Introduction

The 17th century Sicilian botanist Francesco Cupani was born in 1657 in Mirto, a small village in the Messina province. He studied theology and then joined the Franciscan order. After a period of teaching in Verona he returned to Sicily and dedicated himself to the study of botany. His interest in plants was influenced by the friendship with Paolo Boccone, naturalist and botanist of good fame in Europe (Mongitore, 1707; Russo, 1819). Cupani was the author of important floristic works (Cupani, 1692,1695,1696,1697) and of the unfinished “Panphyton siculum”. Thanks to the patronage of the first Prince of Cattolica, he contributed with great commitment to the creation of a Botanic Garden at Misilmeri (hamlet eight miles from Palermo), known as “Hortus Catholicus” and destined to collect plants for medicinal uses of public interest. With the support of some druggists, as Pietro Citraro and Francesco Scaglione, and with the financial help of the Prince of Cattolica, Cupani contributed to enrich the Garden of Misilmeri with many species coming not only from Sicily but also from others territories (Cupani, 1696).

Cupani lived in a small Sicilian village (Misilmeri) and he did not belong to any academic circle. Nevertheless, mostly thanks to the Prince of Cattolica, he kept contacts with the most important scientists of his time: William Sherard (English botanist, 1659–1728), John Ray (English naturalist, 1627–1705), Caspar Commelin (Dutch botanist, 1668–1731), Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (French botanist, 1656–1708), Giovanni Battista Trionfetti (Italian botanist, 1656–1708), Johann Georg Volkamer (German naturalist, 1616–1693) and Johannes Böhm (German physician, 1640- ca. 1731). Remarkably thanks to the extensive correspondence with Sherard, he participated in the debate on the method of naming plants (Arber, 1912). Cupani and his contemporaries did not succeed in devising a “taxonomic system”, although some of them have made significant attempts (Greuter et al., 2005).The pre-Linnaean botanists certainly contributed to lay the foundations of “modern scientific knowledge”, as Linnaeus himself acknowledged in classifying them as among the “Curious” (Linnaeus, 1736). Linnaeus used the category of the “Curious” to label a group of authors as important precursors of modern botany. The category has recently been reused by Daston (2012) to define the non-academic culture of the 1600's that played an important role in circulating the “new method” (Pulvirenti et al., 2015, in press). Cupani died in Palermo in 1710.

Cupani and the exchange of information

Thanks to the exchange of illustrated publications, seeds and in particular dried specimens, Cupani developed a real “scientific network” that enabled botanical material to circulate for examination and comparison. The novelty of these scientific exchanges practised by him and other contemporary botanists can be summarised precisely in the extraordinary ability to build a “scientific network” by making use of all the tools the times allowed (Pulvirenti et al., 2015, in press).

The conditions favouring the circulation of information were the development of maritime communications in the Mediterranean, the decrease of risk of piracy, the presence of a widespread consular network and the possibility of travelling through Europe and beyond. Alongside exchanging boxes of seeds and publications (replete with drawings and descriptions), the exchange of Horti Sicci represented one of the main tools for developing discussions among the scientists of the period and standardizing classifications. Printing a volume of iconography, was a weighty commitment and the dramatic history of the “Panphyton siculum” (never published, though nearly all the images were engraved) points out this aspect. It should be highlighted that even Linnaeus, praising those he called the “Curious”, makes explicit reference to the merit of many scientists who popularized, at their own expense, the knowledge and comparison of plants (Linnaeus, 1736). It was much simpler (and also more useful) to circulate collections of exsiccata, which were easier to compare, study and classify, than iconographic documents.

The use of herbaria in scientific communication

The herbaria gathered by Cupani were made with samples collected from the Misilmeri Garden or surrounding areas; it was apparently a thorough task and certainly could not be carried out by only one person. From Cupani's letters, an intensive system of exchanges (in particular) of herbaria with the main European scientists emerges with clarity; moreover, there were collaborators working under his supervision, as might be interpreted from the letter sent by Sherard, dated 18 October 1696, in which he asked the Sicilian friar to prepare an herbarium (Dollo, 1979).

The production of herbaria continued long beyond Cupani, as is demonstrated in the correspondence between the Prince of Cattolica (the patron of the Misilmeri Garden) and the scientists of the court of Cosimo III de'Medici, twenty years or so after the death of the Franciscan friar (Targioni-Tozzetti, 1858; Baroni, 1896; Mattei, 1906). However, the observations of Mattei (1906) may be a useful indication for questioning the direct attribution of all the “Herbaria of the Prince of Cattolica” to Cupani. It is perhaps more realistic to imagine a kind of “laboratory” settled and directed, at least during an early stage, by Cupani and afterwards continued and managed by his “collaborators”. It cannot be ruled out that herbaria that might be attributed to what must have been the “laboratory” of the Misilmeri Garden are present in the collections of the most important museums. From time to time, often accidentally, as in our case, some previously unknown collections were discovered (Brullo & Pavone, 1993; Mazzola & Raimondo, 1995). Cupani indicated brief descriptions of the plants that he had studied. However, those descriptions cannot be equated with Linnaean binomials (genus, species). Cupani called his descriptions “polilogus”, i.e. sentences of a few words (Cupani, 1692,1695,1696,1697). His technique matched a simple requirement of synthesis. Instead, the Linnaean binomial represents a classification system allowing the identification of a genus and a species in a frame of reference (Pulvirenti et al., 2015, in press).

Fig. 1.

Spine and inventory label of the Cupani Herbarium.

Cupani's herbaria of Catania University

On the basis of these considerations it is therefore possible to frame the function of the two herbaria belonging to the Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, found by chance in 1992 (Brullo & Pavone, 1993). These collections are presented as two volumes of exsiccata attributed to Francesco Cupani, of different size and structure, without any information on when they were made. The hypothesis of attributing these herbaria to Cupani derives both from the explicit reference in the title-page as well as the reconstruction of the several transfers of ownership. In the literature, the citations regarding these “Horti Sicci” are rather scant. Scinà (1824), albeit speaking more generally of Cupani, simply states that Giovanbattista Caruso “took the trouble to collect all Cupani's papers and kept only the herbarium for himself; for this reason it is nowadays stored in Catania along with Caruso's books” (Scinà, 1824; citation translated).

More information was supplied by Salvatore Portal who was a physician-botanist and the holder of a well-known botanical garden on the outskirts of Biancavilla. In his paper of 1836 he mentioned two volumes of exsiccata made by Cupani and claimed that he inherited one of them from his father, who had in turn acquired it in Palermo from the chemist Don Giuseppe Chiarelli (Portal, 1836).This volume was entire and in good condition, with the exception of the “title-page and some blank pages at the end”. Portal also pointed out that the other volume, with the title-page “Hortus Catholicus species plantarum autografo Fran. Cupani”, may be found in the library of the Catania University and was not complete as it only contained 190 pages. Portal compared the two volumes and noted that the plants found in his herbarium and those of the Catania University were different in terms of the number of species and arrangement; moreover, the two volumes differed in format and kind of paper used. He also stated that in his volume the plants came from the Garden of the Prince of Cattolica as well as from other localities, whereas the volume stored at the University contained plants exclusively from the Misilmeri Garden. The two volumes found in 1992 and currently kept in the herbarium of the Department of Biological, Geologic and Environmental Sciences (CAT), match well Portal's description. The first volume appears to have been entrusted in 1912 to the Director of the Botanical Institute, Luigi Buscalioni (1863–1954), by the Royal University Library of Catania. The second volume, subject of the present study, is larger than the former and is in a fair state of preservation; it comprises 164 pages, largely containing exsiccata of phanerogams along with some specimens of algae, lichens, pteridophytes and a few marine animals. On the first page of this volume there is a handwritten note by Prof. Emilio Chiovenda (1871–1941), the Director of the Institute of Botany from 1926 to 1929, which helps us in tracing its history. It reads: “This herbarium of C. F. Cupani comes from the library of Doctor Salvatore Portal, minister of Biancavilla; I purchased it on 9. 3. 1927 from the Tirelli bookshop in Catania” (translated). It is unknown how the herbarium passed from the hands of Salvatore Portal to the Tirelli book-seller, which sold it afterwards to Prof. Chiovenda.

Fig. 2.

Title page of the Cupani Herbarium.

The aim of this work is to study one of the two aforementioned pre-Linnaean herbaria attributed to F. Cupani, specifically the volume with the inventory number “VII f2 Hortus Botanicus Catinensis” (Fig. 1–3). This volume was digitized in 2005 under the supervision of Prof. Pietro Pavone in the frame of the initiative “Coordinated Project Catania-Lecce 2000–2006, step 8, Botanic Garden and Herbarium”; this initiative was intended to enhance the cultural heritage of Sicily. Pictures of all samples include in this herbarium are available online at  http://www.dipbot.unict.it/erbario/cupani/index.html.

Material and methods

A list of all specimens associated to Cupani's historical herbarium was prepared (Table 1), including for each sample the following information:

A list of alphabetically arranged taxa is presented (Appendix 1); this list includes plants of the studied herbarium. Using on-line data (see below) the Cupani's herbarium is compared with some pre-Linnaean herbaria in order to highlight their main similarities and differences.

Results

The volume of exsiccata studied comprises 164 sheets (numbered to 163 but number 57 was erroneously assigned to two different sheets), numbered at the top right corner of each sheet. At the end of the volume there is an index listing nearly all the plants contained in this herbarium arranged by first letter alphabetical order (Fig. 4). Next to, or below, every sample there are original Latin handwritten notes and, sometimes vernacular names. Next to each sample, most probably corresponding to a later addition, a red and blue number written in pencil was made by an unknown hand. In addition, from sheet 108 to 118, another unidentified writer added the correct name of the species in pencil. On every sheet there are between 1 to 12 specimens, depending on the dimensions of the sample (Fig. 5, 6).The samples are arranged on one side of every sheet and fixed with irregularly cut strips of paper and glue. We were not able to detect whether this corresponds to the original mounting proposed for the herbarium or whether it was proposed during a later organisation. The doubt remains because in some cases the imprint of the plant can be seen in a different position; besides it is not known if the system of fixing the specimens with strips was original or alternative to the method using the glue. Either way, it is sure that the plant specimens associated to the herbarium sent to Micheli by the Prince of Cattolica in 1733 were simply glued (Baroni, 1896).

Regarding the nomenclature associated to the specimens, some taxa belonging to the same species have different names (i.e. Anthyllis vulneraria L. or Ononis natrix L.), while others are classified under the same name (i.e. Stachys ocymastrum (L.) Briq. or Ranunculus flammula L.). Several reasons suggest that the herbarium was probably re-bound in fairly recent times. In the first place, the binding is entirely different from the one observed in the other volume, the latter believed to still present the original type of binding. Secondly, leafing through the volume one may see that the sheets have been cut at the top and bottom, and perhaps also at the edges; in some cases parts of the samples and/or the numbering are missing. Thirdly, on the back of the volume the sentence “Cupani Hortus Siccus” is written in gold and with characters almost certainly not corresponding to the end of the 17^th century.

The page preceding the title-page shows a handwritten note attributed to Chiovenda regarding the transfer of ownership of the volume. The title on this page reads: “plantae siccae - quae omnes in Horto Catholico - crescunt - et multae aliae quae Siciliae - nascuntur terris plerisque locis - auctore Francisco Cupani - sac. theol. magistro siculo - a Myrthensi - Panormo”. However, according to Portal (1836), this note may not be original but added later. Between the title-page and the first sheet, there is a coloured tissue overlay that must have been used to protect the dried plants that are highly fragile. Presumably, this protection is not original either. The herbarium is made up of 669 samples. The specimens are distributed as follow: 610 (91.18%) are angiosperms, 14 (2.09%) are pteridophytes, 9 (1.35%) are algae, 5 (0.75%) are gymnosperms, 4 (0.6%) are animals, 1 (0.15%) is a lichen and 26 (3.89%) are missing. Most samples (407, equal to 60.84%) are in a good state of conservation, 181 (27.06%) in a poor state and 55 (8.22%) in bad condition (Fig. 7).

Fig. 3.

Sheet number 6 of the Cupani Herbarium.

Fig. 4.

First page of the index of the Cupani Herbarium.

Comparisons with other pre-Linnaean herbaria

Between the late 1600s and the mid-1700s there were numerous “pre-Linnaean” herbaria in Europe, among which should be highlighted: Sherard's herbarium, Bobart the Youger's herbarium, Sloane's herbarium, Clifford's herbarium, Hermann's herbarium, Helwing's herbaria, Münchenbergs's herbarium, and the Salvador's herbarium (see description below). Most of these herbaria have been studied because they are historically interesting from the viewpoint of nomenclature and floristic biodiversity of the pre-Linnaean period (Ibáñez et al., 2008; Menezes de Sequeira et al., 2010; Santos-Guerra et al., 2011; Andel et al., 2012; Spalik, 2014). It is difficult to propose thorough comparisons between the herbarium subject of our study to other pre-Linnaean herbaria, especially since most them have been widely restored and/or increased in later periods. The greatest value of Cupani's herbarium is the fact that it has undergone very few rearrangements. Indeed, with the exception of the binding and notes written in pencil, it appears to us being in its original form. Despite these difficulties, here below we highlight some similarities and differences identified between Cupani's herbarium and other contemporary pre-Linnaean herbaria:

Fig. 5.

Sheet number 39 of the Cupani Herbarium containing one specimen of Rosa L. (Rosaceae).

Fig. 6.

Sheet number 17 of the Cupani Herbarium.

Fig. 7.

Sheet number 1 of the Cupani Herbarium.

Conclusions

In the light of these results, it may be affirmed that specimens associated to the Cupani's herbarium are well preserved, despite the damage over time and the several transfers of ownership. Regarding the taxonomic composition of the herbarium there is an evident prevalence of angiosperms (more than 400 taxa), which are very well-represented according to their species number. In addition to many specimens of Sicilian origin, a certain number are from other geographic regions and some are also exotic (to the Italian flora), probably deriving from exchanged seeds.

The volume of exsiccata studied is of special interest for several reasons. In the first place it is a precious historical document, since it provides a detailed picture of the floristic biodiversity of the period. In the second, regarding the names attributed to the samples, it represents an example of pre-Linnaean attempts to simplify and standardise botanical nomenclature. Moreover the study of this herbarium certainly contributes to our knowledge of pre-Linnaean herbaria as regards the preservation techniques, classification and exchange of plants, which contributed to the origins and development of modern botany.

Table 1.

List of the samples contained in the Cupani Herbarium.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.

Continued.