3.1 Botanical contents
We identified 754 of the 796 specimens in the six-volume D’Oignies herbarium to species level, including separate leaves and inflorescences and adventitious organisms. 38 specimens were identified to genus level and four specimens remained unidentified. In Supplementary table 1, we list the 796 specimens with their current names, their names in the D’Oignies herbarium, the sources of those names, and the geographic origin of the species. The 618 unique plant species are divided among 133 families and 466 genera. The most species-rich plant is family Asteraceae (65 species), followed by Apiaceae family (48 spp.), Lamiaceae (46 spp.), Fabaceae (28 spp.) and Rosaceae (26 spp.). Most families, however, consist of one or two species. A few algae and one lichen species are present in the herbarium. We also identified some occasional Diptera, Hydrozoans, Bryozoans and Cnidaria, likely not intended as part of the herbarium collection.
The majority (60%) of the 618 unique species are native to the Eurasian continent of which 44% is indigenous to the Netherlands, followed by a comparatively high percentage of Mediterranean species (17%). 12% of the species originate from the Americas with 7% from North America. 6% of the species have their native range in South. A small (2%), but nonetheless interesting, percentage of marine species is also present (Fig. 1 near here).
In general, there is no mention as to where or when the living plants were cultivated or collected. If the large majority of the plants was cultivated and collected in one and the same place – a botanical garden for instance, as is our hypothesis, there would be no need to indicate collection localities. One exception is an undecorated specimen of Zizyphus jujuba (L.4512094), described on the sheet as ‘pl. Chinos. incognit.’, an unknown Chinese plant, and in the index as coming from the garden of the lord of the manor Holy (‘ex horto Dno Holie’) (Fig. 2 near here). There are 18 specimens, that are described as coming from America, ‘ex America’. A specimen of Lobelia siphilitica (L.4512148) – in the index referred to as ‘Lobila Calmijae ex amer: - is described as ‘Lobilia Calmija, o(n dit que) L’on geris la Verol, avec Cette plante en amerique’, ‘it is said that in America one cures syphilis with this plant’. This is a medicinal description, which is situated underneath the stem of the specimen. These 18 specimens belong to a group of 100 specimens that seem to be rather casually mounted in the periphery of the centrally positioned and decorated specimen. They were probably not cultivated locally, possibly sent by letter and added later.
A few specimens belong to species that could not be cultivated in the Netherlands, because the right climatic conditions could not be reproduced at the time. These specimens were either collected in their native range and sent by letter, or purchased from a simplicia’s cabinet at the pharmacist’s, where they were commonly kept for sale (Van der Ham 2017). Specimens of Cinnamomum Schaeff. (L.4512155) and Nardostachys jatamansi (D.Don) DC. (L.4518549) are two examples of specimens that were probably taken from a simplicia cabinet. The Sri Lanka cinnamon, Cassia Cinamomea (Cinnamomum verum L.) is mentioned in the garden catalogue of the Leiden curator Paul Hermann (1646–1695). Paul Hermann was curator of the Leiden botanical garden and professor of botany and practical medicine from 1680 till his death in 1695. Twice, in 1677 and in 1680, he travelled to Sri Lanka, where he collected specimens (Van Ooststroom 1937; Van Andel and Barth 2018). According to Hermann Cassia Cinamomea was cultivated both in the garden of Bentinck (1649–1709), Van Beverningh (1614–1690) as well as in the Leiden botanical garden, but all specimens perished after two to three year due to a sudden onset of winter frost (Hermann 1687). It is absent in the catalogues of Boerhaave (1720) and Van Royen (1740). Nardostachys jatamansi (D.Don) DC. or Nardus indica as it was called at the time (Bauhin 1623; Pharmacopoea Hagana.1738) is absent in all catalogues. Spikenard primarily grows in the Himalayas at high altitudes (Fig. 3 near here)
Based on Boerhaave’s catalogue (Boerhaave 1720), where medicinal species are indicated by underscoring the number attributed to the plant, 25% of the species in the D’Oignies herbarium (154 out of 618) turned out to be medicinal. The overwhelming presence of non-medicinal plant species strongly suggested a botanical garden as place of origin, where plant species were studied on account of their botanical characteristics, not so much as herbal simples (Offerhaus et al. 2023).
The majority of the specimens has been mounted with the utmost care. In some specimens this is emphasised by their delicate structure (Fig. 4 near here). There are no traces of glue visible while even the most fragile parts have been thoroughly fixed and the decorations have been cut with a precision that comes from practice, bordering on the professional (Verhave and Verhave 2008). Plant parts are mounted separately to show botanical details, such as the underwater parts of Stipa pennata L., the spotted stem of Conium maculatum L. and the silvery underside of the leaves of Populus alba L. (Fig. 5 near here)
3.2 Plant names
Little less than half of the plant names (318 out of 752) on the sheets and in the index are misspelt. Sometimes the error seems to be due to a deficient auditory perception of the name, as in the case of using the word ‘Simbolaria’ to refer to ‘Cymbalaria’ (L.4518529), or spelling ‘Buphthalmum’ as ‘Buftalmum’ (L.3960980). On occasion, the initial faulty perception of the name appears to be compounded by its incorrect copying, leading from Scutelaria (originally: Scutellaria) to Sentilavia (L.4518512). It is hard to imagine that whoever went to the trouble of cultivating, collecting and describing specimens of Oenanthe, a water dropwort, should come up with the name ‘Aenauster’ (L.3960866 and L.3960867) (Table 1 near here).
If we look at the table we see that the ratio between pre-Linnean and Linnean names is roughly 2:1. This means that in the end the author used twice as many pre-Linnean names as Linnean ones. What we are left with are names with unclear provenance and descriptions that must have sprung from the mind of the author/creator of the herbarium, because they could not be linked to any publication. Some names were used throughout. Particularly interesting are those names that could only be found in specific pre-Linnean sources, indicating that whoever attributed these names to particular specimens appeared to be a proficient and literate botanist or at the very least closely cooperated with someone who was (Table 1 near here).
The author/creator seems to have recorded his own observations of the plant (Table 1). For example, Hieracium cerinthoides L., a mediterranean Hawkweed with big yellow flowers, is described as ‘Hieratium amplo aurantio’ (L.4512075), ‘a hawkweed with big, yellow-golden flowers’. Likewise, a specimen of Arctium tomentosum Mill. (L.3960939) is fittingly described as a ‘Bardana capsula aragnoid:’, ‘a Burdock with cobweb-like flowers’. Every now and them, the author combines names from separate sources: A specimen of Anchusa variegata (L.) Lehm (L.3960972) is described as ‘Borago pulmon. cret.’ referring to a ‘Borago’ described by Johann Bauhin (1650) and a ‘Pulmonaria cretica’ from Tournefort (1700). Sometimes pre-Linnean names are supplemented with names from Van Royen (1740) or Linnaeus (1737). A specimen of Yucca gloriosa L. is described as ‘Juca fol: aloes 3: cordiline’, a combination of the description found in Boerhaave (1720), ‘Yucca foliis aloës’, and Van Royen (1740), ‘Cordyline’, a genus conceived by Van Royen. A specimen of Hornwort, Ceratophyllum demersum L. (L.4512215), is described as ‘Equisetum major: Subsiner: aq: Emimrsum’, a corrupted but otherwise recognisable citation from Morison's Historia, ‘a horsetail, (flowering at the nodes; 9. A fragile,) large, greyish species, submerged in water’. The name ‘Mijrchis aquicolorum nova’, a new Myrrh from [the region] Aequium, is coined by Colonna (1616). Here it is – incorrectly - used to describe a specimen of rough chervil, Chaerophyllum temulum L. (L.4512202). ‘Myrrhis aequicolorum nova’ is used as a source reference by Boerhaave (1720) and Linnaeus (1737) for Scandix anthriscus L., a synonym of Anthriscus caucalis M.Bieb., a specimen that we find a few pages along (L.4512246), where it is – confusingly – described as a ‘Pastinaca Silvest: ten: fol/Sive Dauc:’, a wild parsnip with fine leaves, or a carrot, a pre-Linnean name for Daucus carota L., also found in the herbarium (L.4511947), this time, fortunately, with its proper name, ‘Daucus sylvestr:’, a wild carrot. Several specimens of the same species alternately carry pre-Linnean names and names from Van Royen (1740) or Linnaeus (1737). Sometimes specimens of the same species carry two different pre-Linnean names. One specimen of Anthyllis vulneraria L. (L.4518596) is described as ‘Anthyllis Sentifol: Seu: Lent: simil: prior’, ‘an ‘Anthyllis’ with lentil-like leaves or the first (one) similar to Lentil’, as found in Dodoens (1583) and another specimen (L.4518615) is named ‘Vulneraria rustica’ such as is found in Boerhaave (1720).
Another example is the application of one description to two specimens of different species. The name ‘Sesamoides magnum Salmanticum’ was used by Clusius to describe Silene otites (L.) Wibel (Clusius 1576). Here it is applied to two different species on the same page (L.4512323 and L.4512322), whereby the first part ‘Sesamoides’ is attributed to a specimen of Silene otitis, and the second part ‘Salmanticum’ is applied to a specimen of Winter savory (Satureja montana L). A specimen of Clinopodium acinos (L.) Kuntze is in turn described as ‘Saturea’ (L.4518572).
Many specimens have names or numbers that refer to the Leiden garden catalogue by Van Royen (1740). There are 74 references to this publication, often identified by the letters ‘v:v:R:’, ‘vide van Royen’, ‘see Van Royen’, followed by a number that generally matches the number within the genus in this catalogue. Sometimes ‘v:v:R:’ seems to have been added erroneously. ‘Chamaedrys 6:v:v:R:’ (L.3961031), used here to describe a specimen of Teucrium chamaedrys L. can not refer to the ‘Prodromus’ because Van Royen considered the genus ‘Chamaedrys’ obsolete. ‘Chamaedrys 6’ in Boerhaave’s catalogue, on the other hand, ‘a Spanish, small-leaved and multi-flowered Chamaedrys’, matches the description on a label in Boerhaave’s own hand of a Teucrium chamaedrys L. (L 0142396) (Offerhaus et al. 2022).
A specimen of Gillenia trifoliata (L.) Moench (L.4512090) is described as ‘Ipecacuanha’. The origin of this name is probably the Flora Virginica by Gronovius (1739), who based his descriptions on specimens from America, collected by John Clayton (1694–1773) (Jarvis 2016b). Here and in the flora the species is described as ‘Ipecacuanha or Indian physick’ (BM000042239). ‘Ipecacuanha’ is originally a Tupi name, a language spoken by native Brazilians and refers to Carapichea ipecacuanha (Brot.) Andersson (Alcantara-Rodriguez et al. 2019). Nowadays, another name for Gillenia trifoliata is ‘Indian physic’ or ‘American Ipecacuanha’ and is generally used as an emetic (Gruenwald et al. 2000).
3.3 Contribution and identity of Simone D’Oignies
The hand that wrote ‘Herbarius vivens a Simone d’Oignies, Chirurg.Batail.inclit.de Murray etc. anno 1780’ on the fly-leaves of the six separate books is the same as the hand that wrote ‘Herbarius Vivens in form. Dixionario ex bibliotheca Do D’Oignies Chirurgus Bataillionis incl: De Murraij & Trautt.’, ‘a herbarium in the form of a dictionary from the library of Mr D’Oignies, surgeon in the battalion of the famous De Murray and Trauttmansdorff’, on the first page of the index. It is also the same hand that is responsible for writing names on virtually all sheets of the herbarium and numbering the sheets according to the arrangement in six books (Fig. 6 near here). Therefore, we conclude that Simone D’Oignies was responsible for the writing on the fly-leaves, the index and the sheets, for the alphabetic arrangement in six books and ultimately for the binding of the separate volumes. He seems to have had a limited grasp of both Latin and botany, since he made an overwhelming number of spelling mistakes and attributed plant names erroneously.
D’Oignies was born in Leuven (Belgium) in 1738 as Simon Joseph D’Oignies. In 1756, 17 years old, Simon Joseph enlisted in the Austrian army. From 1760 on he served in the Chevauxlegers regiment no 4, a merging of three regiments of the Dutch army, and from 1766 on he was registered there as a ‘surgeon assistant. After his transfer in 1771 to the Regiment no.55, led by general De Murray he was registered simultaneously as ‘Feldscher’, a mere medical assistant and ‘a surgeon’ (Österreichische Staatsarchiv: ML IR 55(a), 1772, Stab (Karton Nr. 10.542)). This regiment was stationed at Namur in Wallonia, Belgium. In 1781 he was examined by ‘proto-medicus’ Terentius Brady and passed his test as assistant surgeon. By then he was already member of the regimental staff and living or active in Antwerp (Österreichische Staatsarchiv: ML IR 55(a), 1780, Stab (Karton Nr. 10.546) and ML IR 55(a), 1782, Stab (Karton Nr. 10.548)). Before or in 1780 D’Oignies acquired the herbarium, copied the names on the sheets, drafted an index, re-arranged the specimens alphabetically and had everything bound in six volumes. The joy of possessing such a wonderful herbarium was short-lived. After a short sickbed he died on 9 May 1782 in Namur, where his regiment was officially stationed. There he was buried, in the church of Our Lady of Harscamp (Österreichische Staatsarchiv: ML IR 55(a), 1782, Stab (Karton Nr. 10.548); ST IR 55(a), Monatstabelle Mai 1782, Stab (Karton Nr. 10.570); Sterberegister Murray Infanterie AB 02123, Seite 23). The use of a watermark from a Gelderland mill-maker, in the paper of the index, named Hendrik Roes, who was only active between 1776 and 1781, confirms that D’Oignies wrote the index no earlier than 1776 (Voorn 1985; https://www.nikkelsweb.nl/papiermakers/velp.html). It is equally likely that he also bought the herbarium after 1776.
3.3 Physical aspects of the herbarium
The herbarium is bound in quires of loose sheets, seven to a quire, sown together and bound into books. Usually, a bound book is assembled from quires of folded sheets, but the basis of these volumes are separate, loose sheets. The specific manner of binding was commonly applied from the late sixteenth century well into the 18th century (2021 report to me by Herre de Vries, unreferenced). The paper sheets measure 305 by 485 mm and show deckle-edges on three sides. On the left (bound) side the paper has been cut, suggesting the original size of the sheets was 610 by 485 mm. The paper is thick and grainy, known as ‘cartridge paper’. The pulp used for papermaking has an uneven, ‘cloudy’ distribution, and small dark-coloured spots, possibly caused by metal particles derived from clothing or by papermaking equipment. Usually, laid handmade paper reveals only single chain lines, resulting from the chain wires of the papermaking mould that run over the wooden ribs of the mould frame (Voorn 1960). In this paper, however, extra, faintly visible chain lines appear to run alongside the first, sometimes parallel but often slightly slanted, suggesting that the mould frame, through which the pulp was sieved, was re-inforced with extra chain lines. The existence of these extra lines is not well documented. Identical watermarks are visible in about every eight sheets and indicate that the paper firm Van der Leij produced the paper (Fig. 7 near here). Since these watermarks were used from the end of the 17th till the beginning of the 19th century specifying the production date of the paper was not possible. Sturdy and well-suited for drying plants, the paper used for this herbarium is not on a par with the finer paper used by botanists like Clifford, Boerhaave, Adriaan and David van Royen. For a gardener, or a garden herbarium, however, it would have been an acceptable choice. The same paper is also used in the herbarium created by Nikolaas Meerburgh (1734–1814), gardener in the Leiden botanical garden from 1752 to 1814, strengthening our hypothesis that the D’Oignies collection functioned as a garden herbarium. However, a Meerburgh specimen of a Sulla coronaria (L.) B.H.Choi & H.Ohashi (L 0075962) is dated 1740 with corresponding register number in a handwriting traditionally ascribed to Meerburgh, but considering the year it is possible that this is Ligtvoet’s handwriting, with possible implications for other specimens described in the same hand in what now is called the Meerburgh herbarium (Fig. 8 near here)
3.4 Organisation of the D’Oignies herbarium
Initially, the herbarium collection would have consisted of loose sheets, containing nothing more than decorated plant specimens, accompanied by numbers in the bottom right corner, the purpose of which is not entirely clear. These numbers range from 1 till 961, but several sheets have the same number, and there are significant gaps between number 597 and 961. No apparent relation is perceptible between these numbers and the order in which the specimens appear, their names or possible plant groups, such as families, habit, native range, or properties. As they must have been assigned with some purpose in mind, the numbers at the bottom of the sheet may have been related to an index that listed the yearly sowing. (Offerhaus et al. 2022) (Fig. 9 near here).
The majority of the sheets (73%) contains only one specimen, centrally mounted and decorated. The remaining 151 sheets contain two to seven specimens that are grouped according to alphabet, genus, morphology or habitat. These later added specimens are mounted rather perfunctorily at the periphery of the sheet. There are also specimens with separate leaves and inflorescences, sheets with only marine species or moss and lichen species, and sheets with duplicates. Most specimens display stem, leaves and flowers (roots are absent throughout), but a few specimens only display single leaves or rhizomes.
All specimens are minutely secured with hot glue made from swim bladders of fish or animal bones. The vibrant colours of the dried plants suggest they were mounted fresh and dried directly on the paper (De Valk 2010).
The names attributed to the specimens have been alphabetically arranged. This alphabetical order is partly based on incorrectly copied (55 times) and incorrectly attributed names (37 times). Oenanthe pimpinelloides author (L.3960867), for instance, is described as ‘Aenaust 2 v:v:R:’ and placed between ‘Adiantum’ and ‘Alcea’. Names were also switched and specimens ended up with names belonging to other specimens in the herbarium. For example, a Malvaviscus arboreus Dill. ex Cav. specimen (L.3961037) is described as ‘Chrysosplenium fol: amphoribg.’ and thus placed in the ‘C’ section. A Chrysosplenium specimen is found in another book (L.4512329), this time provided with another pre-Linnean name, ‘Saxifraga rotundifolia aurea’. An Acer negundo specimen (L.4512097) tagged as ‘Illecebra mitis 2’ is placed between a Sedum specimen named ‘Jumperus min’ (L.4512096 )and an Oenanthe specimen described as ‘Juncus Levis’ (L.4512099), both incorrectly named.
3.5 The existence of loose name tags
We know now that D’Oignies copied names incorrectly and used these names as the basis for the alphabetical arrangement in six books. Only the existence of unattached individual tags, rather than a comprehensive list of all plant names explains how he could have done so. Switching names between specimens on different pages and even books can only have occurred if the specimens were originally accompanied by separate tags. We encounter such name tags in various 17th and 18th-century herbaria, such as those of Wasteau, a student of medicine under Paul Hermann, who collected a substantial number of plants (1772) from the Leiden botanical garden, the Boerhaave specimen collection, the Van Royen collection, and the Meerburgh herbarium. The botanical slips of paper Linnaeus made use of also come to mind, though Linnaeus approached his slips far more methodical (Charmantier & Müller-Wille 2014). If these loose tags survived at all, they were glued onto the sheets for the purpose of conservation around 1900, as is clear from the Boerhaave specimens and the Van Royen collection (Offerhaus et al. 2022). We therefore assume that the original tags were discarded after D’Oignies had copied the names on the sheets and in an index (Fig. 9)
3.6 Labels and decorations
Half of the specimens in books one and two are accompanied by ‘labels’, cut out pieces of paper, 84 in all, om which half of the plant names were taken from the works of Nicolas Lémery (1645–1715), his Pharmacopée Universelle (Lémery 1697) or his Dictionnaire Universel des Drogues simples (Lémery 1698), reprinted several times in the course of the 18th century. The remaining 36 specimens were described quoting from publications by (Lobelius (1591), Clusius (1601), Bauhin (1623), Boerhaave (1720) and a pharmacopoeia from The Hague (Pharmacopoea Hagana 1738). The author must have been literate in botany and well-versed in Latin, but considering his choice of source references and plant species he was primarily a pharmacist, who set about describing the more commonly known medicinal plant species, such as Symphytum officinale L., a virtual panacea and Prunella vulgaris L. which apparently cured wounds and lung diseases when ingested. A fifth of the specimens was incorrectly identified. Unfortunately, the rest of the labels either got lost or the efforts of the author seem to have fizzled out at the end of book 2 with an occasional description in book 3, 5 and 6. Once he uses a Linnean name, describing a Lonicera xylosteum as ‘Chamaepericlymenum of Lonicera’ (L.3960888), ‘Lonicera’ already present in the Hortus Cliffortianus and in the Species Plantarum (Linnaeus 1737, 1753). The use of ‘of’ (= or) and the description of a Vachellia nilotica author specimen: ‘de gom die daaruyt vloeijt zoude zijn g: arabic: vermic:’, ‘the gum that flows from it, is Arabic gum, allegedly’, indicates he was Dutch. The majority of the labels is found in the first two books describing plant species whose names start with the letter ‘A’ to the letter ‘C’. Apparently, the author adhered to the alphabetical order as customary in pharmacopoeias. Therefore we assume that the author of these labels was one of the owners of the herbarium in the period between 1752 and 1776.
There are 16 different decorative elements, displaying vases, ribbons, a bow and a decorated frame (Supplementary table 2). A number of them are also used in other contemporary herbaria (Zierikzee, Clifford, Boerhaave, Adriaan and David van Royen, Meerburgh and De Gorter). Seven elements were designed by Leiden painter Hieronymus van der Mij (1687–1761), who started his professional career in 1710, and these designs were converted into engravings by print-artist Johannes van der Spijk, who set up practice in Leiden in 1716 (Waller 1938). The Naturalis archive holds several copies of a printed page and large numbers of already cut-out decorative paper vases and ribbons produced by Van der Mij and Van der Spijk. (Fig. 10 near here). One vase (VB) was allegedly painted by Georg Ehret (1708–1770), based on Ehret’s account of his failed commission to deliver 1000 paintings in one year for the publication of Weinmann’s Phytanthoza and the presence of a painting with this vase in this particular publication (Weinmann 1737–1745; Ehret 1895; Nissen 1951; Thijsse 2021). However, the relevant painting is a rather crude copy of an image of a plant from the Amsterdam medical garden by Commelin (1706) and is at odds with the precise quality of Ehret’s paintings (Trew 1750-53), nor is the ‘Weinmann’ vase an exact copy of the ‘D’Oignies’ vase. (Fig. 11 near here).
We do not know where the decorations originated that were not designed and executed by Van der Mij and Van der Spijk. The presence of ‘D’Oignies’-decorations in the Boerhaave specimens, the herbaria of Clifford, Van Royen, Clayton/Gronovius, Meerburgh and De Gorter suggests that the production of these vases took place in the neighbourhood of Leiden. The D’Oignies herbarium has the highest number of decorations in common with the Meerburgh herbarium (10), next to the collection of specimens created by Adriaan van Royen (8) and the Gronovius herbarium (6). Two decorations are used uniquely in the D’Oignies herbarium. The use of paper ornaments, particularly vases, to embellish herbarium vouchers became popular in the first half of the 18th century (Wijnands and Heniger 1991; Wijnands 1992; Thijsse 2018), but decorations were already present in illustrated flora’s at the end of the 17th century (Cosijn 1688; Wijnands 1988; Oldenburger-Ebbers 2009). The ornaments are all characterised by the use of naturalistic elements, sometimes inspired by (biblical) mythology, and elegant attributes, such as bows and ribbons. Dutch herbaria from this period owe their characteristic outlook to these decorative elements (Fig. 10).
3.7 Similarities to the Zierikzee herbarium
A remarkably similar, loose-leaved herbarium is kept at the Stadhuismuseum Zierikzee (Offerhaus et al., 2021). Both herbaria were originally loose-leafed. The decoration types (vases, ribbons, a bow and a frame) in the D’Oignies herbarium outnumber those in the Zierikzee herbarium with 16:7, with six decorations present in both the Zierikzee herbarium and the D’Oignies herbarium. Two elements are unique to both herbaria, two are unique to the D’Oignies herbarium, one is unique to the Zierikzee herbarium and one to the D’Oignies herbarium, the Zierikzee herbarium and the Meerburgh herbarium (Supplementary table 2). The paper of both herbaria is identical in structure and provided with identical watermarks and the correspondence even suggests that it was bought in one ream, a bundle of 1000 sheets. The numbering in an identical hand in the lower right corner of the sheets – omnipresent in D’Oignies – is also present on 69 sheets of the Zierikzee herbarium. The corresponding delicate and precise manner of mounting makes these two herbaria stand out (Fig. 12 near here). A rather remarkable correspondence is a misidentification present in both herbaria. Hermannia althaeifolia L. in the Zierikzee herbarium (no. 70) is described as ‘Andryala integrifolia’ and H. althaeifolia in the D’Oignies herbarium (L.3960899) as simply ‘Andriala’. Hermannia species are rare, much treasured South African herbs, and found in the Clifford herbarium, the Van Royen herbarium, the Meerburgh herbarium, the Bergius herbarium and the Linnean herbaria. Boerhaave named the genus in honor of Paul Hermann.
A common origin is suggested by the high number of species (178) common to both herbaria (Fig. 13 near here). The collections also seem to complement each other, whereby one herbarium has a number of species within the same genus and the other has other species. For instance, the Zierikzee ánd the D’Oignies herbarium both include the species Centaurea cyanus L., but remaining species within the genus ‘Centaurea’ are distributed over the two herbaria, whereby the Zierikzee herbarium displays Centaurea jacea L. and the D’Oignies herbarium Centaurea eriophora L., Centaurea glastifolia L., Centaurea nigra L. and Centaurea scabiosa L.. The presence of specific species related to the Leiden garden is also indicative of a common origin, amongst which rare and iconic plants such as Clutia pulchella (L.3961055; L.4512229; no 344) from South Africa, Gillenia trifoliata (L.4512090; no 99) from North America, Cedronella canariensis (L.4512178; no 97) from the Canary Islands and garden varieties of Asplenium scolopendrium (L.4512136; L.4512137; L.4512138; L.4512139; L.4512140; L.4512150; no 164) (Table 2 near here). Table 2 shows that the two herbaria contain a relative equal number of exotic and indigenous plant species. The relative number of medicinal plant species, however, is significantly higher in the Zierikzee herbarium (47% vs. 25%). The presence of 190 species that are neither exotic, nor medicinal is interesting, because these species must have been collected on account of their botanical value. Species like Draba verna L. and Adoxa moschatellina L. have a seemingly non-descript habit, but were still deemed interesting enough to be collected.
In both herbaria, plant names were switched due to the presence of loose tags, that – by their nature – could easily be misplaced (Offerhaus et al., 2021, 2022). This tallies with the function of a garden herbarium, which could have been created to facilitate identification without determining it and to record what species had been successfully cultivated. Extant labels in both herbaria were applied afterwards by consecutive owners looking for a fixed order, rather than a dynamic nomenclature. Incidentally, both herbaria were bought by people
who were interested in labelling medicinal plants and described part of the specimens with the help of pharmacopoeias. The labels in the Zierikzee herbarium refer to the Pharmakopeia Hagana (Pharmacopoea Hagana 1738; Thijsse 2021) and those in the D’Oignies herbarium for the most part to the ‘Pharmacopée Unierselle’ by Lémery (1697).
3.8 The sale of two herbaria in the 18th century
In the 18th century two herbaria that originated from the Leiden botanical garden were sold at auction: one in 1739 after the death of Herman Boerhaave (Bibliotheca Boerhaaviana 1739) and the other in 1752 after the death of head-gardener Jakob Ligtvoet (Haak 1752; Hoftijzer 2009). On the basis of our research, we assume that these are the Zierikzee and the D’Oignies herbarium. Initially, we concluded that the Zierikzee herbarium was the collection mentioned in the auction catalogue of the library of Jakob Ligtvoet (Haak 1752) and the D’Oignies herbarium the six volume collection (523 ‘Herbarius vivus, 6 voll.’) in the auction catalogue of Boerhaave’s possessions (Bibliotheca Boerhaaviana 1739), which neatly corresponded with the six bound volumes housed by Naturalis. The term ‘voll.’ (‘volumines’) can also translate as ‘part’, rather than as ‘books’ (‘libri’). We now know that the D’Oignies herbarium has nearly twice the number of sheets as the Zierikzee herbarium (546 vs. 348). With the herbarium in Boerhaave’s possession being described as having six parts and the ‘Ligtvoet’ herbarium described as 13 bundles (‘tredecim fascibus’), it makes more sense to identify the ‘Ligtvoet’ herbarium as the D’Oignies herbarium (546 sheets divided over 13 bundles) and the ‘Boerhaave’ collection as the Zierikzee herbarium (348 sheets divided in six parts). References to the garden catalogue of Van Royen (1740) in the D’Oignies herbarium would be plausible for herbarium sheets produced up to 1752, the death of Ligtvoet. In 1739, when Boerhaave’s possessions were sold, however, Van Royen’s Prodromus had not yet been published. There is no mention of Van Royen (1740) in the Zierikzee herbarium, though there are later applied labels revealing Linnean names.
Ligtvoet was a well-informed gardener with an extensive library, containing numerous botanical works, a number of them written in Latin. His long-lasting and successful career at the Leiden botanical garden (1703–1752) provided him with enough standing and capital to buy a canal house opposite the botanical garden, at Rapenburg 58 (Hoftijzer 2009), but his botanical knowledge and horticultural know-how acquired during a period of nearly 50 years must have been invaluable for the curators of the Leiden garden. The elaborate description of the Ligtvoet herbarium in the auction catalogue of 1752 closely follows the appearance of the D’Oignies herbarium. ‘The sizeable stacks’ (‘praegrandibus’), ‘the brilliant display of dried specimens’ (‘re vera nitide exsiccatae’), ‘the superior way they were glued onto a large folio’ (‘charta major optime agglutiatae’), ‘the occasional mention of specific authors’ (‘ad singulas plantas laudator auctor’), and the fact that ‘plant species from all over the world were found, that had been growing in the Leiden botanical garden for a long time’ (‘plantas ex aliis regionibus allatas, praecipue reperiri eas, quae per longum temporis spatium in Horto Academico Leidensi floruerunt’), all fit the description of the D’Oignies herbarium. The sheets may well have been arranged according to the system of Boerhaave (‘divisus in classes, ordines, genera & species juxta systema celeb. Boerhavii Plantae’), but being loose would have been easy to re-arrange. The elaborate description of the herbarium in the Ligtvoet possessions is in stark contrast with that of the Boerhaave auction catalogue (Bibliotheca Boerhaaviana 1739) which only mentioned ‘herbarius vivus, 6 vll.’. Taking into account that this herbarium was sold as part of the library of the then world-famous Boerhaave, it probably did not need any extra publicity, contrary to the herbarium of Jakob Ligtvoet, where the mention of ‘the (still) famous Boerhaave’ would have helped in getting the necessary attention of potential buyers (Hoftijzer 2009). We do not know who owned the D’Oignies/Ligtvoet herbarium between its sale in 1752 and the acquisition by D’Oignies. One of the owners provided 84 specimens of mostly medicinal plants with labels, using a known pharmacopoeia as a source of plant names. In 1818, the herbarium was bought by the National Library of the Netherlands. (Register B Anno 1817–1830) at an auction of the firm Scheurleer. The herbarium is the only item in the catalogue that is described in French (Scheurleer 1818), which suggests it originally came from the Austrian Netherlands. The herbarium was part of a public sale of a library, containing ca.14.000 items, that belonged to ‘a distinguished connoisseur’, who apparently preferred to remain anonymous (Scheurleer 1818). In 1868 the herbarium was handed over to the Rijksherbarium in Leiden, which in 2009 merged with the collections of Nauturalis Biodiversity Center.