and rise so far above all others, that they cannot be climbed
and thus refuse to yield their flowers and fruits”.

Thirdly, Linnaeus believed that many of the species described by Rumphius

had already been written about by earlier authors, notably Rheede and Hermann,
so they lacked novelty, even if the engravings themselves were of good quality. Of
course, Linnaeus’ assumption that superficially similar plants from the Moluccas and
the western coast of India belonged to one and the same species we now know often
to have been wrong, for the plants of Rheede and Rumphius placed in synonymy by
Linnaeus frequently turn out to belong to different species. In naming an East Indian
palm Borassus flabellifer, Linnaeus included Indian, Sri Lankan and Indonesian
elements within his species concept. While the Indian and Sri Lankan plants belong to
the species that continues to bear Linnaeus’ name, the plant that Rumphius described is
now recognized as a different species, Borassus sundaicus Becc. However, Linnaeus
should not be judged too harshly on this account. He had, after all, seen almost no
herbarium material from east of Sri Lanka and had to rely on the sparse published
accounts of other authors in forming his species concepts which, as a result, were
frequently very broad.
Consequently, while Rumphius’ descriptions and illustrations did not feature as
extensively in Linnaeus’ writings as they may have deserved, this is probably because
they did not readily lend themselves to being used in the particular task that Linnaeus
had set himself — ordering the natural world created by the Almighty according to
Linnaeus’ own system, providing a logical and consistent naming system for the
individual organisms within it.

‘Borrowing with impunity’?

As has been shown here, it is possible to document much of the use Linnaeus made
of Rumphius’ work through a study of the correspondence between Linnaeus and
Burman and the explicit citation in Linnaeus’ publications of species descriptions
and illustrations from the Herbarium Amboinense. It is clear that Linnaeus left the
Netherlands long before Burman was able to begin publishing Rumphius’ manuscript,
and that Linnaeus did not acquire the six printed volumes until August 1753. Rumphius’
original manuscripts came into Burman’s possession in August 1736 and Linnaeus’
assumed access to them between then and his departure from the Netherlands in May
1738 has led to suggestions that the Swede, without due acknowledgement, “borrowed
from the great Ambonese-Dutch scholar with impunity” (Raven & Margulis, 2009).
104 Gard. Bull. Singapore 71 (Suppl. 2) 2019

Beekman (2011: 139–145) is particularly scathing of what he sees as Linnaeus’

scruple-free character, comparing him most unfavourably with (the undoubtedly more
modest and likeable) Rumphius.
However, little evidence has been put forward in support of this claim. Beekman
suggests that Linnaeus’ adoption of the generic name Musa (Linnaeus, 1736c) in the
latter’s account of the successful flowering of a banana at George Clifford’s garden
was due to his having appropriated the name from Rumphius’ manuscript. However,
the application of Musa to the banana clearly pre-dates Rumphius as it was already in
use by Carolus Clusius (1605: 229), whose account Linnaeus cites in his treatment of
Musa paradisiaca (Linnaeus, 1753a: 1043). While Linnaeus would have undoubtedly
taken a keen interest in Rumphius’ manuscript and the exotic plants it described, and
the drawings would have been immediately informative, Rumphius’ accompanying
text was written exclusively in Dutch, a language in which Linnaeus made little
progress during his three-year stay in the Netherlands. Following an argument between
Linnaeus and the publisher of his Flora Lapponica, Salomon Schouten, Burman
suggested that the Dutch printer may not have understood what Linnaeus had said
to him, pointedly adding that Linnaeus was not very good at Dutch. And in a later
letter to Bäck, Linnaeus (1753e) complains that a plant list he has received from the
Netherlands is of no use to him because the names of the plants are in Dutch, and they
can only be understood by Dutchmen. It seems, therefore, that Linnaeus would have
struggled to comprehend Rumphius’ text before it was translated into Latin by Burman,
and consequently unable to “borrow” any significant amount of content without
acknowledgement. If, between 1736 and 1753, Linnaeus had indeed “borrowed” from
Rumphius’ manuscript (as Beekman, and Raven & Margulis claim), one might expect
to find recognisably Indonesian species described by Linnaeus without any reference
to Rumphius or Herbarium Amboinense. However, these seem not to exist. Veldkamp
(2002: 17–18) noted that Adriaan van Royen, too, would doubtless have had access
to the Rumphius manuscripts at about the same time but, although there were many
exotics present in the garden at Leiden, no mention is made of Rumphius by him (Van
Royen, 1740). Veldkamp suggests that there was a gentlemen’s agreement between
Linnaeus and van Royen that they would not “mention taxa based on the Rumphian
manuscripts until Burman had published them”.

Rumphian names and epithets

As with the botanical names of most pre-Linnaean authors — those employing a

generic name in combination with a descriptive phrase in Latin — most of Rumphius’
names did not survive the transition to Linnaean nomenclature intact. However, we can
still trace Rumphius as the source of some of the formal names that were adopted by
Linnaeus. A few are generic names, notably Globba L., Quisqualis L. and Xylophylla
L., along with a number of examples of specific epithets. These include Ricinus mappa
L. (from ‘Folium mappae’ Rumph.), Ricinus tanarius L. (from ‘Tanarius minor’
Rumph.), Hernandia ovigera L. (from ‘Arbor ovigera’ Rumph.), Stilago bunius L.
Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus 105

(from ‘Bunius sativa’ Rumph.), Menispermum flavum L. from ‘Tuba flava’ Rumph.),
Piper decumanum L. (from ‘Sirium decumanum’ Rumph.), Maranta galanga L. (from
‘Galanga major’ Rumph.), Cucumis anguinus L. (from ‘Petola Anguina’ Rumph.),
Epidendrum scriptum L. (from ‘Angraecum scriptum’ Rumph.) and Carissa carandas
L. (from ‘Carandas’ Rumph.). And, of course, about 60 of Rumphius’ plates serve as
nomenclatural types for Linnaean binomials, with a further 300 being the types of
binomials described by later authors.
Contributions on the modern identities of the plants described and illustrated by
Rumphius include those of Merrill (1917), Boedijn (1959), De Wit (1959) and Zaneveld
(1959), and more recently by Beekman (2011). Information on those Rumphius plates
that serve as types of Linnaean binomials can be found in Jarvis (2007).
In his Philosophia Botanica, Linnaeus (1751) makes rather few references to
Rumphius, perhaps because he did not have copies of the published book to hand. So
while Rumphius is omitted from Linnaeus’ list of “principal botanists” (Aph. 6), and
illustrators (Aph. 11), his name does appear in the context of the Indies along with
that of van Rheede, among the “describers” whom Linnaeus says “have produced
sketches of vegetables”. Rumphius’ work from Amboina is also included among those
of the Travellers (Aph. 17) [who] “have gone to remote regions to investigate plants”,
though as one of what he calls the “selective” works, a category evidently inferior to
“outstanding” works. This was written before Linnaeus had seen Burman’s published
version of Rumphius’ work. However, in the second edition of Species Plantarum,
Linnaeus (1762) elevated Rumphius to the group of “Fundadores”, suggesting that
Linnaeus kept going back to Rumphius’ work and reinterpreting his descriptions and
illustrations precisely because he valued it highly.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. This contribution is based on a lecture prepared for an international

conference, Visions from the Blind Seer of Ambon — a celebration of Georg Everhard Rumphius
(1627–1701) and his Ambonese Herbal, held in London in May 2011. I am grateful to Pieter
Baas for his invitation to speak on that occasion, and to the editors of this volume for the
opportunity to publish the work in this Festschrift for Professor David Mabberley. Thanks
are also due to the staff of the Linnean Society of London for providing access to copies of
Linnaeus’ manuscripts and books, and to Chiara Nepi for information on surviving Rumphius
specimens in Florence.

References

Baas, P. & Veldkamp, J.F. (2014). Dutch pre-colonial botany and Rumphius’s Ambonese
Herbal. Allertonia 13: 9–19.
Baldini, E. (2009). I modelli pomologici (Pomological models). In: Raffaelli, M. (ed.) Il Museo
di Storia Naturale dell’Università degli Studi di Firenze. Volume II. Le Collezione
Botaniche, pp. 228–235. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
Beekman, E.M. (2011). The Ambonese Herbal. 6 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press and
National Tropical Botanical Garden.
106 Gard. Bull. Singapore 71 (Suppl. 2) 2019

Boedijn, K.B. (1959). The Fungi in Rumphius’s Herbarium Amboinense. In: De Wit, H.C.D.
(ed.) Rumphius Memorial Volume, pp. 289–294. Baarn: Hollandia.
Bontius, J. (1658). Historia plantarum. In: Piso, W. (ed.) De Indiae utruiusque re naturali et
medica libri XIV. Amsterdam.
Burman, J. (1736). Letter to Carl Linnaeus, 26 Sep. 1753 (L0096), The Linnaean Correspondence,
urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-225119, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Burman, J. (1737a). Letter to Carl Linnaeus, ca. 5 Apr. 1737 (L0159), The Linnaean
Correspondence, urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-222959, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Burman, J. (1737b). Thesaurus zeylanicus. Amsterdam: Janssonius-Waesburg and Salomon
Schouten.
Burman, J. (1738). Letter to Carl Linnaeus, 20 Nov. 1738 (L0262), The Linnaean
Correspondence, urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-223189, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Burman, J. (1738–1739). Rariorum Africanarum Plantarum. Amsterdam: Henricum Boussiere.
Burman, J. (1739). Letter to Carl Linnaeus, 7 Apr. 1739 (L0282), The Linnaean Correspondence,
urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-223207, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Burman, J. (1754). Letter to Carl Linnaeus, 1 Dec. 1754 (L2637), The Linnaean Correspondence,
urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-227556, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Burman, J. (1755). Letter to Carl Linnaeus, 30 Sep. 1755 (L1942), The Linnaean Correspondence,
urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-225863, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Clusius, C. (1605). Exoticorum libri decem. Antwerp: Plantijn.
Commelin, J. (1697). Horti medici Amstelodamensis rariorum … plantarum. Amsterdam: P.
and I. Blaev and A. van Someren.
De Wit, H.C.D. (1959). A checklist to Rumphius’s Herbarium Amboinense. In: de Wit, H.C.D.
(ed.), Rumphius Memorial Volume, pp. 339–460. Baarn: Hollandia
Gronovius, J.F. (1739–1743). Flora Virginica, exhibens plantas quas v.c. Johannes Clayton in
Virginia observavit atque collegit … Leiden: Cornelius Haak.
Hermann, P. (1698). Paradisus botanicus … cui accessit Catalogus plantarum quas …
deineandus curaverat Paulus Hermannus. Leiden: Abraham Elzevier.
Hermann, P. (1717). Musaeum Zeylanicum, sive Catalogus plantarum in Zeylana sponte
nascentium … descriptarum a … Paulo Hermanno. Leiden: Isaacus Severinus.
Jarvis, C. (2007). Order out of chaos — Linnaean plant names and their types. London: Linnean
Society of London with the Natural History Museum.
Linnaeus, C. (1736a). Bibliotheca Botanica. Amsterdam: Salomon Schouten.
Linnaeus, C. (1736b). Fundamenta Botanica. Amsterdam: Salomon Schouten.
Linnaeus, C. (1736c). Musa Cliffortiana. Leiden: privately published.
Linnaeus, C. (1738). Hortus Cliffortianus. Amsterdam: privately published.
Linnaeus, C. (1741). Decem Plantarum nova Genera. Acta Soc. Regiae Scient. Upsal. 1741:
77–84.
Linnaeus, C. (1747). Flora Zeylanica. Stockholm: Laurent Salvius.
Linnaeus, C. (1751). Philosophia Botanica. Stockholm: Laurent Salvius.
Linnaeus, C. (1753a). Species Plantarum. Stockholm: Laurent Salvius.
Linnaeus, C. (1753b). Letter to Abraham Bäck, 25 May 1753 (L1579), The Linnaean
Correspondence, urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-225063, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Linnaeus, C. (1753c). Letter to Abraham Bäck, 29 May 1753 (L1577), The Linnaean
Correspondence, urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-225066, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Linnaeus, C. (1753d). Letter to Abraham Bäck, 1 June 1753 (L1606), The Linnaean
Correspondence, urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-225103, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Linnaeus, C. (1753e). Letter to Abraham Bäck, 7 July 1753 (L1613), The Linnaean
Correspondence, urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-000000, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Rumphius’ Herbarium Amboinense and Linnaeus 107

Linnaeus, C. (1753f). Letter to Carl Gustav Tessin, 5 Aug. 1753 (L1636), The Linnaean
Correspondence, urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-225119, consulted 30 Apr. 2019.
Linnaeus, C. (1754). Herbarium Amboinense. Uppsala: L.M. Höjer.
Linnaeus, C. (1756). Centuria II Plantarum. Uppsala: L.M. Höjer.
Linnaeus, C. (1759a). Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 2. Stockholm: Laurent Salvius.
Linnaeus, C. (1759b). Herbarium Amboinense. Amoenitates Academicae 4: 112–143.
Stockholm: Laurent Salvius.
Linnaeus, C. (1762). Species Plantarum, ed. 2, vol. 1. Stockholm: Laurent Salvius.
Linnaeus, C. (1763). Species Plantarum, ed. 2, vol. 2. Stockholm: Laurent Salvius.
Linnaeus, C. (1767). Mantissa Plantarum. Stockholm: Laurent Salvius.
Linnaeus, C. (1771). Mantissa Plantarum Altera. Stockholm: Laurent Salvius.
Linnaeus, C. (undated). Manuscript LM/LP/BOT/6/8, Linnean Society of London.
Manilal, K.S. (2003). Van Rheede’s Hortus Malabaricus — English Edition — with Annotations
and Modern Botanical Nomenclature. 12 vols. Kerala: Thiruvananthapuram.
Martelli, (1903). Le collezioni di Giorgio Everardo Rumpf acquistate dal Granduca Cosimo
III de’Medici ed una volta esistenti nel museo di Fisica e Storia Naturale di Firenze.
Firenze: Tip. Luigi Niccolai.
Merrill, E.D. (1917). An interpretation of Rumphius’s Herbarium Amboinense. Manila: Bureau
of Printing.
Nicolson, D.H., Suresh, C.R. & Manilal, K.S. (1988). An interpretation of Van Rheede’s Hortus
Malabaricus. Regnum Veg. 119: 1–378.
Petiver, J. (1702). Gazophylacium Naturae, Dec. I. London: Chr. Bateman.
Raven, P.H. & Margulis, L. (2009). The herbal of Rumphius. Amer. Scientist 97(1): 7.
Ray, J. (1704). Historia Plantarum, Tomus Tertius. London: Sam. Smith and Benj. Walford.
Reinwardt, C.G.C. (1830). Zalacca. In: Roemer, J.J. & Schultes, J.A. (eds) Systema
Vegetabilium, ed. 15 bis, 7(2): 1333. Stuttgart.
Rumphius, G.E. (1741–1750). Herbarium Amboinense … pars prima (-sexta), ed. J. Burman.
Amsterdam: Franciscum Changuion, Joannem Catuffe, Hermannum Uytwerf.
Rumphius, G.E. (1755). Herbarii Amboinensis Auctuarium, ed. J. Burman. Amsterdam:
Mynardum Uytwerf, S. Schouten.
Van Andel, T.R., Mazumdar, J., Barth, E.N.T. & Veldkamp, J.F. (2018). Possible Rumphius
specimens detected in Paul Hermann’s Ceylon herbarium (1672–1679) in Leiden, the
Netherlands. Blumea 63: 11–19.
Van Rheede tot Draakenstein, H.A. (1678–1693). Hortus Indicus Malabaricus, 12 vols.
Amsterdam: Van Siomeren, Van Dyck.
Van Royen, A. (1740). Florae Leydensis Prodromus. Leiden: Samuel Luchtmans.
Veldkamp, J.F. (2002). 15 June 2002, 300th anniversary of Rumphius’s death. Fl. Males. Bull.
13: 7–21.
Zaneveld, J.S. (1959). An identification of the algae mentioned by Rumphius. In: De Wit,
H.C.D. (ed.) Rumphius Memorial Volume, pp. 277–280. Baarn: Hollandia.