Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle's L'Heritier Reliquiae: A volume of miscellaneous prints kept in Geneva

Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae: A volume of miscellaneous prints kept in Geneva Hans Walter Lack, Katrin Böhme & Martin W. Callmander Abstract LACK, H.W., K. BÖHME & M.W. CALLMANDER (2021). Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae: A volume of miscellaneous prints in Geneva. Candollea 76: 145 – 165. In English, English abstract. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15553/c2021v761a15 A bound volume of miscellaneous prints previously owned by Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle and today kept in the library of the Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques in Geneva is analysed. It consists of six very rare leaflets published by Charles-Louis L’Héritier de Brutelle and of several finished and unfinished engravings almost exclusively based on drawings by Pierre-Joseph Redouté. A considerable proportion of these unfinished engravings can be correlated with finished engravings kept in a volume of prints in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, which is all that was published of the last two fascicles of L’Héritier’s incomplete Stirpes novae. Notes on the taxonomy and nomenclature of the genera Buchozia L’Hér. (Rubiaceae), Hymenopappus L’Hér. (Asteraceae), Louichea L’Hér. (Caryophyllaceae), Michauxia L’Hér. (Campanulaceae) and Virgilia L’Hér. (Asteraceae) are included and their respective type species clarified. Lectotypes are designated for four names and the new combination Buchozia japonica (Thunb.) Callm. is provided. Furthermore, the complex historical background of the leaflets and the miscellaneous engravings is explained and set into the context of plant taxonomy in Paris during the two final decades of the eighteenth century. Keywords Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle – Charles-Louis L’Héritier de Brutelle – Pierre-Joseph Redouté – Buchozia – Hymenopappus – Louichea – Michauxia – Virgilia – Botanical illustration – New combination – Typification Addresses of the authors: HWL: Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 6 – 8, 14195 Berlin, Germany. E-Mail: [email protected] KB: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Unter den Linden 8, 10117 Berlin, Germany. MWC: Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève, chemin de l’Impératrice 1, C.P. 71, 1292 Chambésy, Switzerland. Submitted on January 31, 2021. Accepted on March 22, 2021. First published online on May 20, 2021. © CONSERVATOIRE ET JARDIN BOTANIQUES DE GENÈVE 2021ISSN : 0373-2967 – Online ISSN : 2235-3658 – Candollea 76(1) : 145 – 165 (2021) Introduction This paper analyses a bound folio volume of miscellaneous prints that were previously owned by Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle (1778 – 1841), subsequently cited as Candolle, and are now kept in the library of the Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques in Geneva (CJBG: shelf mark Off Lhe). It consists of very rare leaflets published by Charles-Louis L’Héritier de Brutelle (1746 – 1800) and copper engravings in various stages of completion commissioned by L’Héritier that were based almost exclusively on drawings by Pierre-JosephRedouté (1759 – 1840). So far only the leaflets have been studied (Stafleu, 1963a; Stafleu & Cowan, 1981). The content of the folio volume is compared here with other copies of these prints and set into the context of its time. The prints are shown to have been cited by members of the Candolle dynasty and their collaborators in the Prodromus and other publications over almost five decades. Furthermore, the taxonomy and nomenclature of the five genera and the five species described by L’Héritier as new to science in the leaflets bound into the volume are presented together with their types and the currently accepted names. Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle and the acquisition of L’Héritier’s herbarium In his autobiography Mémoires et souvenirs, Candolle (2004: 504) wrote: “Une bibliothèque botanique est un accompagnement obligé d’un herbier et un outil nécessaire pour quiconque veut travailler [a botanical library is an obligatory accompaniment of a herbarium and a necessary tool for anyone who wishes to work]”. In the following sentence he stated “en histoire naturelle il faut pouvoir vérifier incessamment la concordance des figures et des descriptions déjà publiées avec l’objet qu’on a sous les yeux, soit pour connaître ce que les auteurs en ont dit, soit pour s’assurer qu’une espèce est inconnue aux naturalistes [in natural history it is necessary to be able to verify incessantly the concordance of the illustrations and the descriptions already published with the object under one’s eyes, either in order to know what the authors said about it or to assure oneself that a species is unknown to naturalists]”. These are iconic statements relevant for all libraries specialised in taxonomy, though surprisingly they were suppressed by AlphonsedeCandolle (1806 – 1893) when he edited his father’s autobiography (Candolle, 1862). Placed towards the end of Book 4 under the title “Âge mûr [Mature age]” of the new edition of his autobiography (Candolle, 2004), they may not necessarily refer exclusively to the late period of Candolle’s life, but also to his years spent in Paris around 1800. He recollects having been guided as to the creation of a library on the advice of René-LouicheDesfontaines (1750 – 1833), then one of the professors at the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle in Paris (Laissus, 1986), who had suggested to him after dinner “Allons bouquiner [Let us go to the bouquinistes]” (Candolle, 2004: 505). This meant strolling shops looking for secondhand books in the stalls on the banks of the river Seine, a pastime undertaken during leisure hours in the French capital. Furthermore, Candolle remembered having often consulted the private botanical libraries of Desfontaines and of L’Héritier, both in Paris (Candolle, 2004: 505). This implies that these recollections refer to the years before 1800, when Candolle was still a very young man. The arrangement with L’Héritier came to a sudden end when the latter was murdered on 16 August 1800 near his house in Paris when he was returning from a meeting in the Institut national des Sciences et des Arts, of which he was a full member (Stafleu, 1963b; Baldi, 2020). From this moment L’Héritier’s library was closed to Candolle (Candolle, 2004: 505), and thus he had lost a major resource for his botanical studies. L’Héritier’s fine library, being extremely rich in botanical books, was offered for auction in March 1802 (Debure, 1802). However, it was acquired en bloc by the bookseller Jean-Gabriel Mérigot (c.1738 – 1818), who finally broke up the collection in 1805 at another auction in Paris (Anon., 1805; Baldi, 2020). In his autobiography Candolle does not mention the auction of L’Héritier’s library, but it has been reported that he acquired some items at this sale (Stafleu, 1967). Emulating Sir Joseph Banks (1743 – 1820), President of the Royal Society in London, L’Héritier had not only acquired a library of 7389 volumes valued by Desfontaines at 50,000francs in November 1800, but also possessed a herbarium of some 8000sheets as well as plant illustrations and miscellaneous manuscript notes (Baldi, 2020). After his death the herbarium and manuscripts were acquired by Jean-Baptiste Garnery (1764 – 1843), another bookseller based in Paris, apparently with the intention of continuing the publication of L’Héritier’s unfinished works, among them the Stirpes novae (Candolle, 2004: 190). By 1799 at the latest, Candolle had started to collaborate with Garnery, who was the publisher of his Plantarum historia succulentarum also known as Plantes grasses (Candolle, 1799 – 1805). Since payments to Candolle from Garnery were pending, an arrangement was made whereby both herbarium and manuscripts were bought by Garnery for Candolle and his outstanding debts reduced accordingly (Candolle, 2004: 190 – 191). This is how it came about that Candolle, then aged 23, became the owner of a substantial herbarium in March 1801, estimated by him to be two to three times as large as all his preexisting collections (Baldi, 2020). In this context, Candolle may well have acquired the contents of the volume to be discussed here, though hard evidence to substantiate this is lacking. In any case, he produced a table of contents in his own hand (Appendix), called his collection Caroli Ludovici L’Heritier Reliquiae and arranged for it to be bound in one volume. The Candolle library, including this volume, subsequently called L’Héritier’s Reliquiae, was bought 146 – Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae Candollea 76, 2021 by the city of Geneva on 20 May 1921 for 145,000 CHF (Conseil Administratif, 1922: 23), and at the same time the Candolle herbarium was bequeathed to the city of Geneva. Both, the library and the herbarium, were previously owned by Louise de Candolle (1875 – 1973), the wife of Augustin de Candolle (1868 – 1920). They both found their permanent home in the Conservatoire botanique in Geneva, now CJBG. L’Heritier’s Reliquiae – The leaflets This volume consists of two elements, i.e. leaflets and miscellaneous copper engravings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary a leaflet is “a single sheet of paper, folded or unfolded, containing printed matter”. This definition applies to five of L’Héritier’s publications bound into the Reliquiae, which have the following titles (1) Vigilia, (2) Buchozia, (3) Louichea, (4) Hymenopappus and (5) Michauxia. In many respects these are quite unconventional prints: all are in folio, each consists of a single printed page folded once plus a maximum of two engravings in folio as appended illustrations. The title pages, all printed on the recto page, give neither the name of the author nor the name of the publisher, neither the date nor the place of publication. The year of publication for all five leaflets is 1788 (Stafleu, 1963a). The pages do not bear page numbers (e.g. Fig.1); the name of the author is given at the bottom of the last printed page. Considering typography and layout, all five leaflets could have been produced by the publisher Philipp-Denis Pierres (1741 – 1808) in Paris, who had already produced the first installments of the Stirpes novae (L’Héritier de Brutelle, 1785 – 1791). However, from a letter sent by L’Héritier to Banks on 31 December 1787 we learn that at least Louichea was printed by Pierre-FrançoisDidot (1731 – 1795), another publisher in Paris (Stafleu, 1963b). Occasionally the leaflets are reported to have also been sold on the Paris book market and listed in bibliographies (e.g. Brunet, 1842 – 1844). The seven engravings (e.g. Fig.2), which belong to the five leaflets, are framed, annotated with a scientific name and exclusively based on drawings by Pierre-JosephRedouté, which are all currently untraceable. In technical terms, the content of the five leaflets would today be called the validation of five generic names and of five species names (see above). Living specimens cultivated in several gardens in Paris, among them the Jardin du Roi (later Jardin des Plantes) and L’Héritier’s private garden, were the bases of the names validated in the five leaflets (see above). Additionally, L’Héritier cited a small number of selected herbarium specimens. Considering the standards of his time, the protologues are extremely detailed and offer a wealth of information. Of the five generic names validated in the leaflets, four are eponyms. While Virgilia L’Hér. refers to Publius Vergilius Maro (70 BC – 19 BC), the famous Roman poet of the Augustan period, the three other names refer to L’Héritier’s contemporaries: Buchozia L’Hér. is dedicated to Pierre-Joseph Buc’hoz (1731 – 1807), physician and naturalist (see below); Louichea L’Hér. to René-Louiche Desfontaines (see above), professor of botany at the Jardin du Roi since 1786, later called Muséum d’Histoire naturelle (Laissus, 1986); and Michauxia L’Hér. to André Michaux (1746 – 1802), well-known as traveler and collector first in the Orient (Pluchet, 2014), later in North America. However, the latter’s most important trophy was the Caillou Michaux, a Babylonian kudurru from the reign of Marduk-nanin-akhi which he found near Baghdad and today is one of the most spectacular objects in the Cabinet des médailles, Bibliothèque nationale de France. Desfontaines had gathered seeds in what is now Algeria or Tunisia, Michaux in what is now Syria. From these seeds plants were raised to which L’Héritier gave names dedicated to their respective collectors. Furthermore, Michaux and John Fraser (1750 – 1811) had collected in the United States seed material of Hymenopappus scabiosaeus L’Hér. The sixth publication of L’Héritier’s Reliquiae has the title Kakile, cum animadversionibus in Buniadem, Myagrum et Crambe, and differs from the five leaflets described above. It has a somewhat smaller format, comprises eleven numbered pages, i.e. [1] – [2], 3 – 11, it does not include illustrations and has the year of publication “1788” printed on the title page. As to content, this is a proper taxonomic monograph starting with the description of the genus Kakile Desf. (recte Cakile) (Brassicaceae) and the treatment of eleven species that it includes, followed by much more condensed treatments of the genera Bunias L., Myagrum L. and Crambe L., with the species they comprise. The five leaflets Buchozia, Hymenopappus, Louichea, Michauxia and Virgilia are rare and known from a very small number of copies. Remarkably, there is no copy of these five works in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, but only in the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France, Bibliothèque Centrale of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle [MNHN] in Paris and Bibliothèque Universitaire of Montpellier University. Further copies are to be found in the library of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, the Linnean Society and the Natural History Museum in London, and of the Statens Naturhistoriske Museum in Copenhagen. The copy of the five works in the CJBG is the only one in Switzerland, and the copy in the Universitätsbibliothek of Vienna University is the only one in Austria. In contrast there is currently no copy in Germany, although all five leaflets have been listed in the bibliography of the fourth edition of Linnaeus’s Species Plantarum, published in Berlin (Willdenow, 1797: xxiv). Unfortunately, the catalogues do not distinguish between the first and second edition of Michauxia, both published in 1788 (Stafleu, 1963a; Stafleu & Cowan, 1981) within an interval of a few months and differing only in the addition of two lines in the synonymy Candollea 76, 2021 Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae – 147 148 – Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae Candollea 76, 2021 Fig. 1. – First page of the leaflet of the genus Hymenopappus L’Hér., 1788. [L’Héritier’s Reliquiae] [Bibliothèque, Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève] (Lack & Callmander, in press). However, from inspection we know that the copies in Geneva and Vienna belong to the first edition, and the copy in the Linnean Society to the second edition. Though they are rare, all six leaflets have been listed in standard bibliographies, such as the Thesaurus literaturae botanicae (Pritzel, 1847 – 1852: nº5845 – 5850, 1871 – 1882: nº5271 – 5276) and the second edition of Taxonomic literature (Stafleu & Cowan, 1981: nº4486 – 4491). Consequently, L’Héritier’s leaflets cannot be regarded as unknown. The seven engravings included in the leaflets that Candolle called “Dissertationes” in his table of contents (Appendix) have also been included in standard lists of printed plant illustrations, i.e. Iconum botanicarum index (Pritzel, 1855, 1866) and Index Londinensis (Stapf, 1929 – 1931). Why did L’Héritier choose the rather unconventional method of publishing novelties in leaflets? We do not know, but there is a consideration: the naming of organisms was and is an extremely competitive field. Several plant taxonomists based in Paris were simultaneously active in 1788 and, as a consequence, L’Héritier did everything to publish his novelties as speedily as possible. By choosing the leaflet as a medium he was under no obligation to wait for more substantial texts to be completed, the indices to be compiled, index proofs to be read etc., which all served to delay publication. The race for the publication of new names can be exemplified by the name Michauxia campanuloides L’Hér. published in March-April 1788. Additionally, L’Héritier considered republishing the contents of the leaflets in his Stirpes novae at a later moment, writing to Dryander in London on 18 August 1788 “Mon intention est bien de publier un jour de nouveau le Michauxia et toutes autres monographies de ce genre dans mes Stirpes [My intention is to republish someday Michauxia and all other monographs of this sort in my Stirpes novae]” (cited in Stafleu, 1963a). However, he did only this for Louichea (see below). In contrast to Candolle’s statement in his table of contents of L’Heritier’s Reliquiae (Appendix) and a more recent note (Stafleu, 1963a: 46, 1963b: xxv), Kakile seems to have actually been published, although the number of copies known is even smaller. This work, which does not contain taxonomic novelties, is known from the libraries in Copenhagen, Geneva and Vienna listed above and the Bibliothèque Centrale, MNHN. When the library of L’Héritier was first offered at auction in 1802, the catalogue lists under lot 911 his Opera omnia botanica (Debure, 1802), which also comprised the six leaflets, and under lot 912 a second copy that lacks Kakile. Their whereabouts remain unknown. Of the seven engravings published in the leaflets, L’Héritier re-issued a single one: the sixth installment of the Stirpes novae contains as tab. 65 the engraving included in Louichea, albeit renamed Louichea pteranthus (L.) L’Hér. (see above). L’Heritier’s Reliquiae – The engravings L’Heritier’s Reliquiae consists of a miscellaneous collection of other engravings not associated with text in addition to the six leaflets and the engravings they comprise (of which the two documenting Michauxia campanuloides are missing; Table1). Although bound in no apparent order, with e.g. the engraving showing Podocarpus elongatus (Ait.) L’Hér. ex Pers. after the title page of Kakile, they can be arranged in two groups: (1) finished engravings, i.e. with the names of the plant illustrated, the illustrator and the engraver printed on them and the image framed, (2) unfinished engravings, i.e. without the printed name of the plant illustrated, or without the printed name of the illustrator and/or of the engraver, either framed or unframed, but often with a name added in manuscript. Examples may illustrate this point. The engraving showing Solanum muricatum Ait., a subshrub native to the Andes, stands for the first group. It is provided with the name of the plant in print, the name of the illustrator and the engraver are printed on it and it is framed (Fig.3). It is the only engraving of L’Heritier’s Reliquiae printed in color (see above). The second group is represented by the engraving showing Cytisus anagyrius L’Hér., a shrub native to Central Spain (Fig.4). The name of the plant is added in manuscript, neither the name of the illustrator nor that of the engraver is given, and the frame is missing. In the manuscript annotations of the second group, different hands can be discerned – Candolle’s in ink (e.g. Fig.4, here wrongly annotated as C. divaricatus L’Hér. instead of C. anagyrius) and another, so far unidentified hand in pencil, probably written at a later date. Although no descriptions or pertinent texts are associated with the engravings, it is nevertheless possible to discover a little information on the background of the plants illustrated. Salvia tiliifolia Vahl, an herbaceous annual plant from tropical Mesoamerica provided in L’Heritier’s Reliquiae with the name of the plant (with the original spelling “Salvia tiliaefolia”), the name of the illustrator and the engraver, all printed and framed, is documented in the famous Collection des Vélins, today conserved in the Bibliothèque Centrale of the MNHN in Paris (i.e. vol. 19: tab. 53, undated and ascribed to Gérard van Spaendock though possibly by Pierre-Joseph Redouté). Another engraving provided in L’Heritier’s Reliquiae represents Solanum giganteum Jacq., a large, prickly-stemmed shrub to small tree native in tropical and southern Africa. It is based on a dated grisaille by Pierre-Joseph Redouté with his name stamped in black on it conserved in the Collections Artistiques de l’Université in Liège (Lamy, 2017). This is set out in detail here, in order to exemplify the complexity of the miscellaneous engravings forming part of L’Heritier’s Reliquiae. Candollea 76, 2021 Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae – 149 150 – Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae Candollea 76, 2021 Fig. 2. – Hymenopappus scabiosaeus L’Hér. Copper engraving based on P.-J. Redouté, 1788. [L’Héritier’s Reliquiae] [Bibliothèque, Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève] Candollea 76, 2021 Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae – 151 Fig. 3. – Solanum muricatum Ait. Copper engraving based on P.-J. Redouté, no date. [L’Héritier’s Reliquiae] [Bibliothèque, Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève] Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Tabulae ineditae: An enigma solved Twelve of the unfinished engravings and four of the finished engravings discussed above (see Table 1) can be associated with finished engravings, printed in black, kept and bound in a single folio volume in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (SBB: shelf mark 2° Ma 11635-Tab. ined.). This book, which has not been provided with a printed title page, has been catalogued with the provisionary title Tabulae ineditae by the librarians of the Staatsbibliothek. They rightly associated these engravings with L’Héritier’s Stirpes novae, which remained incomplete with the last published engraving being tab.84. There is logic behind this interpretation: the engravings in the Tabulae ineditae are numbered 85 – 107, 109 – 124, though tab.117 carries in error the number “107 ”. In short, the four finished, but still unnumbered engravings of the L’Heritier’s Reliquiae are identical to tab.120 – 121 and tab.123 – 124, the twelve unfinished engravings have their finished equivalents in tab.85 – 86, 88, 90 – 91, 95 – 96, 106, 109, 111, 114 – 115. For example, the unfinished engraving showing Cytisus anagyrius (Fig.4) in Geneva has its equivalent in the finished engraving (Fig.5) in Berlin. There are two anomalies: the colour print of Solanum muricatum in L’Heritier’s Reliquiae in Geneva (Fig.3) has a black equivalent in the Tabulae ineditae in Berlin; because of its size, tab. 107 in Berlin remained without a frame like its equivalent in Geneva. Furthermore, the Tabulae ineditae contains re-issues of the engravings first published in the two leaflets Michauxia and Virgilia (Table 1). These carry additional numbers, i.e. tab. 116 (Fig.6) and tab. 117 illustrating Michauxia campanuloides, tab. 118 and 119 illustrating Virgilia helioides L’Hér. Although very rare, the Tabulae ineditae is not a unique item. Copies conserved in Cambridge (Cambridge University, Botany School), Kew (Royal Botanic Gardens), London (Natural History Museum, Lindley Library, Linnean Society), Paris (Bibliothèque Centrale, MNHN) and Pittsburgh (Hunt Botanical Library) have been traced and a personal inspection made (Buchheim, 1965: 43, 53). However, the copy in the Staatsbibliothek is only mentioned in this paper, but not analysed. The copy owned by Giuseppe Moretti (1782 – 1853) and explicitly stated in the Iconum botanicarum index (Pritzel, 1866; 2: xii) to possess “40 unedirte Tafeln [40 unpublished plates]” seems to be kept today in the Biblioteca dell’ Orto Botanico of Padua University. Due to repair works, this library is temporarily closed and therefore the Moretti copy could not be analysed by the present authors. Since the bibliographer Table 1. – Conspectus of illustrations in Tabulae ineditae (SBB) and in L’Heritier Reliquiae (CJBG) with annotations. With the exception of tab. 91, 94 and 107 copper engravings based on Pierre-Joseph Redouté. Tab.108 is missing in all known copies of “Tab. ined.” (see Buchheim, 1965). Abbreviations: a.l.l. = avant la lettre; + / – = present / absent. Tabulae ineditae L’Heritier’s Reliquiae Tab. Plant name + / – remarks + / – remarks 85 Spartium nubigenum Ait. [as nubigena] + + a.l.l. 86 Spartium virgatum Ait. + + a.l.l. 87 Spartium patens L. + – 88 Spartium umbellatum L’Hér. + + a.l.l., unframed 89 Spartium album Desf. + – 90 Spartium ferox Poir. + + a.l.l., unframed 91 Genista triquetra L’Hér. + + a.l.l., unframed 92 Genista pedunculata L’Hér. + – 93 Genista linifolia L. + – 94 Cytisus biflorus L’Hér. + – 95 Cytisus anagyrius L’Hér. +Fig. 5 +a.l.l., unframed; Fig.4 96 Cytisus foliolosus Ait. + + a.l.l., unframed 97 Cytisus triflorus L’Hér. + – 98 Solanum cornutum Lam. + – 99 Solanum pyracanthos Lam. + – 100 Solanum xanthocarpum Schrad. + – 152 – Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae Candollea 76, 2021 Tabulae ineditae L’Heritier’s Reliquiae Tab. Plant name + / – remarks + / – remarks 101 Solanum fuscatum L. + – 102 Solanum ciliatum Lam. + – 103 Solanum milleri Jacq. + – 104 Solanum polyacanthos L’Hér. ex Dunal [as polycanthos] + – 105 Solanum lanceifolium Jacq. [as lanceaefolium] + – 106 Solanum muricatum Ait. + + annotated ‘105’, printed in color; Fig.3 107 Solanum giganteum Jacq. +a.l.l., unframed +a.l.l., unframed 109 Solanum pinnatifidum Lam. + + a.l.l., unframed 110 Solanum multifidum Lam. + – 111 Solanum corymbosum Jacq. + + 112 Solanum nodiflorum Jacq. + + a.l.l., unframed 113 Solanum procumbens Lour. + - 114 Solanum auriculatum Ait. + + a.l.l. 115 Cestrum campanulatum Lam. + + a.l.l., unframed 116 Michauxia campanuloides L’Hér. additional number 1; Fig. 6 –only text, no illustration 117 Michauxia campanuloides L’Hér. +additional number 2 –only text, no illustration 118 Virgilia helioides L’Hér. + + part of Virgilia, different plate number, i.e. 1 119 Virgilia helioides L’Hér. +additional number 2 + part of Virgilia, different plate number, i.e. 2 120 Tricratus admirabilis L’Hér. ex Willd. + + two copies 121 Cissus biternata L’Hér. +Fig. 9 + 122 Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) L’Hér. ex Vent. + – 123 Salvia tiliifolia Vahl [as tiliaefolia] + + 124 Chrysanthemum pinnatifidum L. f. + + –Buchozia coprosimoides L’Hér. – + part of Buchozia –Hymenopappus scabiosaeus L’Hér. – + part of Hymenopappus; Fig.2 –Louichea cervina L’Hér. – + part of Louichea –Oxybaphus viscosus (Cav.) L’Hér. ex Willd. – + –Podocarpus elongatus (Ait.) L’Hér. ex Pers. – + –“Salvia digitata” – + –Centaurea sp. – + a.l.l. –Solanum sp. – + 2 different plates – all a.l.l. –Teucrium abutiloides L’Hér. – + –Fabaceae – + 5 different plates – all a.l.l. Candollea 76, 2021 Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae – 153 of unpublished drawings numbered up to eight hundred from which it would have been easy to find two or three hundred plates still new to science. This significant work would have absorbed several years of my life without great effect. I was lucky to deal with such an easy-minded and negligent book dealer that he did not even publish the installments which I had prepared and I was [thus] exempted from fulfilling a commitment made in my enthusiasm in order to obtain the herbarium and that would be troublesome for me to accomplish. Of this transaction the herbarium and manuscripts of my former protector remained for me, and Garneri by his negligence permitted the loss of an enormous mass of drawings and engravings ready for appearance. Because of his mistake, the win was exclusively mine and the loss was his!]” (Candolle, 2004: 192). These sentences shed light on the larger context, though admittedly they explain only part of the story. It appears that the plates 84 – 107, 109 – 114 in the Staatsbibliothek and a few other libraries (see above) are all that were finished of the seventh and eighth installments of the Stirpes novae and subsequently distributed to correspondents (Britten & Woodward, 1905) or sold, at the latest after the auction in 1805. The accompanying text prepared by L’Héritier and/or Candolle was never printed and ended up in the archives of the CJBG (Candolle, s.d.; L’Héritier de Brutelle, s.d.). The plates 115 – 124 originated in part from the leaflets, the rest, i.e. the engravings documenting e.g. Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) L’Hér. ex Vent., Cissus biternata L’Hér., Salvia tiliifolia, Teucrium abutiloides, are probably best interpreted as odd finished engravings which for one reason or other were not included in one of the other publications by L’Héritier. Enigmas remain. Was the engraving process (including the additions of the names of the plant depicted, of the illustrator, engraver and plate number) finished at the moment of L’Héritier’s unexpected death, or was it subsequently commissioned by Garnery, which would imply that he had also bought the printing forms? Was the printing process of the c.8 sets of pulls finished before L’Héritier’s death or was it subsequently commissioned by Garnery? Was Pierre-Joseph Redouté involved in this process, as recently hypothesized (Buchheim, 1965: 45)? Why did Garnery lose interest in the project after having asked Candolle to finish the texts and apparently after having published two part titles (for details see Buchheim, 1965: 36)? When and how did the short list of correspondents or libraries receive the finished engravings tab. 85 – 107, 109 – 124, albeit without text? Why were the finished engravings not included in the auction? What happened to the eight hundred drawings not used? Why did Candolle not care to acquire a set of the finished engravings, i.e. tab. 85 – 107, 109 – 124, which he did not list in his amazingly complete “Bibliotheca botanica” (Candolle, 1817: 69)? All this we do not yet know. Taxonomical notes on the Tabulae ineditae It is beyond the scope of this contribution to elucidate the identity of all taxa illustrated in L’Heritier’s Reliquiae and the Tabulae ineditae. However, the fact that at least eight public libraries are known to possess a copy of the “Tab. ined.” has a nomenclatural consequence. As previously stated (Buchheim, 1965: 43), tab. 121 (Fig.9) has to be regarded as the place of validation of the name Cissus biternata L’Hér., since it includes an analysis (Turland et al. 2018; Art. 38.8 – 9); unfortunately the present authors are unable to give a precise publication date. As a consequence, the combination C. biternata (Baker) Planch. [1887] (= Cyphostemma microdipterum (Baker) Desc.) is an illegitimate later homonym of C. biternata. In contrast and for good reason, the name Podocarpus elongatus, which appears on an engraving in L’Heritier’s Reliquiae for a conifer native to South Africa, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe (Farjon, 2010), is a unicate item in Geneva and consequently does not qualify as published or distributed in the sense of ICN. This name was validated by Christiaan Hendrik Persoon (1755 – 1837) when he transferred Taxus elongata Ait. to his new genus Podocarpus L’Hér. ex Pers. as P. elongatus, significantly citing L’Héritier as the author of 160 – Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae Candollea 76, 2021 Fig. 8. – Manuscript title page for the eighth installment of L’Héritier’s Stirpes novae in Candolle’s hand, no date. [Archives, Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève] Candollea 76, 2021 Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae – 161 Fig. 9. – Cissus biternata L’Hér. Copper engraving based on P.-J. Redouté, no date. [Tabulae ineditae: tab. 121] [© Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin] both the generic name and the specific epithet (Persoon, 1807: 580). As a matter of fact, L’Héritier is reported to have presented a Mémoire sur le Taxus elongata to the Académie royale des sciences in Paris (Delamétherie, 1791), which had elected him an associate member on 17 May 1790 (Stafleu, 1963b). This treatise remained unpublished, though apparently its content was known by the cognoscenti in Paris, among them Persoon who had lived in the French capital since 1802 (Stafleu & Cowan, 1983). Taxonomy and nomenclature of the names validated in L’Héritier’s leaflets The taxonomic and nomenclatural clarifications presented below are restricted to the five genera and their respective type species published by L’Héritier in his leaflets in 1788 (Stafleu & Cowan, 1981). Buchozia L’Hér., Buchozia [unpaginated]. VII – XII.1788. Typus: B. coprosmoides L’Hér. [nom. illeg.]  B. japonica (Thunb.) Callm. = Serissa Comm. ex Juss., Gen. Pl.: 209. 1789, syn. nov. Buchozia japonica (Thunb.) Callm., comb. nov.  Lycium japonicum Thunb. in Nova Acta Regiae Soc. Sci. Upsal. 3: 207. 1780.  Serissa japonica (Thunb.) Thunb., Nov. Gen. Pl. 9: 132. 17.XII.1798, syn. nov. – Buchozia coprosmoides L’Hér., Buchozia [unpaginated]. VII – XII. 1788 [nom. illeg.]. Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Lack): Japan: “prope Nagasaki et alibi vulgare”, s.d., Thunberg s.n. (UPSTHUNB nº5316 image!; isolecto-: MPU[MPU014200] image!, UPS-THUNB nº5317 image!, UPS-THUNB nº5318 image!). Notes. – The genus Buchozia (Rubiaceae) was published a year before Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (1748 – 1836) validated the name Serissa Comm. ex Juss. on 4 August 1789 (Stafleu, 1963a) based on a cultivated plant in Mauritius collected by Philibert Commerson (1727 – 1773). Jussieu in Cuvier (1817: 409) wrote regarding Buchozia “L’Héritier avait donné ce nom à un genre de plantes plus connu sous celui de Serissa [L’Héritier had given this name to a genus of plants better known as Serissa]”. Buchozia coprosmoides L’Hér. is a superfluous and illegitimate name and typified by the type of Lycium japonicum Thunb. because that species, whose epithet should have been adopted, was cited as synonym (Turland et al., 2018: Art. 7.5). The genus Buchozia predates Serissa and a new combination is necessary and made here. Original material deposited in UPS consists of three sheets (UPS-THUNB nº5316, UPS-THUNB nº5317, UPS-THUNB nº5318) with a fragment in MPU [MPU014200]. The best-preserved sheet is designated here as the lectotype. Buchozia japonica is native from southeast Asia (China to Japan) and is a commonly cultivated shrub. The dedication of L’Héritier to Buchoz speaks for itself: “To the memory of Pierre-Joseph Buc’hoz, Doctor of Medicine, who was among the passing jumble of parasitic authors and of almost no botanical importance, but was more often very much known as injurious to science.” (translated from Latin by R. Gereau). Candolle (1830: 575) quoted the engraving included in L’Heritier’s Reliquiae which he had in his library when writing his account of the genus Serissa, the name he used for Buchozia. Hymenopappus L’Hér., Hymenopappus [unpaginated]. I.1788. Typus: H. scabiosaeus L’Hér. Hymenopappus scabiosaeus L’Hér., Hymenopappus [unpaginated]. I.1788. Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Lack): United States. South Carolina: “Caroline”, s.d., Fraser s.n. (G-DC [G00456651]!; isolecto-: G [G00341937]!). Notes. – Hymenopappus scabiosaeus (Asteraceae) was based on plants collected by Michaux and, separately, by John Fraser (1750 – 1811) in Carolina. The best preserved material in G-DC, collected by Fraser and probably originating from the L’Héritier herbarium, is designated here as lectotype. Aduplicate originating from the Guillaume Antoine Lemonnier (1723 – 1797) herbarium in G is considered here as a duplicate. Hymenopappus is a North American (10 spp.) and Mexican (1 sp.) genus of Asteraceae (Turner, 1956). Candolle (1836: 658) quoted the engraving included in L’Heritier’s Reliquiae when writing his account of the genus Hymenopappus. Louichea L’Hér., Louichea [unpaginated]. I.1788. Typus: L. cervina L’Hér. = Pteranthus Forssk., Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 36. 1775. Louichea cervina L’Hér., Louichea [unpaginated]. I.1788. Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Lack): Algeria or Tunisia: “Propre Cafsam et Mascar in arvis argillosis et arenosis”, s.d., Desfontaines s.n. (P-Desf [P00667259] image!; isolecto-: FI-W [FI018933] image!, G [G00341949]!). = Pteranthus dichotomus Forssk., Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: LXII, 36. 1775. Notes. – Louichea (Caryophyllaceae) was published in January 1788 (Stafleu, 1963a) ahead of its inclusion in Stirpes 162 – Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae Candollea 76, 2021 novae (L’Héritier de Brutelle, 1785 – 1791: 135). In 1791, L’Héritier recognised that his new genus represented the same genus as Pteranthus Forssk. validated posthumously by Pehr Forsskål (1732 – 1763) in 1775 and published the new combination Louichea pteranthus (L.) L’Hér. (see Iamonico et al., 2015), a later synonym of Pteranthus dichotomus Forssk. Louichea cervina is based on a Desfontaines collection that the latter botanist redescribed in his Flora Atlantica with the superfluous and illegitimate name Pteranthus echinatus Desf. (Desfontaines, 1798: 145). Original material has been located in P-Desf., FI-W and G. The P-Desf collections is designated here as the lectotype because it is a more complete specimen and it is complemented by two separate little notes in Desfontaines’s handwritting. An interesting sheet in P-JU [P00663078] includes (1) a specimen cultivated in the garden of Jacques-Martin Cels (1740 – 1806) in Montrouge given to Jussieu by Étienne-Pierre Ventenat (1757 – 1808) in 1792 (see Callmander et al., 2017) and (2) a packet with seeds sent by Forsskål to Bernard de Jussieu (1699 – 1777). Louichea cervina is not cited in the Prodromus. Michauxia L’Hér., Michauxia [unpaginated]. IV.1788 [nom. cons.] Typus: M. campanuloides L’Hér. Michauxia campanuloides L’Hér., Michauxia [unpaginated]. IV.1788. Lectotypus (designated by Lack & Callmander, in press): Lebanon: “Mt. Liban”, s.d., Labillardière s.n. (G[G00341946]!; isolecto-: FI-W [FI018925] image!). Notes. – The genus Michauxia (Campanulaceae) and its type species M. campanuloides have recently been the subject of a comprehensive treatment (see Lack & Callmander, in press). Alphonse Candolle followed the example of his father and quoted the two engravings included in L’Heritier’s Reliquiae when studying the genus Michauxia (Candolle, 1830: 211, 1839: 457). Virgilia L’Hér., Virgilia [unpaginated]. I – V.1788 [nom. rejic.] Typus: V. helioides L’Hér. = Gaillardia Foug., Observ. Phys. 29: 55. 1786. Virgilia helioides L’Hér. [unpaginated]. I – V.1788. Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Lack): United States: “Habitat in Louisiana”, s.d., Anon. s.n. (G-DC [G00456995]!). = Gaillardia pulchella Foug. in Hist. Acad. Roy. Sci. Mém. Math. Phys. (Paris, 4to) 1786: 5, tab. 1: 1788. Notes. – Virgilia L’Hér. (Asteraceae) was rejected against Virgilia Poir. by the VI IBC held in Amsterdam (Green, 1940: 105) based on a proposal by Rehder et al. (1935). A specimen in G-DC originating from the L’Héritier herbarium is designated here as the lectotype of Virgilia helioides. Candolle (1836: 651 – 652) quoted the engraving included in L’Heritier’s Reliquiae when writing his account of the genus Gaillardia Foug., the name he accepted for Virgilia L’Hér. Epilogue When Gérard Van Spaendonck (1746 – 1822), miniature painter at the Jardin du Roi in Paris and later one of the professors at the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle died, a major figure in the natural sciences wrote the obituary, i.e. Georges Cuvier (1769 – 1832), the father of vertebrate paleontology. He stated: “Aujourd’hui des ouvrages nombreux et magnifiques ont multiplié à l’infini des images aussi reconnaissables que les originaux eux-mêmes. Les Redoutés […] ont multiplié le Muséum d’histoire naturelle; ils ont fourni en quelque sorte au monde entier des cabinets complets et portatifs [Today, numerous and magnificent works have endlessly multiplied images as recognizable as the originals themselves. The Redoutés […] have multiplied the Muséum d’histoire naturelle [in Paris]; in a certain sense they have provided the whole world with complete and portable cabinets]” (Cuvier, 1827: 439). At an early stage in his life Candolle had acquired with the L’Héritier’s Reliquiae a tiny fraction of such a portable natural history cabinet: texts and images on paper, well known as a most durable carrier of information. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank BeatBäumler, PierreBoillat, PatrickBungener, Jean-PhilippeChassot and NathalieRasolofo for their help in G, Cécile Aupic (P) and AnnaDonatelli (FI) for the precious help in locating important collections in the herbaria under their care, CharlotteTaylor (MO) for her advice on the taxomomy of Buchozia and Serissa and RoyGereau (MO) for nomenclatural advice and translating the Latin dedication of Buchozia and for the English translation of the Table of contents of L’Heritier Reliquiae, JamesCompton (Tisbury) commented on the correct name for Cytisus anagyrius, PaolaMario (Padua) provided information on the copy of Stirpes novae in her care, WillBeharrell, IsabelleCharmantier, AndreaHart (all from London) and ElaineCharwat (Oxford) helped us with bibliographical information on the leaflets, MatthiasSvojtka (Vienna) sent scans of Michauxia. JamesCompton, EvaLack (Berlin) and ErnstVitek (Vienna) kindly read a preliminary version of this text. Finally, we thank DenisLamy (P), PatrickBungener, JoelCalvo (G), LorenzoRamella (G), CharlotteTaylor and RoyGereau for improving an earlier version of this manuscript. Candollea 76, 2021 Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae – 163 Unpublished sources CJBG: Bibliothèque, Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève, L’Héritier’s Reliquiae. Shelf mark Off Lhe. SBB: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Tabulae ineditae. Shelf mark 2° Ma 11635-Tab. ined. Candolle, A.-P. de (s.d.). Stirpes novae manucripts. Fascicule 8, 9. Archives, Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève. L’Héritier de Brutelle, C.-L. (s.d.). Manucripts. Archives, Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève. References Aiton, W.T. (1789). Hortus kewensis. London. Anon. (1805). Catalogue des livres de la bibiothèque de feu C. L. L’Héritier de Brutelle, membre de l’institut national. Paris. [New edition of Debure (1802)]. APD [African Plant Database] (2021). Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève et South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. [http://africanplantdatabase.ch] Baldi, R. (2020). L’achat de l’herbier de L’Héritier de Brutelle: un malentendu historiographique. Arch. Sci. 71: 23 – 36. Britten, J. & B.B. Woodward (1905). Bibliographical notes. XXXV. L’Héritier’s botanical works. J. Bot. 43: 266 – 273, 325 – 329. Brunet, J.-C. (1842 – 1844). Manuel de libraire et de l’amateur de livres. Paris. Buchheim, G. (1965). A bibliographical account of L’Héritier’s “Stirpes novae”. Huntia 2: 29 – 58. Callmander, M.W., O.D. Durbin, H.-W. Lack, P. Bungener, P.Martin & L. Gautier (2017). Etienne-Pierre Ventenat (1757 – 1808) and the gardens of Cels and Empress Joséphine. Candollea 72: 87 – 132. Candolle, A. de (1830). Monographie des Campanulacées. Paris. Candolle, A. de (1839). Campanulaceae. Prodr. 7: 414 – 496, 786 – 792. Candolle, A.-P. de (1799 – 1805). Plantarum historia succulentarum. Paris. Candolle, A.-P. de (1817). Regni vegetabilis systema naturale 1. Paris. Candolle, A.-P. de (1830). Rubiaceae. Prodr. 4: 341 – 622, 672 – 673. Candolle, A.-P. de (1836). Compositae. Prodr. 5. Candolle, A.-P. de (1862). Mémoires et souvenirs de Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle écrits par lui-même et publiés par son fils. Genève. Candolle, A.-P. de (2004). Mémoires et souvenirs (1778 – 1841). Candaux, J.D. et al. (ed.). Georg, Genève. Carter, H.B. (1988). Sir Joseph Banks 1743 – 1820. London. Choisy, J.-D. (1849). Nyctaginaceae. Prodr. 13(2): 425 – 458. Conseil Administratif [de la Ville de Genève] (1922). Compte rendu de l’Administration municipale pendant l’année 1921. A.Kundig, Genève. [http://www.ville-ge.ch/archivesenligne/assets/ archives/cra/1921/pdf/cra_1921.pdf] Cuvier, G. (ed.) (1817). Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles. Vol.5. Ed.2. Paris. Cuvier, G. (1827). Discours prononcé aux funérailles de M. VanSpaendonck. In: Recueil des éloges historiques lus dans les séances publiques de l’Institut de France 3: 435 – 440. Debure, G. (1802). Catalogue des livres de la bibliothèque de feu C. L. L’Héritier de Brutelle, membre de l’Institut national. Paris. Delamétherie, J.C. (1791). Discours préliminaire. Observ. Phys. Hist. Nat. 38: 3 – 51. Desfontaines, R.-L. (1798). Flora Atlantica. Vol. 1. Paris. Farjon, A. (2010). A handbook of the world’s conifers. Vol.2. Leiden. Green, M.L. (1940). Additional Nomina Generica Conservanda (Pteridophyta and Phanerogamae). Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1940: 81 – 134. Hamy, E.T. (1905). Joseph Dombey, médecin, naturaliste, archéologue, explorateur du Pérou, du Chili et du Brésil. Paris. Henderson, P. (2015). James Sowerby. The enlightenment’s natural historian. Kew. Iamonico, D., I. Friis, C.E. Jarvis & H. Freitag (2015). Nomenclatural notes on the genus Pteranthus (Caryophyllaceae) with lectotypifications of the names Camphorosma pteranthus and Pteranthus trigynus, and comments on Forsskål’s seeds sent from Egypt. Taxon 64: 816 – 821. Lack, H.W. & M.W. Callmander (in press). The discovery, naming and typification of Michauxia campanuloides (Campanulaceae) with notes on its introduction into cultivation. Willdenowia 51. Laissus, Y. (1986). Le Jardin du Roi. In: Taton, R. (ed.), Enseignement et diffusion des sciences en France au XVIIIe siècle: 287 – 341. Ed. 2. Paris. Lamy, D. (2017). Le botaniste et le dessinateur. In: Le pouvoir des fleurs. Pierre-Joseph Redouté (1759 – 1840): 22 – 27. Paris. Lazarus, M.H. & H.S. Pardoe (ed.) (2003). Catalogue of botanical prints and drawings at the National Museums & Galleries of Wales. Cardiff. L’Héritier de Brutelle, C.-L. (1785 – 1791). Stirpes novae. Paris. Mabberley, D.J. (2019). Botanical revelation. European encounters with Australian plants before Darwin. The Peter Crossing collection. NewSouth Publishing, Sydney. Persoon, C.H. (1807). Synopsis Plantarum 2. Paris. Pluchet, R. (2014). L’extraordinaire voyage d’un botaniste en Perse. Toulouse. 164 – Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae Candollea 76, 2021 POWO [Plants Of the World Online] (2021). Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. [http://powo.science.kew.org] Pritzel, G.A. (1847 – 1852). Thesaurus literaturae botanicae. Leipzig. Pritzel, G.A. (1855). Iconum botanicarum index. Die Abbildungen sichtbar blühender Pflanzen und Farnkräuter. Berlin. Pritzel, G.A. (1866). Iconum botanicarum index locupletissimus. Verzeichniss der Abbildungen sichtbar blühender Pflanzen und Farnkräuter. Ed. 2. Berlin. Pritzel, G.A. (1871 – 1882). Thesaurus literaturae botanicae. Ed.2. Leipzig. Rehder, A., C.A. Weatherby, R. Mansfeld & M.L. Green (1935). Conservation of later generic homonyms. Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1935: 341 – 544. Stafleu, F.A. (1963a). Dates of botanical publications. Taxon 12: 43 – 87. Stafleu, F.A. (1963b). L’Héritier de Brutelle: the man and the work. In: L’Héritier de Brutelle, C.-L., Sertum anglicum (1788). Fascimile with critical studies and a translation: xiii-xliii. Pittsburgh. Stafleu, F.A. (1967). The great Prodromus. In: Adanson, Labillardière, De Candolle. Introductions to four of their books reprinted in the series Historiae naturalis classica: 64 – 100. L ehre. Stafleu, F.A. & R.S. Cowan (1981). Taxonomic literature. Regnum Veg. 105. Stafleu, F.A. & R.S. Cowan (1983). Taxonomic literature. Regnum Veg. 110. Stapf, O. (ed.) (1929 – 1931). Index Londinensis. Vol. 1 – 6. O xford. Turland, N.J., J.H. Wiersema, F.R. Barrie, W. Greuter, D.L.Hawksworth, P.S. Herendeen, S. Knapp, W.-H. Kusber, D.-Z. Li, K. Marhold, T.W. May, J. McNeill, A.M.Monro, J.Prado, M.J. Price & G.F. Smith (2018). International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Regnum Veg. 159. Turner, B.L. (1956). A cytotaxonomic study of the genus Hymenopappus (Compositae). Rhodora 58: 163 – 186, 208 – 242, 259 – 269, 295 – 308. Wagenitz, G. & H.W. Lack (2015). Carl Ludwig Willdenow (1765 – 1812). Ein Botanikerleben in Briefen. Ann. Hist. Phil. Biol. 17: 1 – 289. Willdenow, C.L. (1797). Species plantarum 1(1). Ed. 4. Berlin. Willdenow, C.L. (1798). Species plantarum 1(2). Ed. 4. Berlin. Willdenow, C.L. (1799). Species plantarum 2(1). Ed. 4. Berlin. Willdenow, C.L. (1803). Species plantarum 3(3). Ed. 4. Berlin. Appendix Table of contents of L’Heritier Reliquiae Manuscript in the hand of Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle. nempe 1o Dissertationes ab illo (paucissimis exemplaribus) editae Virgilia – cum icon. Buchozia – cum icon. Louichea – cum icon. Hymenopappus – cum icon. Michauxia . . . icon/icones deest/desunt icones 2 Oxybaphus et Tricratus – icones tantum 2o Dissertatio inedita Cakile. Podocarpus icon 3o Icones fascic. VII et VIII Stirpium rariorum ineditae English translation Namely 1o Dissertations published (in very few copies) from that work Virgilia – with illustration Buchozia – with illustration Louichea – with illustration Hymenopappus – with illustration Michauxia . . . illustration(s) lacking illustrations 2 Oxybaphus and Tricratus – illustrations only 2o Unpublished dissertation Cakile. Podocarpus illustration 3o Unpublished illustrations of rarer plants fascicles VII and VIII Candollea 76, 2021 Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle’s L’Heritier Reliquiae – 165